6 ms·

I wish it wasn't so but I do think to the degree you can declare something dead the lean startup is. The problem is that lean startups requires a number of thin

by awvcs 8y ago

I wish it wasn't so but I do think to the degree you can declare something dead the lean startup is. The problem is that lean startups requires a number of things that aren't accessible anymore. A) Maybe the most important is time. You need time in a good environment to actually develop something. Which has become a lot more costly. B) Large companies are controlling more areas than ever. People often wary of regulation as a barrier, but as time goes by the market participants creates their own barriers. Many areas are just harder to have an impact in than it used to be. C) And then there is just competition, especially for things like talent. I guess it isn't the lean startup that is dead so much as the environment for it. You can say the same thing about co-operatives, non-profits, community establishments and a lot of other things that are good ideas (probably more so than ever) but not able to flourish because of other interests.

beat 8y ago
B is really important. For all the lovely American paranoia about oppressive government killing business opportunity, the power of massive but still fast-moving companies in the same industry is far harder on innovation.
simias 8y ago
>A) Maybe the most important is time. You need time in a good environment to actually develop something. Which has become a lot more costly. Why do you think that is? I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. >B) Large companies are controlling more areas than ever. People often wary of regulation as a barrier, but as time goes by the market participants creates their own barriers. Many areas are just harder to have an impact in than it used to be. That one definitely sounds true to me, the complexity of modern software definitely makes it harder to be competitive with big shops. You can be the smartest coder on earth, if you want to write a complex application today (say, video editing software, smartphone interface, a kernel, a web browser etc...) you're looking at man-years of work if you want to start from scratch. And if you don't start from scratch it'll be harder to differentiate yourself from the competition and "disrupt" the status quo. I'm always amused when I read stories from the 70's and 80's about lone hackers writing a cool hack for a computer or application of the time and managing to sell it for a lot of money. Like this story I remember reading on HN of the hacker who managed to write a task switching application for some Apple computer of the time and managed to sell it to Steve Jobs (I don't remember all the details and I can't find the article at the moment). It was a clever and completely non-portable use of the hardware resources, in the end it was probably a few kilobytes of (very clever) code. It's hard to imagine something like that today.
- somabc 8y ago
  There are small startups born out of targeted smart application of code today that are similar to a lone hacker and sold to Google. eg Graphics Fuzz with it's intelligent code reducer which Google bought to use with Android. https://www.graphicsfuzz.com/howitworks.html https://www.graphicsfuzz.com/howitworks.html
- pixl97 8y ago
  >Why do you think that is? I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. Complexity. Consumers demand more complex applications. Platforms have more complex requirements.
  - cs02rm0 8y ago
    I could well find out I'm wrong in retrospect, but I think part of that is that the low hanging fruit is just gone. It means once you've made it there's a barrier to entry that keeps you protected, so you may as well go big or go home. I pitched a startup idea today to an accelerator judging panel. There were three distinct software components to it, each quite complex in the detail and I had three minutes to cover the lot because they're flooded with candidates even after the first sift throwing 80% away. Yet, comparatively it feels quite simple - no AI or ML involved or highly regulated areas. I might go and find a pong clone to play to cheer myself up.
- dri_ft 8y ago
  > Like this story I remember reading on HN of the hacker who managed to write a task switching application for some Apple computer of the time and managed to sell it to Steve Jobs (I don't remember all the details and I can't find the article at the moment). https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Switcher.txt https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...
  - simias 8y ago
    That's it, thank you!
- 8y ago
philipodonnell 8y ago
> A) Maybe the most important is time. You need time in a good environment to actually develop something. Which has become a lot more costly. I think another way to say this is that the value of time has fallen as the amount of funding available has risen. The prototypical hacker working nights and weekends was a _response_ to the lack of available capital: work harder if you can't hire. Its like an arms race. Two hackers of equal aptitude start working 120 hours weeks on identical startups targeting similar markets. The one who stops doing that and instead raises a few million to hire a large team and spend lots of marketing dollars is going to win that market (though it may be less profitable). As more funding chases fewer projects, that point moves earlier and earlier in the process until only a fool would spend 120 hours a week instead of raising money right from the beginning.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"C) And then there is just competition, especially for things like talent." I feel startups did this to themselves. It used to be that you'd work for a startup and the equity was supposed to pay off if the startup was acquired or took off. Now, even though a startup may sell for several billion or go public, most employee's equity has been diluted to hell and back, barely making up for the lower salary.
- megaman8 8y ago
  When equity and total compensation go down that's a sign of oversupply of talent, not undersupply.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    That's not what I'm talking about, here. The number of shares isn't necessarily going down. Its the crappy way that most startups handle the awards and the outstanding shares, making it so that the only people who actually get anything out of them are the founders and the investors.
    - megaman8 8y ago
      Yes, when your probability of getting any value out of shares goes down, that's tantamount to a reduction in compensation.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Yes it is, which is why most talented engineers are avoiding startups, and instead going to the big companies, where they can get paid.
megaman8 8y ago
I would say B is right on the money. But, A and C. I don't see it. There's a vast oversupply of time and talent. Just look at producthunt. The ratio of attempts to successes is enormously staggering. This indicates a huge vast amount of talent and time. The biggest problem is lack of opportunity: due partially to incumbents, regulation, etc.
- awvcs 8y ago
  I don't know. I think things like producthunt is the long tail. It is the people who don't have time in a good environment or access to talent so they do whatever they can instead. And I don't intend that to be an elitist statement. It is like the difference between playing an instrument and being in a band. You might be better by yourself, but it really the ecosystem that is going to take you to another level in terms of success. I think that sort of ecosystem is harder than ever to access. Especially with the rise in cost of education and housing. It is hard to start a software band these days.
quickthrower2 8y ago
With C - plenty of cheap talent around the globe, even in developed countries. There must be some way to arbitrage this.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  Plenty of cheap talent in the US as well, if so many startups weren't so delusional as to think they need Google-level talent. Oh, and the thing about making them move to San Francisco. Not even just the greater Bay Area, which is bad enough, but to the most expensive part of it.
nradov 8y ago
Since talent is basically just a myth, why compete for it? https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myt...

by awvcs 8y ago

beat 8y ago

B is really important. For all the lovely American paranoia about oppressive government killing business opportunity, the power of massive but still fast-moving companies in the same industry is far harder on innovation.

simias 8y ago

>A) Maybe the most important is time. You need time in a good environment to actually develop something. Which has become a lot more costly. Why do you think that is? I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. >B) Large companies are controlling more areas than ever. People often wary of regulation as a barrier, but as time goes by the market participants creates their own barriers. Many areas are just harder to have an impact in than it used to be. That one definitely sounds true to me, the complexity of modern software definitely makes it harder to be competitive with big shops. You can be the smartest coder on earth, if you want to write a complex application today (say, video editing software, smartphone interface, a kernel, a web browser etc...) you're looking at man-years of work if you want to start from scratch. And if you don't start from scratch it'll be harder to differentiate yourself from the competition and "disrupt" the status quo. I'm always amused when I read stories from the 70's and 80's about lone hackers writing a cool hack for a computer or application of the time and managing to sell it for a lot of money. Like this story I remember reading on HN of the hacker who managed to write a task switching application for some Apple computer of the time and managed to sell it to Steve Jobs (I don't remember all the details and I can't find the article at the moment). It was a clever and completely non-portable use of the hardware resources, in the end it was probably a few kilobytes of (very clever) code. It's hard to imagine something like that today.

somabc 8y ago
There are small startups born out of targeted smart application of code today that are similar to a lone hacker and sold to Google. eg Graphics Fuzz with it's intelligent code reducer which Google bought to use with Android. https://www.graphicsfuzz.com/howitworks.html https://www.graphicsfuzz.com/howitworks.html
pixl97 8y ago
>Why do you think that is? I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. Complexity. Consumers demand more complex applications. Platforms have more complex requirements.
- cs02rm0 8y ago
  I could well find out I'm wrong in retrospect, but I think part of that is that the low hanging fruit is just gone. It means once you've made it there's a barrier to entry that keeps you protected, so you may as well go big or go home. I pitched a startup idea today to an accelerator judging panel. There were three distinct software components to it, each quite complex in the detail and I had three minutes to cover the lot because they're flooded with candidates even after the first sift throwing 80% away. Yet, comparatively it feels quite simple - no AI or ML involved or highly regulated areas. I might go and find a pong clone to play to cheer myself up.
dri_ft 8y ago
> Like this story I remember reading on HN of the hacker who managed to write a task switching application for some Apple computer of the time and managed to sell it to Steve Jobs (I don't remember all the details and I can't find the article at the moment). https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Switcher.txt https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...
- simias 8y ago
  That's it, thank you!
8y ago

philipodonnell 8y ago

> A) Maybe the most important is time. You need time in a good environment to actually develop something. Which has become a lot more costly. I think another way to say this is that the value of time has fallen as the amount of funding available has risen. The prototypical hacker working nights and weekends was a _response_ to the lack of available capital: work harder if you can't hire. Its like an arms race. Two hackers of equal aptitude start working 120 hours weeks on identical startups targeting similar markets. The one who stops doing that and instead raises a few million to hire a large team and spend lots of marketing dollars is going to win that market (though it may be less profitable). As more funding chases fewer projects, that point moves earlier and earlier in the process until only a fool would spend 120 hours a week instead of raising money right from the beginning.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"C) And then there is just competition, especially for things like talent." I feel startups did this to themselves. It used to be that you'd work for a startup and the equity was supposed to pay off if the startup was acquired or took off. Now, even though a startup may sell for several billion or go public, most employee's equity has been diluted to hell and back, barely making up for the lower salary.

megaman8 8y ago
When equity and total compensation go down that's a sign of oversupply of talent, not undersupply.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  That's not what I'm talking about, here. The number of shares isn't necessarily going down. Its the crappy way that most startups handle the awards and the outstanding shares, making it so that the only people who actually get anything out of them are the founders and the investors.
  - megaman8 8y ago
    Yes, when your probability of getting any value out of shares goes down, that's tantamount to a reduction in compensation.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Yes it is, which is why most talented engineers are avoiding startups, and instead going to the big companies, where they can get paid.

megaman8 8y ago

I would say B is right on the money. But, A and C. I don't see it. There's a vast oversupply of time and talent. Just look at producthunt. The ratio of attempts to successes is enormously staggering. This indicates a huge vast amount of talent and time. The biggest problem is lack of opportunity: due partially to incumbents, regulation, etc.

awvcs 8y ago
I don't know. I think things like producthunt is the long tail. It is the people who don't have time in a good environment or access to talent so they do whatever they can instead. And I don't intend that to be an elitist statement. It is like the difference between playing an instrument and being in a band. You might be better by yourself, but it really the ecosystem that is going to take you to another level in terms of success. I think that sort of ecosystem is harder than ever to access. Especially with the rise in cost of education and housing. It is hard to start a software band these days.

quickthrower2 8y ago

With C - plenty of cheap talent around the globe, even in developed countries. There must be some way to arbitrage this.

vonmoltke 8y ago
Plenty of cheap talent in the US as well, if so many startups weren't so delusional as to think they need Google-level talent. Oh, and the thing about making them move to San Francisco. Not even just the greater Bay Area, which is bad enough, but to the most expensive part of it.

nradov 8y ago

Since talent is basically just a myth, why compete for it? https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myt...