5 ms·

That doesnt jive with the string of spectacular silicon valley blowups recently. Hype seems to be just as good a substitute as product market fit. And it seems

That doesnt jive with the string of spectacular silicon valley blowups recently. Hype seems to be just as good a substitute as product market fit. And it seems that derisking unit economics to show you can be profitable doesnt matter at this point if you've got a bunch of "growth"

jariel 6y ago
For example? Having massive customer traction and 'blow up growth' is a valid form of customer interest, what matters is the post-blow up economices. Uber, WeWork etc. will all make money for investors in the long run. The concern is that there is zero real R&D or product development spending.
- Swizec 6y ago
  I work in early stage product startups. What R&D do you need? CRUD is solved, hosting is solved, UX is solved, scaling is solved, marketing is solved ... Everything to do with web and mobile is very solved at this point. Most problems come from tripping over ourselves and cobbling things together to fit new domains. All real hard R&D happens inside faang these days. At least for web/mobile consumer stuff.
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    >What R&D do you need? CRUD is solved, hosting is solved, UX is solved, scaling is solved, marketing is solved ... If you don't need R&D, doesn't that mean your competitor also doesn't need R&D? Where's the moat?
    - Swizec 6y ago
      Moat is having unique insight into the problem/domain. No moat anymore in terms of “We can build a webapp faster than you can”
    - jariel 6y ago
      There are many moats to businesses, often they are not dervied from tech. Most monopolies are operationally incumbent. Amazon (just the retail part) doesn't have any truly special tech, but reams of know how and operational competence with scale.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "Everything to do with web and mobile is very solved at this point." "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates 1981 (or supposedly. So there is a long way to go in all of these areas, and there is even a longer way to go in adjacent areas, and we're not even touching all the other things startups can do - you know - the other 95% of the economy? Healthcare, biotech, materials, energy, construction, auto, food services. You know 'everything that's not your iPhone'. If VC were structured differently I think we'd have a solution to hair loss and possibly sagging skin by now. Those two markets are worth 2x Google and Apple put together. People will pay for their 'youth' before they give 2 cents for a mobile phone. As the tip of the iceberg.
    - realtalk_sp 6y ago
      Hair loss is on the precipice of being effectively solved (infinite transplants via stem cells) and the price will likely go down over the next 5 to 10 years as the technology to produce hair follicles and perform robotic transplantations matures. Skin is also a largely solved problem: use moisturizer/sunscreen/Vitamin C/Retin A, avoid the sun as much as possible, wear sunglasses, drink lots of water, eat healthy + high antioxidants, sleep well, get minor amounts of Botox occasionally for some parts of the face, microneedling occasionally, maybe a face lift (these days a more or less perfected procedure with low risk) somewhere in your 40s/50s. That plan will basically take you into your 60s looking really good. Even if you can't stick to that plan, the various restorative dermatological options will still give you a fantastic result. But most people are some combination of too apathetic, too lazy, too financially-constrained, or too afraid of more invasive techniques.
      - jariel 6y ago
        "Hair loss is on the precipice of being effectively solved " They have been saying this for 50 years. Even the technology we use today is sketchy. "Skin is also a largely solved problem: " This is ridiculously false. >70% of women do many or most of those things, and they still mostly look their age. Those things help, but very mildly. There are no 55 year old women who look 30 without airbrushing + tons of makeup + facelifts. And 80 year old women mostly look 80. The amount of money and effort, especially women spend on this is breathtaking, considering that most of it doesn't work better than the cheaper products. If there was something that would make 50 year olds actually look 30 it would be would have 'infinity' market value.
  - bcantrill 6y ago
    Okay, so that's not all startups, as it turns out. Some of us are actually solving hard technical problems -- the FAANGs aren't actually solving all problems. Yes, it's different to raise a hard-tech seed, but let us please not pretend that just because you yourself don't do it, that those of us who do don't exist...
    - Swizec 6y ago
      You exist and you’re hard to find among a sea of “Take existing tech, apply to new business domain” product startups. Ergo what GP said > The concern is that there is zero real R&D or product development spending. PS if your R&D is in AI that does not fall under my original comment on “web/mobile stuff”
      - bcantrill 6y ago
        Fair enough -- I'm probably still a bit prickly from raising a hard-tech seed! (For which, if it needs to be said, most of the dynamics described in the article do not apply...)
  - jbay808 6y ago
    This is why I don't consider most CRUD/mobile/web app companies to be "tech companies". If there's no R&D, you're not producing technology.
    - Swizec 6y ago
      Depends who you ask I think. If you’re introducing tech that we on HN consider bog standard to a field that thinks fax machines are fancy ... are you building tech? Your users certainly think you are.
      - bbarnett 6y ago
        A bit akin to the difference between an engineer amd mechanic?
- ccortes 6y ago
  I don't think it is that hard to get traction (even massive traction) if you are giving more value than what you are charging.

jariel 6y ago

For example? Having massive customer traction and 'blow up growth' is a valid form of customer interest, what matters is the post-blow up economices. Uber, WeWork etc. will all make money for investors in the long run. The concern is that there is zero real R&D or product development spending.

Swizec 6y ago
I work in early stage product startups. What R&D do you need? CRUD is solved, hosting is solved, UX is solved, scaling is solved, marketing is solved ... Everything to do with web and mobile is very solved at this point. Most problems come from tripping over ourselves and cobbling things together to fit new domains. All real hard R&D happens inside faang these days. At least for web/mobile consumer stuff.
- willcipriano 6y ago
  >What R&D do you need? CRUD is solved, hosting is solved, UX is solved, scaling is solved, marketing is solved ... If you don't need R&D, doesn't that mean your competitor also doesn't need R&D? Where's the moat?
  - Swizec 6y ago
    Moat is having unique insight into the problem/domain. No moat anymore in terms of “We can build a webapp faster than you can”
  - jariel 6y ago
    There are many moats to businesses, often they are not dervied from tech. Most monopolies are operationally incumbent. Amazon (just the retail part) doesn't have any truly special tech, but reams of know how and operational competence with scale.
- jariel 6y ago
  "Everything to do with web and mobile is very solved at this point." "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates 1981 (or supposedly. So there is a long way to go in all of these areas, and there is even a longer way to go in adjacent areas, and we're not even touching all the other things startups can do - you know - the other 95% of the economy? Healthcare, biotech, materials, energy, construction, auto, food services. You know 'everything that's not your iPhone'. If VC were structured differently I think we'd have a solution to hair loss and possibly sagging skin by now. Those two markets are worth 2x Google and Apple put together. People will pay for their 'youth' before they give 2 cents for a mobile phone. As the tip of the iceberg.
  - realtalk_sp 6y ago
    Hair loss is on the precipice of being effectively solved (infinite transplants via stem cells) and the price will likely go down over the next 5 to 10 years as the technology to produce hair follicles and perform robotic transplantations matures. Skin is also a largely solved problem: use moisturizer/sunscreen/Vitamin C/Retin A, avoid the sun as much as possible, wear sunglasses, drink lots of water, eat healthy + high antioxidants, sleep well, get minor amounts of Botox occasionally for some parts of the face, microneedling occasionally, maybe a face lift (these days a more or less perfected procedure with low risk) somewhere in your 40s/50s. That plan will basically take you into your 60s looking really good. Even if you can't stick to that plan, the various restorative dermatological options will still give you a fantastic result. But most people are some combination of too apathetic, too lazy, too financially-constrained, or too afraid of more invasive techniques.
    - jariel 6y ago
      "Hair loss is on the precipice of being effectively solved " They have been saying this for 50 years. Even the technology we use today is sketchy. "Skin is also a largely solved problem: " This is ridiculously false. >70% of women do many or most of those things, and they still mostly look their age. Those things help, but very mildly. There are no 55 year old women who look 30 without airbrushing + tons of makeup + facelifts. And 80 year old women mostly look 80. The amount of money and effort, especially women spend on this is breathtaking, considering that most of it doesn't work better than the cheaper products. If there was something that would make 50 year olds actually look 30 it would be would have 'infinity' market value.
- bcantrill 6y ago
  Okay, so that's not all startups, as it turns out. Some of us are actually solving hard technical problems -- the FAANGs aren't actually solving all problems. Yes, it's different to raise a hard-tech seed, but let us please not pretend that just because you yourself don't do it, that those of us who do don't exist...
  - Swizec 6y ago
    You exist and you’re hard to find among a sea of “Take existing tech, apply to new business domain” product startups. Ergo what GP said > The concern is that there is zero real R&D or product development spending. PS if your R&D is in AI that does not fall under my original comment on “web/mobile stuff”
    - bcantrill 6y ago
      Fair enough -- I'm probably still a bit prickly from raising a hard-tech seed! (For which, if it needs to be said, most of the dynamics described in the article do not apply...)
- jbay808 6y ago
  This is why I don't consider most CRUD/mobile/web app companies to be "tech companies". If there's no R&D, you're not producing technology.
  - Swizec 6y ago
    Depends who you ask I think. If you’re introducing tech that we on HN consider bog standard to a field that thinks fax machines are fancy ... are you building tech? Your users certainly think you are.
    - bbarnett 6y ago
      A bit akin to the difference between an engineer amd mechanic?
ccortes 6y ago
I don't think it is that hard to get traction (even massive traction) if you are giving more value than what you are charging.