5 ms·

While I agree with the general sentiment of the author (and the same general message comes up quite often on HN), I have two issues with the article: 1) It see

While I agree with the general sentiment of the author (and the same general message comes up quite often on HN), I have two issues with the article: 1) It seems to equate "investors" with "VCs", who need big returns or quick losses to make their overall portfolio numbers work. Angel investors don't necessarily fall into this category, nor do more traditional funding sources. Thus, I think the expressed opinion should more be that blindly chasing VC money to fund a business that can't actually turn a legitimate profit on its own is bad, rather than that taking investor money in general is bad. 2) There's an implicit challenge briefly touched on at the very end of the article. If you have a project of love that gets popular quickly, it could literally bankrupt you if you tried to keep it alive on your own. Scaled hosting services aren't free, nor are community support, requested new features, compatibility updates, API costs, etc. etc. It's entirely possible that you could start a side project and then have to shut it down when it starts getting traction because keeping it alive and not-shitty would take more time than it's worth if you're not going to turn it into a venture-funded business.

yeahitslikethat 8y ago
Charge more. Delegate.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
RE 2), I think the article pretty clearly implies your project of love should pay its own costs. Once your users pay more than they cost you, scaling problem disappears - in fact, economies of scale are your friend here.
- mdorazio 8y ago
  I didn't read that implication at all. Many projects of love are free with no revenue model at all, or maybe some random ads to offset costs (not cover them), otherwise it's unlikely people would even start using it in the first place. Going from that to a paid/subsidized model strong enough to cover actual development, hosting, etc. is a tall order.
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    > Many projects of love are free with no revenue model at all Yes. I myself have several different ongoing projects. Some of them are in no way intended to be businesses and intentionally have no revenue model at all. Those are free for everyone and will always be (at least until/unless I tire of them and pass them along to someone else). Others are intended to generate some sort of revenue -- with a couple, I only want them to cover their own costs, with others, I want to see them make a profit. Those are not free. There is room for both types of project.
JohnFen 8y ago
> It seems to equate "investors" with "VCs" I agree, it does appear that the author made this error. It's a common one, though. I think it would benefit everyone, including VCs, if people were more aware that venture capital is only one type of investing out of a wider pantheon of investing. Each type has its own advantages and disadvantages and the wise entrepreneurs and investors alike should judge the different types of investment strategies according to what most aligns with their goals.

yeahitslikethat 8y ago

Charge more. Delegate.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

RE 2), I think the article pretty clearly implies your project of love should pay its own costs. Once your users pay more than they cost you, scaling problem disappears - in fact, economies of scale are your friend here.

mdorazio 8y ago
I didn't read that implication at all. Many projects of love are free with no revenue model at all, or maybe some random ads to offset costs (not cover them), otherwise it's unlikely people would even start using it in the first place. Going from that to a paid/subsidized model strong enough to cover actual development, hosting, etc. is a tall order.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > Many projects of love are free with no revenue model at all Yes. I myself have several different ongoing projects. Some of them are in no way intended to be businesses and intentionally have no revenue model at all. Those are free for everyone and will always be (at least until/unless I tire of them and pass them along to someone else). Others are intended to generate some sort of revenue -- with a couple, I only want them to cover their own costs, with others, I want to see them make a profit. Those are not free. There is room for both types of project.

JohnFen 8y ago

> It seems to equate "investors" with "VCs" I agree, it does appear that the author made this error. It's a common one, though. I think it would benefit everyone, including VCs, if people were more aware that venture capital is only one type of investing out of a wider pantheon of investing. Each type has its own advantages and disadvantages and the wise entrepreneurs and investors alike should judge the different types of investment strategies according to what most aligns with their goals.