4 ms·

"fake it until you make it" generally refers to the product implementation vs pitch on the consumer side. e.g. You pitch "The best automated way to do X!", but

by mbell 9y ago

"fake it until you make it" generally refers to the product implementation vs pitch on the consumer side. e.g. You pitch "The best automated way to do X!", but in actuality you have a horde of people doing the work initially to figure out the problem before building the actual automation. There is nothing wrong with this and remains a completely viable approach. What you don't do is tell your investors you've already built the automation tech and hide the labor cost of doing it manually in your financials.

wpietri 9y ago
I think the Concierge and Wizard of Oz approaches [1] are just one thing people mean by "fake it 'til you make it", but I definitely don't think they're the most common meaning. Startups engage in all sorts of puffery, trying to project the appearance of success long before they have actual success. Fancy websites, fancy offices, sales and investment pitches that cherry pick stories, numbers, and milestones that give an enormously positive impression of what's generally a very bumpy reality. I personally don't like that, but the game is the game. But it's very easy for that puffery to slide over into outright fraud when things get desperate. Which is why I'm so glad that the SEC is going after Theranos with great vigor. Hopefully these clowns will end up sharing a cell with Shkreli, giving every would-be startup CEO a clear example of what happens when they push it too far. [1] https://www.allencheng.com/concierge-mvp/ https://www.allencheng.com/concierge-mvp/
- sgt101 9y ago
  This is fine when the elements of automation aren't beyond the state of the art. However when you have startups like Spinvox et-al hoping that automated transcription will show up and save them (I mean transcription of variety of voice in variety of environments, using uncharacterized microphones and transcoded from mobile to core ect) or the current rash of chatbot liars and charlatans then real real damage gets done to real companies where execs believe the trendy w*nkers vs real people who understand technology. I've seen good engineers hounded out and scores of millions of pounds wasted because of "warp drive over powerpoint" and I've had enough. Not that I'm bitter or anything.
  - goatherders 9y ago
    Isn't uber just waiting for automated drivers (self driving cars) to show up and save them? I have three businesses at the moment that all use people to do things that maybe one day can be solved by AI/tech. My customers don't care how I get it done and aren't impressed by tech anyway. If automation shows up and helps me then my margins go through the roof. But as it is, the margins are pretty good anyway.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Yeah, same. And it can even be fine when things are beyond the state of the art, as long as the CEO has the bravery to look reality in the face and either a) find another way, or b) say "sorry, startups are gambles, and this one's a busted flush". And it's the liars and charlatans that really get to me. I figure it's at least 30% likely that I'll end up in jail because somebody says "blockchain" to me one too many times regarding some application which would be better off done with a MySQL database.
rayiner 9y ago
It’s probably “fine” in the sense that nobody will sue you. But you’re basically arguing “it’s okay to lie to consumers about something that’s immaterial.” That’s true, but the standard for materiality under state consumer protection law is pretty low. E.g., under California’s Unfair Competition Law, statements that a lock was Made in America were found actionable under the UCL, even though the lock worked perfectly fine. People might care whether the service is automated or not, even if the end product is the same. Of course, the benefit from the puffery might outweigh whatever legal risk exists. I’d call that a “calculated risk,” not “fine.”
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > But you’re basically arguing “it’s okay to lie to consumers about something that’s immaterial.” If it's a significant factor in a buying decision, it's not immaterial. If it's not material, it's probably not worth lying about.
Sangermaine 9y ago
>There is nothing wrong with this Yes there is. You're selling investors on capabilities you don't have, or at least intentionally misleading them about your abilities. Unless you're explicitly telling them that you WILL have "The best automated way to do X!" and are working hard on it, you're deceiving them.
Frondo 9y ago
If I, an investor, give you money because you tell me you have automated technology, but really it's people in a room, that's a lie and there is absolutely something wrong with it!! If you can make the automated technology before I find out, well, maybe I won't sue you, but that sure doesn't make it right or acceptable.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  If you say it’s automated, and it’s not, that’s fraud.
catnaroek 9y ago
> You pitch "The best automated way to do X!", but in actuality you have a horde of people doing the work initially to figure out the problem before building the actual automation. It is plain dishonesty.
owens99 9y ago
This is "do things that don't scale" not "fake it until you make it." I have never heard of someone using "fake it until you make it," referring to Wizard of Oz or Concierge as William Pietri (gosu Lean practitioner) below has mentioned.
tripzilch 9y ago
> You pitch "The best automated way to do X!" > in actuality you have a horde of people doing the work > There is nothing wrong with this um in what universe does "technically legal in the US of A" equate to "nothing wrong with" ? using legality as a shortcut for a moral compass is putting the cart before the horse at best, but very often argued out of laziness or pure self-interest at worst. it's a narrative that causes people to stop introspection and think about what is actually right or wrong, instead going for the much, much easier choice of what is legal and what is not. not easier because the legal system is simpler than ethics (it usually isn't), but easier because the choice is made for them. and as your post demonstrates, once the choice is made, it's easy enough to conflate legality, lawfulness and judgement with morality, rightfulness and justice. but once you poke at that distinction, the argument just falls apart. there isn't "nothing wrong with this". all you're really saying is that it's probably not illegal.

by mbell 9y ago

wpietri 9y ago

I think the Concierge and Wizard of Oz approaches [1] are just one thing people mean by "fake it 'til you make it", but I definitely don't think they're the most common meaning. Startups engage in all sorts of puffery, trying to project the appearance of success long before they have actual success. Fancy websites, fancy offices, sales and investment pitches that cherry pick stories, numbers, and milestones that give an enormously positive impression of what's generally a very bumpy reality. I personally don't like that, but the game is the game. But it's very easy for that puffery to slide over into outright fraud when things get desperate. Which is why I'm so glad that the SEC is going after Theranos with great vigor. Hopefully these clowns will end up sharing a cell with Shkreli, giving every would-be startup CEO a clear example of what happens when they push it too far. [1] https://www.allencheng.com/concierge-mvp/ https://www.allencheng.com/concierge-mvp/

sgt101 9y ago
This is fine when the elements of automation aren't beyond the state of the art. However when you have startups like Spinvox et-al hoping that automated transcription will show up and save them (I mean transcription of variety of voice in variety of environments, using uncharacterized microphones and transcoded from mobile to core ect) or the current rash of chatbot liars and charlatans then real real damage gets done to real companies where execs believe the trendy w*nkers vs real people who understand technology. I've seen good engineers hounded out and scores of millions of pounds wasted because of "warp drive over powerpoint" and I've had enough. Not that I'm bitter or anything.
- goatherders 9y ago
  Isn't uber just waiting for automated drivers (self driving cars) to show up and save them? I have three businesses at the moment that all use people to do things that maybe one day can be solved by AI/tech. My customers don't care how I get it done and aren't impressed by tech anyway. If automation shows up and helps me then my margins go through the roof. But as it is, the margins are pretty good anyway.
- wpietri 9y ago
  Yeah, same. And it can even be fine when things are beyond the state of the art, as long as the CEO has the bravery to look reality in the face and either a) find another way, or b) say "sorry, startups are gambles, and this one's a busted flush". And it's the liars and charlatans that really get to me. I figure it's at least 30% likely that I'll end up in jail because somebody says "blockchain" to me one too many times regarding some application which would be better off done with a MySQL database.

rayiner 9y ago

It’s probably “fine” in the sense that nobody will sue you. But you’re basically arguing “it’s okay to lie to consumers about something that’s immaterial.” That’s true, but the standard for materiality under state consumer protection law is pretty low. E.g., under California’s Unfair Competition Law, statements that a lock was Made in America were found actionable under the UCL, even though the lock worked perfectly fine. People might care whether the service is automated or not, even if the end product is the same. Of course, the benefit from the puffery might outweigh whatever legal risk exists. I’d call that a “calculated risk,” not “fine.”

dragonwriter 9y ago
> But you’re basically arguing “it’s okay to lie to consumers about something that’s immaterial.” If it's a significant factor in a buying decision, it's not immaterial. If it's not material, it's probably not worth lying about.

Sangermaine 9y ago

>There is nothing wrong with this Yes there is. You're selling investors on capabilities you don't have, or at least intentionally misleading them about your abilities. Unless you're explicitly telling them that you WILL have "The best automated way to do X!" and are working hard on it, you're deceiving them.

Frondo 9y ago

If I, an investor, give you money because you tell me you have automated technology, but really it's people in a room, that's a lie and there is absolutely something wrong with it!! If you can make the automated technology before I find out, well, maybe I won't sue you, but that sure doesn't make it right or acceptable.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
If you say it’s automated, and it’s not, that’s fraud.

catnaroek 9y ago

> You pitch "The best automated way to do X!", but in actuality you have a horde of people doing the work initially to figure out the problem before building the actual automation. It is plain dishonesty.

owens99 9y ago

This is "do things that don't scale" not "fake it until you make it." I have never heard of someone using "fake it until you make it," referring to Wizard of Oz or Concierge as William Pietri (gosu Lean practitioner) below has mentioned.

tripzilch 9y ago

> You pitch "The best automated way to do X!" > in actuality you have a horde of people doing the work > There is nothing wrong with this um in what universe does "technically legal in the US of A" equate to "nothing wrong with" ? using legality as a shortcut for a moral compass is putting the cart before the horse at best, but very often argued out of laziness or pure self-interest at worst. it's a narrative that causes people to stop introspection and think about what is actually right or wrong, instead going for the much, much easier choice of what is legal and what is not. not easier because the legal system is simpler than ethics (it usually isn't), but easier because the choice is made for them. and as your post demonstrates, once the choice is made, it's easy enough to conflate legality, lawfulness and judgement with morality, rightfulness and justice. but once you poke at that distinction, the argument just falls apart. there isn't "nothing wrong with this". all you're really saying is that it's probably not illegal.