5 ms·

That's not his point. From the article's headline: "did it in under a year" The author is being very disingenuous with his headline.

csallen 10y ago
SubmitHub as a product is 10 months old, and Jason's only been charging for the past 7 months. So saying that "under as year" is a "very disingenuous" timeline is... very disingenuous. Yes, having a successful blog helped Jason identify and understand the problem, and it saved him from having to partner with someone else's blog. But learning to code was probably pivotal, too. Where do we draw the line?
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Headline would be more precise had it claimed to have built an app in 10 months, not a business Still impressive, but not the same thing Edit: just to be extra clear, the reason why this is true is because, the customer base he generated was not in the 10 months he used to build his app, that was done over the years of blogging
  - csallen 10y ago
    The app itself is the business, and is separate from his blog. (Although it works together with his blog and with many other blogs, his particular blog is not a necessity.) EDIT: To respond to your edit, I agree he was able to leverage his blog's popularity. But his blog is only one out of 231 listed on SubmitHub. Thus, his blog's readers account for what's likely a negligible fraction of SubmitHub's users. That's not to say his blog wasn't helpful. It's just a totally separate business. The reason SubmitHub is doing so well is because he added to his blog AND to those 230 other blogs, and he did that in 10 months.
    - fiatjaf 10y ago
      Read the part about network effect. His blog is a small part of SubmitHub now, but it was crucial that he had his blog in there in the beggining.
      - csallen 10y ago
        Those network effects would've been the same if he'd launched SubmitHub on a different but equally popular blog. Analogy: Let's say you invent a new and superior way to cook french fries. Is it crucial for you to own your own restaurant chain so you can demonstrate the fry machine in action before selling it to other chains? I would say it's not.

csallen 10y ago

SubmitHub as a product is 10 months old, and Jason's only been charging for the past 7 months. So saying that "under as year" is a "very disingenuous" timeline is... very disingenuous. Yes, having a successful blog helped Jason identify and understand the problem, and it saved him from having to partner with someone else's blog. But learning to code was probably pivotal, too. Where do we draw the line?

wallace_f 10y ago
Headline would be more precise had it claimed to have built an app in 10 months, not a business Still impressive, but not the same thing Edit: just to be extra clear, the reason why this is true is because, the customer base he generated was not in the 10 months he used to build his app, that was done over the years of blogging
- csallen 10y ago
  The app itself is the business, and is separate from his blog. (Although it works together with his blog and with many other blogs, his particular blog is not a necessity.) EDIT: To respond to your edit, I agree he was able to leverage his blog's popularity. But his blog is only one out of 231 listed on SubmitHub. Thus, his blog's readers account for what's likely a negligible fraction of SubmitHub's users. That's not to say his blog wasn't helpful. It's just a totally separate business. The reason SubmitHub is doing so well is because he added to his blog AND to those 230 other blogs, and he did that in 10 months.
  - fiatjaf 10y ago
    Read the part about network effect. His blog is a small part of SubmitHub now, but it was crucial that he had his blog in there in the beggining.
    - csallen 10y ago
      Those network effects would've been the same if he'd launched SubmitHub on a different but equally popular blog. Analogy: Let's say you invent a new and superior way to cook french fries. Is it crucial for you to own your own restaurant chain so you can demonstrate the fry machine in action before selling it to other chains? I would say it's not.