5 ms·

What do you mean it's "not OK"? Trying to building something new that people use and love is a perfectly acceptable path to building a startup. pg had a great p

by jpcx01 16y ago

What do you mean it's "not OK"? Trying to building something new that people use and love is a perfectly acceptable path to building a startup. pg had a great post on this topic: http://paulgraham.com/organic.html http://paulgraham.com/organic.html So you have an approach to building products that works for you. Great. But scoffing at people who actually want to build the new amazing things that have a real impact on the world is what I call "not OK". After someone trailblazes the idea and builds something that gets traction, then we can expect legions of "you guys" who just want to monkey their idea and take a piece of the pie.

paraschopra 16y ago
I think you mis-understood my point. If you are making something new that people use and love, that's a beautiful thing to do. In fact, open source movement wouldn't exist without it. However, if you want to make money by hoping your new app catches on by itself, that is not OK in my opinion.
jacquesm 16y ago
I think you miss the point entirely and quoting Paul Graham without understanding what he writes is not going to help either. What Paras is getting at here is that if your goal is to make money then you are probably better off building something that has that premise baked in to it from the first moment rather than to just go and make some consumer app that might get traction but that will be hard to monetise. The 'people' from Pauls piece can be interpreted as both consumers and businesses, and if you aim for 'people' that are willing and used to spending money for the kind of service that you provide then you stand a much better chance of making money than if you just 'build anything people love and use'. Sure, youtube is a great counterargument, but barring being bought out by some big company such a success could easily be lethal. See 'imeem' and lots of other highly popular but ultimately losing propositions. Making money should not be an afterthought, it should be a focal point if that is your motivation to do this sort of thing. If you do it for fun or because of a drive to change the world for the better, if you're already rich from past ventures and any one of a hundred other reasons why you are not currently in it for the money then sure, go ahead and do that thing that scratches your itch. But if you plan on paying the bills focus on where the money is made first.
- jpcx01 16y ago
  Nah. pg's post fits perfectly here. Specifically the part "Don't be discouraged if what you produce initially is something other people dismiss as a toy." This is exactly what paras is doing. Dismissing apps he doesn't think can make money as toys. Why should the focus just be on making money? Saying "if your goal is to make money" is sort of strange to me anyways. Probably because my goal is not to make money, but to build new and interesting things that have an impact. Focusing just on money to start seems like the path to building yet another 37signals basecamp knockoff.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > Dismissing apps he doesn't think can make money as toys. No, it's just that bills want to be paid and if you plan on paying the bills from your venture then you should plan on doing something where making money is not a question but (assuming proper execution) as good as guaranteed. Typically in the business world that means you start signing up your (potential, pilot) customers before you have a product. Dismissing apps that can't make money as toys is not the same as saying that 'what you produce initially is something other people dismiss as a toy'. Really, they're not even close to being the same thing. > Maybe thats just because my goal is not to make money. It's to build interesting things and have an impact. Yes, that probably has something to do with it. If making money is a secondary goal to you for whatever reason then you are in a luxury situation, one that likely the vast majority of the people out there envy you very much for. The interesting part for me is that typically developing without a monetary incentive to do so leads to lots of wasted time and effort, having a simple and concrete number to measure the success of your application by (turnover vs 'eyeballs') works wonders to stay focused. "Make something people want" is not a religious item, it's common sense if you want to make money you had better make sure that there is a market for your product. That's the 'want' bit. Developing 'just for eyeballs' or 'impact' or 'personal interest', 'technical fascination' and so on is great but without a monetization strategy you might as well be living in 1999. You keep taking PGs words out of context and applying them to the writing of Paras because in your mind there is a seeming contradiction but I think the similarities are far larger than the differences. YC typically does not invest in companies that have no clear idea of how they plan to make money, even when they're focused on the consumers.

by jpcx01 16y ago

paraschopra 16y ago

I think you mis-understood my point. If you are making something new that people use and love, that's a beautiful thing to do. In fact, open source movement wouldn't exist without it. However, if you want to make money by hoping your new app catches on by itself, that is not OK in my opinion.

jacquesm 16y ago

I think you miss the point entirely and quoting Paul Graham without understanding what he writes is not going to help either. What Paras is getting at here is that if your goal is to make money then you are probably better off building something that has that premise baked in to it from the first moment rather than to just go and make some consumer app that might get traction but that will be hard to monetise. The 'people' from Pauls piece can be interpreted as both consumers and businesses, and if you aim for 'people' that are willing and used to spending money for the kind of service that you provide then you stand a much better chance of making money than if you just 'build anything people love and use'. Sure, youtube is a great counterargument, but barring being bought out by some big company such a success could easily be lethal. See 'imeem' and lots of other highly popular but ultimately losing propositions. Making money should not be an afterthought, it should be a focal point if that is your motivation to do this sort of thing. If you do it for fun or because of a drive to change the world for the better, if you're already rich from past ventures and any one of a hundred other reasons why you are not currently in it for the money then sure, go ahead and do that thing that scratches your itch. But if you plan on paying the bills focus on where the money is made first.

jpcx01 16y ago
Nah. pg's post fits perfectly here. Specifically the part "Don't be discouraged if what you produce initially is something other people dismiss as a toy." This is exactly what paras is doing. Dismissing apps he doesn't think can make money as toys. Why should the focus just be on making money? Saying "if your goal is to make money" is sort of strange to me anyways. Probably because my goal is not to make money, but to build new and interesting things that have an impact. Focusing just on money to start seems like the path to building yet another 37signals basecamp knockoff.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > Dismissing apps he doesn't think can make money as toys. No, it's just that bills want to be paid and if you plan on paying the bills from your venture then you should plan on doing something where making money is not a question but (assuming proper execution) as good as guaranteed. Typically in the business world that means you start signing up your (potential, pilot) customers before you have a product. Dismissing apps that can't make money as toys is not the same as saying that 'what you produce initially is something other people dismiss as a toy'. Really, they're not even close to being the same thing. > Maybe thats just because my goal is not to make money. It's to build interesting things and have an impact. Yes, that probably has something to do with it. If making money is a secondary goal to you for whatever reason then you are in a luxury situation, one that likely the vast majority of the people out there envy you very much for. The interesting part for me is that typically developing without a monetary incentive to do so leads to lots of wasted time and effort, having a simple and concrete number to measure the success of your application by (turnover vs 'eyeballs') works wonders to stay focused. "Make something people want" is not a religious item, it's common sense if you want to make money you had better make sure that there is a market for your product. That's the 'want' bit. Developing 'just for eyeballs' or 'impact' or 'personal interest', 'technical fascination' and so on is great but without a monetization strategy you might as well be living in 1999. You keep taking PGs words out of context and applying them to the writing of Paras because in your mind there is a seeming contradiction but I think the similarities are far larger than the differences. YC typically does not invest in companies that have no clear idea of how they plan to make money, even when they're focused on the consumers.