3 ms·

> The execs spend YEARS crafting that perfect alpha, open it up privately to friends and family, it flops and then they throw in the towel just like that. This

> The execs spend YEARS crafting that perfect alpha, open it up privately to friends and family, it flops and then they throw in the towel just like that. This condition needs a name. I've done it myself too many times to count. The first time was back in 2004 with a Facebook rival at Yale University. We had all this great social photo and media sharing but it wasn't growing against the simplicity of Facebook. So, after a couple months of not being Facebook, we gave up and got jobs <face palm>

tschwimmer 6y ago
Though the term are almost meaningless, this can be described as waterfall product development. Waterfall isn't always bad (like when you're building a space shuttle or a smart watch) but for consumer product it's almost always wrong. Even if you're able to pick the correct idea to build far in advance, if you develop a giant scope without releasing anything it likely took longer and was more risky than releasing and iterating. And let me tell you, in the vast majority of cases your original idea is far from correct.
- toast0 6y ago
  I think it all comes down to what's the cost to change the design. You can't easily change the design of the space shuttle after you built it, so you better get it right. Consumer hardware isn't quite so permanent, you can always recall the whole thing (samsung phones, early famicom), if you have the money. But a website is easy to change -- there's no sense making it perfect before you know if people will use it.
  - dr_dshiv 6y ago
    > But a website is easy to change -- there's no sense making it perfect before you know if people will use it. But this sentiment is exactly this issue! "Before you know if people will use it" -- the point is that when people don't use it, is it because it was a bad idea to compete with Facebook or because the design wasn't right? When to give up and when to iterate?
strgcmc 6y ago
In a way, this is yet another derivative of Dunning-Kruger IMO. It's all derived from either: (1) overestimating one's abilities (esp. when transferring from one domain to another), or (2) the corollary of underestimating the difficult/complexity of a given problem because you think you already have enough skills/expertise/resources to tackle it based on your prior successes. - "I'm a rich/powerful/successful media person. I had success in my industry doing business a certain way, so why shouldn't I be able to translate that into running a tech startup too?" - "I'm a good programmer and I don't see any reason why Zuckerberg would be smarter than me. What's so special about Facebook? We can beat them." - "I'm in touch with what most people want, and this product idea totally makes sense to me. All I need to do is polish it up, and I'm sure I'll find users who are as excited about it as I am." Or, the flip side of the same coin is really about ego. One of the hardest lessons of the lean/agile/tech-y start-up culture (in its idealized form), is to not let ego interfere with learning, but also to be able to let go of ego-centrism without giving up confidence or competence (i.e. you don't have all the answers and you should be fundamentally humble and curious, BUT you should not forget or overlook your existing skills or competencies either).

tschwimmer 6y ago

Though the term are almost meaningless, this can be described as waterfall product development. Waterfall isn't always bad (like when you're building a space shuttle or a smart watch) but for consumer product it's almost always wrong. Even if you're able to pick the correct idea to build far in advance, if you develop a giant scope without releasing anything it likely took longer and was more risky than releasing and iterating. And let me tell you, in the vast majority of cases your original idea is far from correct.

toast0 6y ago
I think it all comes down to what's the cost to change the design. You can't easily change the design of the space shuttle after you built it, so you better get it right. Consumer hardware isn't quite so permanent, you can always recall the whole thing (samsung phones, early famicom), if you have the money. But a website is easy to change -- there's no sense making it perfect before you know if people will use it.
- dr_dshiv 6y ago
  > But a website is easy to change -- there's no sense making it perfect before you know if people will use it. But this sentiment is exactly this issue! "Before you know if people will use it" -- the point is that when people don't use it, is it because it was a bad idea to compete with Facebook or because the design wasn't right? When to give up and when to iterate?

strgcmc 6y ago

In a way, this is yet another derivative of Dunning-Kruger IMO. It's all derived from either: (1) overestimating one's abilities (esp. when transferring from one domain to another), or (2) the corollary of underestimating the difficult/complexity of a given problem because you think you already have enough skills/expertise/resources to tackle it based on your prior successes. - "I'm a rich/powerful/successful media person. I had success in my industry doing business a certain way, so why shouldn't I be able to translate that into running a tech startup too?" - "I'm a good programmer and I don't see any reason why Zuckerberg would be smarter than me. What's so special about Facebook? We can beat them." - "I'm in touch with what most people want, and this product idea totally makes sense to me. All I need to do is polish it up, and I'm sure I'll find users who are as excited about it as I am." Or, the flip side of the same coin is really about ego. One of the hardest lessons of the lean/agile/tech-y start-up culture (in its idealized form), is to not let ego interfere with learning, but also to be able to let go of ego-centrism without giving up confidence or competence (i.e. you don't have all the answers and you should be fundamentally humble and curious, BUT you should not forget or overlook your existing skills or competencies either).