3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSelf-funded seed money is pretty much what defines as "independent". I see a very clear line here, no blur at all.
- fpgaminer 9y agoThe 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.