6 ms·

I think that the fact that these are post-mortems (e.g., dead startups) skews things a little. Could be that the founders weren't technical enough to deliver so

by 50CNT 10y ago

I think that the fact that these are post-mortems (e.g., dead startups) skews things a little. Could be that the founders weren't technical enough to deliver something interesting, which then caused the issues of wrong product (e.g., there was a technologically more challenging solution that would have made sense as a product), being unable to sell the product (e.g, you're peddling crap, and you know it), and not having a viable business model (e.g., noone actually cares enough about what you build to pay you for it). That is total speculation though. Here's how we're looking at what we're doing though. It's viable with a fairly low tech approach, and that's a good start. But we can use technology to take something that "works" and turn it into something that purrs. It's like the phone switching terminals of old. You'd have an operator and you'd tell them who you want to speak to, and they'd plug the right wires in. It "works". Bell made money on that. They had the right product, strong sales people, and they had a business model. But to think even for a second that they could compete with that nowadays? There's some irony that VCs investing in the industry that owes its life to computing and telecommunications are saying "Eh, the technology you're using doesn't matter". But I do think that technology isn't the bottom layer of Maslov's hierarchy of startups. The existence of a market need is at the bottom, then whether your product is able to address this need, then whether you're able to reach that market, then whether you can get paid for doing so. These layers are filters. It's not surprising that most startups fail on the ones that come first. That doesn't mean if you're shooting to be Uber, or Dropbox, or Facebook, or Google, that you tech doesn't need to be on point. And the best point to start using sane tech practices is, well, as early as possible, preferably once you've validated your other assumptions.

gedrap 10y ago
> I think that the fact that these are post-mortems (e.g., dead startups) skews things a little. That's a very good! So it's 5% of startups that posted a post mortem (and it didn't disapear into ether), rather than 5% of all startups. These two things are very different things. > we can use technology to take something that "works" and turn it into something that purrs Well put. However, nowadays, the tech itself is often not the key bit in making the difference between 'works' and 'purrs'. Of course, there are exceptions, bigger and smaller ones. More often, it's understanding the problem, the users, and finding the fit. You can build a product with tons of technical debt and wtfs that gains some traction and then spend resources on improving it. However, it doesn't work the other way round. It often takes an experienced engineer to say 'right, let's start some cleaning up' at the right time. However, if your product doesn't solve any problems, no one is willing to pay for, etc, brilliant tech solutions are not going to help it. > start using sane tech practices is, well, as early as possible, preferably once you've validated your other assumptions Totally! It's just that it's often hard to tell when it's the right time.
lpolovets 10y ago
(I'm the author of the post.) There's definitely some sampling bias from the post-mortem article. Alas, this is the the most relevant public data that I could find. I do have a good (anecdotal) first-hand dataset: I've worked closely with about 50 portfolio companies at this point, and I've tracked a few dozen more that my fund didn't invest in. Maybe 5 out of the 50 had real technical risk, and 2 or 3 struggled and/or failed due to technical issues. For the remaining companies, the challenges have always been market-related, hiring-related, funding-related, and so on.
- cs702 10y ago
  Isn't your tech background useful for smelling technical bull%&!t?
  - lpolovets 10y ago
    Yes. That's basically the only kind of tech diligence that I do at this point, and it's more conversational than diving into the tech. (And I only do this if someone is making very bold claims.)
    - cs702 10y ago
      Surely your ability to detect baloney in just a few minutes of casual conversation is far, FAR superior to that of, say, the stereotypical MBA or lawyer with zero technical expertise. There's more value in that than you suggest, I think.
      - lpolovets 10y ago
        It's definitely useful. I wasn't trying to say there was no value in a tech background in VC. Rather, I expected to use my tech skills to dive into code and understand technology a lot more, and instead I just use them as a baloney detector and a good differentiator from VCs who have non-technical backgrounds.
        10y ago

by 50CNT 10y ago

gedrap 10y ago

> I think that the fact that these are post-mortems (e.g., dead startups) skews things a little. That's a very good! So it's 5% of startups that posted a post mortem (and it didn't disapear into ether), rather than 5% of all startups. These two things are very different things. > we can use technology to take something that "works" and turn it into something that purrs Well put. However, nowadays, the tech itself is often not the key bit in making the difference between 'works' and 'purrs'. Of course, there are exceptions, bigger and smaller ones. More often, it's understanding the problem, the users, and finding the fit. You can build a product with tons of technical debt and wtfs that gains some traction and then spend resources on improving it. However, it doesn't work the other way round. It often takes an experienced engineer to say 'right, let's start some cleaning up' at the right time. However, if your product doesn't solve any problems, no one is willing to pay for, etc, brilliant tech solutions are not going to help it. > start using sane tech practices is, well, as early as possible, preferably once you've validated your other assumptions Totally! It's just that it's often hard to tell when it's the right time.

lpolovets 10y ago

(I'm the author of the post.) There's definitely some sampling bias from the post-mortem article. Alas, this is the the most relevant public data that I could find. I do have a good (anecdotal) first-hand dataset: I've worked closely with about 50 portfolio companies at this point, and I've tracked a few dozen more that my fund didn't invest in. Maybe 5 out of the 50 had real technical risk, and 2 or 3 struggled and/or failed due to technical issues. For the remaining companies, the challenges have always been market-related, hiring-related, funding-related, and so on.

cs702 10y ago
Isn't your tech background useful for smelling technical bull%&!t?
- lpolovets 10y ago
  Yes. That's basically the only kind of tech diligence that I do at this point, and it's more conversational than diving into the tech. (And I only do this if someone is making very bold claims.)
  - cs702 10y ago
    Surely your ability to detect baloney in just a few minutes of casual conversation is far, FAR superior to that of, say, the stereotypical MBA or lawyer with zero technical expertise. There's more value in that than you suggest, I think.
    - lpolovets 10y ago
      It's definitely useful. I wasn't trying to say there was no value in a tech background in VC. Rather, I expected to use my tech skills to dive into code and understand technology a lot more, and instead I just use them as a baloney detector and a good differentiator from VCs who have non-technical backgrounds.
      - 10y ago