4 ms·

Doesn't raising seed-funding stop you from being an "Indie Hacker"?

fpgaminer 9y ago
I would tend to agree, especially if it's something from the get-go. If I had to defend it, though, I'd say that _every_ indie startup has seed money. Most of the time, it's from the founder, who commits their own time and money to the project. In this case, they got others to commit their money. But it's definitely a blurring of the line between indie startups and rocket ship startups.
- soneca 9y ago
  Self-funded seed money is pretty much what defines as "independent". I see a very clear line here, no blur at all.
  - fpgaminer 9y ago
    The blur I see is that one could argue the defining feature of indie startups is not that they're "independent" but that they're a reaction against rocket ship startups (startups in the sense that most VCs in Silicon Valley define it). If that's the defining feature of an indie startup, that it's counter to a regular startup, then being self-funded is only one of many ways that indie startups can differentiate themselves. All that said, I think the information from the interview itself _is_ valuable. As long as Indie Hackers doesn't become flooded with non-indie startup stories, and as long as the readership is aware that the lessons Jeff Atwood learns may not be applicable to them (which is true of any story on Indie Hackers, really), then it's okay.
soneca 9y ago
Yes. The interview might have value in itself, but it is odd placed at indie hackers. The reality of a big shot in SV raising venture capital money is a lot different of mine, a struggling "indie hacker".
ramses0 9y ago
But they use Stripe! /s
hkmurakami 9y ago
Depends on who it's from imo.
xiaoma 9y ago
They've also featured Nathan Barry, who is neither indie nor a hacker. He's a popular blogger/author who used his considerable profits from that career to hire a team to build ConvertKit for him. I'm not actually sure what Indie Hacker's idea of an idie hacker is.
- bdavisx 9y ago
  Meh, if their advice is useful to an 'indie hacker', then why not have it?
  - xiaoma 9y ago
    Because it dilutes the focus of the site! There are all kinds of people who give "useful advice" that could, in theory, help an indie hacker, but are actually aimed at a general audience. In the extreme case, consider diet and beauty tips, relationship advice or stock investing strategies. Yes, those things are useful to many if not most indie hackers but they're also easily found on more general sites and can easily crowd out more focused content.
    - csallen 9y ago
      I agree with your general point, but both Jeff Atwood and Nathan Barry are far from crossing any reasonably-drawn line.
      - xiaoma 9y ago
        Just my own personal feedback here: I've really enjoyed the site, but the Nathan Barry interview decreased my interest in the site a bit. It's because, for me personally, the thing that makes IH special is the stories of people who didn't have degrees from elite schools, family wealth or VC funding and still successfully built something sufficient to cover their living expenses or even start hiring employees. Stories about people who do a lot with a little are a blueprint that can be applied by people of just about any background. Stories of parlaying medium-sized fortunes into large ones are most useful to people who already have medium-sized fortunes. To be clear, I don't dislike interviews with founders of large companies. I sometimes watch them on youtube and have read books about many of the largest tech companies. It's just more useful for me to learn about how people went from 0 to 60 rather than from 60 to 200. IH is still my favorite place on the internet for that, which is why I care about how well it serves that role. You'd have to dilute it quite a bit before it fell behind the next best alternative, though.
csallen 9y ago
It doesn't. I know it's broad, but my definition[0] of an "indie hacker" is anyone who's making money from customers rather than an employer. I've never discriminated based on funding, which is why I've had the "bootstrapped vs raised money" filter[1] on the homepage from the beginning. Personally, I'm partial to early-stage tech bootstrappers, which is one reason why I've interviewed so many people from that niche. It's just a lot more near and dear to my heart, and those are the people who tend to struggle to get coverage elsewhere. But it's worth branching out, because other entrepreneurs have valuable experiences to share, too. And to the extent that we can get even well-funded companies to share their revenue numbers and behind-the-scenes strategies, that's a good thing for all of us imo. [0] https://www.indiehackers.com/about https://www.indiehackers.com/about [1] https://media.giphy.com/media/l4FGycUhVUpsBuoqQ/source.mp4 https://media.giphy.com/media/l4FGycUhVUpsBuoqQ/source.mp4
- jrochkind1 9y ago
  > It doesn't. I know it's broad, but my definition[0] of an "indie hacker" is anyone who's making money from customers rather than an employer. So... once you hire your first employee and the staff is no longer exclusively founders/owners... the founders/bosses are still 'indie hackers', but the employee is not? Or none of them are anymore, you can only be an 'indie hacker' if the entire staff is founder/owners with no employees? When only bosses can be 'indie', hmm. I guess that is a pretty good synecdoche of a certain kind of bay area techno-capitalist-hipsterist ideology.
  - csallen 9y ago
    There are many more blurry lines than that. For example, is a contractor an indie hacker? Technically they get paid by clients, not employers. But they're also directly trading hours for dollars, and rarely make for good interviewees. Etc. At the end of the day, we can spend a lot of time bike shedding about semantics and the name "Indie Hackers," but what's more important is the overall purpose behind the site — a place for entrepreneurs to learn from each other and share their experiences transparently. Sometimes those entrepreneurs will be the Jeff Atwoods and Bezoses of the world, and that's just fine.
- deleted 9y ago

I would tend to agree, especially if it's something from the get-go. If I had to defend it, though, I'd say that _every_ indie startup has seed money. Most of the time, it's from the founder, who commits their own time and money to the project. In this case, they got others to commit their money. But it's definitely a blurring of the line between indie startups and rocket ship startups.

soneca 9y ago
Self-funded seed money is pretty much what defines as "independent". I see a very clear line here, no blur at all.
- fpgaminer 9y ago
  The blur I see is that one could argue the defining feature of indie startups is not that they're "independent" but that they're a reaction against rocket ship startups (startups in the sense that most VCs in Silicon Valley define it). If that's the defining feature of an indie startup, that it's counter to a regular startup, then being self-funded is only one of many ways that indie startups can differentiate themselves. All that said, I think the information from the interview itself _is_ valuable. As long as Indie Hackers doesn't become flooded with non-indie startup stories, and as long as the readership is aware that the lessons Jeff Atwood learns may not be applicable to them (which is true of any story on Indie Hackers, really), then it's okay.

soneca 9y ago

Yes. The interview might have value in itself, but it is odd placed at indie hackers. The reality of a big shot in SV raising venture capital money is a lot different of mine, a struggling "indie hacker".

ramses0 9y ago

But they use Stripe! /s

hkmurakami 9y ago

Depends on who it's from imo.

xiaoma 9y ago

They've also featured Nathan Barry, who is neither indie nor a hacker. He's a popular blogger/author who used his considerable profits from that career to hire a team to build ConvertKit for him. I'm not actually sure what Indie Hacker's idea of an idie hacker is.

bdavisx 9y ago
Meh, if their advice is useful to an 'indie hacker', then why not have it?
- xiaoma 9y ago
  Because it dilutes the focus of the site! There are all kinds of people who give "useful advice" that could, in theory, help an indie hacker, but are actually aimed at a general audience. In the extreme case, consider diet and beauty tips, relationship advice or stock investing strategies. Yes, those things are useful to many if not most indie hackers but they're also easily found on more general sites and can easily crowd out more focused content.
  - csallen 9y ago
    I agree with your general point, but both Jeff Atwood and Nathan Barry are far from crossing any reasonably-drawn line.
    - xiaoma 9y ago
      Just my own personal feedback here: I've really enjoyed the site, but the Nathan Barry interview decreased my interest in the site a bit. It's because, for me personally, the thing that makes IH special is the stories of people who didn't have degrees from elite schools, family wealth or VC funding and still successfully built something sufficient to cover their living expenses or even start hiring employees. Stories about people who do a lot with a little are a blueprint that can be applied by people of just about any background. Stories of parlaying medium-sized fortunes into large ones are most useful to people who already have medium-sized fortunes. To be clear, I don't dislike interviews with founders of large companies. I sometimes watch them on youtube and have read books about many of the largest tech companies. It's just more useful for me to learn about how people went from 0 to 60 rather than from 60 to 200. IH is still my favorite place on the internet for that, which is why I care about how well it serves that role. You'd have to dilute it quite a bit before it fell behind the next best alternative, though.

csallen 9y ago

It doesn't. I know it's broad, but my definition[0] of an "indie hacker" is anyone who's making money from customers rather than an employer. I've never discriminated based on funding, which is why I've had the "bootstrapped vs raised money" filter[1] on the homepage from the beginning. Personally, I'm partial to early-stage tech bootstrappers, which is one reason why I've interviewed so many people from that niche. It's just a lot more near and dear to my heart, and those are the people who tend to struggle to get coverage elsewhere. But it's worth branching out, because other entrepreneurs have valuable experiences to share, too. And to the extent that we can get even well-funded companies to share their revenue numbers and behind-the-scenes strategies, that's a good thing for all of us imo. [0] https://www.indiehackers.com/about https://www.indiehackers.com/about [1] https://media.giphy.com/media/l4FGycUhVUpsBuoqQ/source.mp4 https://media.giphy.com/media/l4FGycUhVUpsBuoqQ/source.mp4

jrochkind1 9y ago
> It doesn't. I know it's broad, but my definition[0] of an "indie hacker" is anyone who's making money from customers rather than an employer. So... once you hire your first employee and the staff is no longer exclusively founders/owners... the founders/bosses are still 'indie hackers', but the employee is not? Or none of them are anymore, you can only be an 'indie hacker' if the entire staff is founder/owners with no employees? When only bosses can be 'indie', hmm. I guess that is a pretty good synecdoche of a certain kind of bay area techno-capitalist-hipsterist ideology.
- csallen 9y ago
  There are many more blurry lines than that. For example, is a contractor an indie hacker? Technically they get paid by clients, not employers. But they're also directly trading hours for dollars, and rarely make for good interviewees. Etc. At the end of the day, we can spend a lot of time bike shedding about semantics and the name "Indie Hackers," but what's more important is the overall purpose behind the site — a place for entrepreneurs to learn from each other and share their experiences transparently. Sometimes those entrepreneurs will be the Jeff Atwoods and Bezoses of the world, and that's just fine.
deleted 9y ago