4 ms·

Paul, that distinction you use: I'm interested in startups: companies that at least try to grow huge. Whereas the "small ISVs" he writes about are just ordinary

Paul, that distinction you use: I'm interested in startups: companies that at least try to grow huge. Whereas the "small ISVs" he writes about are just ordinary small businesses that happen to write software is more a justification of your own prejudices than reality. For every Google, there's a Microsoft, or an Adobe. Software as a Service, and plain old ISV application software can both scale immensely. I do not need to hire extra bodies if I'm selling 1 million copies a day of my app than if I'm selling 10 copies. The only thing stopping an ISV from growing is the popularity of the software, just as the only thing stopping a Service from growing is popularity of their webapp. In neither case there is no roadblock to growth caused by a lack of resources. ISV != small. It never has, and it probably never will.

ScottWhigham 18y ago
I do not need to hire extra bodies if I'm selling 1 million copies a day of my app than if I'm selling 10 copies. The only thing stopping an ISV from growing is the popularity of the software... Give me a break. If Intuit sells 10mm copies of QuickBooks a year, why don't they just have 5 or 6 employees instead of the hundreds that they have (that work on the QB side)? Your "Build a better mousetrap and the users will come" approach just apply to every scenario. Maybe to yours, but not to everyone's.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  "If Intuit sells 10mm copies of QuickBooks a year, why don't they just have 5 or 6 employees instead of the hundreds that they have" Why do Google and Yahoo have 5000+ employees, when Craigslist gets by with about 20? Many companies hire people because they can, and because cash in the bank gets a miserably low return. The extra employees aren't strictly necessary, though they do help (presumably over the marginal return of cash, which is about 0 when you figure in inflation). BTW, Intuit's sales took off when they did only have 5 or 6 people. They probably wouldn't have been able to release anything else if they hadn't hired more people - the engineers (all 2 of them ;-)) were answering phone calls all day instead of coding. But they could've grown quite large just on Quicken. There're a bunch of other ISVs that grew very large on very small teams, eg. Aladdin (StuffIt) and NullSoft (Winamp). Weren't many of Borland's early products (Quattro Pro, Turbo Pascal) also done by teams of about 4?
- demallien 18y ago
  1) Give me a break What's with the attitude? 2) Your "Build a better mousetrap and the users will come" approach just apply to every scenario. Maybe to yours, but not to everyone's. No idea what you are going on about here. I never said anything about building better mousetraps, neither literally nor metaphorically. 3) I wrote a big long reply explaining why you're wrong, but Nostrademons said it far more clearly, so I'll leave his words as the definitive answer...
pg 18y ago
Regardless of whether ISV = small, surely small ISV = small.
- demallien 18y ago
  Yeeesssss, good point - we probably need to define what we mean when we talk about a 'small' ISV. Eric defines it as being about headcount, whereas you - in labelling these as normal small businesses (and taking into account previous comments by you indicating that ability to scale was what seperates startups from other businesses), would seem to be saying that 'small' ISVs don't scale. My reply was specifically addressing that perspective. If you actually wanted your comment to be taken as a seperate thing, and not read in conjunction with your other writing, then I guess we don't have anything to talk about - as Eric defines small ISVs, they are effectively... small :-)

ScottWhigham 18y ago

I do not need to hire extra bodies if I'm selling 1 million copies a day of my app than if I'm selling 10 copies. The only thing stopping an ISV from growing is the popularity of the software... Give me a break. If Intuit sells 10mm copies of QuickBooks a year, why don't they just have 5 or 6 employees instead of the hundreds that they have (that work on the QB side)? Your "Build a better mousetrap and the users will come" approach just apply to every scenario. Maybe to yours, but not to everyone's.

nostrademons 18y ago
"If Intuit sells 10mm copies of QuickBooks a year, why don't they just have 5 or 6 employees instead of the hundreds that they have" Why do Google and Yahoo have 5000+ employees, when Craigslist gets by with about 20? Many companies hire people because they can, and because cash in the bank gets a miserably low return. The extra employees aren't strictly necessary, though they do help (presumably over the marginal return of cash, which is about 0 when you figure in inflation). BTW, Intuit's sales took off when they did only have 5 or 6 people. They probably wouldn't have been able to release anything else if they hadn't hired more people - the engineers (all 2 of them ;-)) were answering phone calls all day instead of coding. But they could've grown quite large just on Quicken. There're a bunch of other ISVs that grew very large on very small teams, eg. Aladdin (StuffIt) and NullSoft (Winamp). Weren't many of Borland's early products (Quattro Pro, Turbo Pascal) also done by teams of about 4?
demallien 18y ago
1) Give me a break What's with the attitude? 2) Your "Build a better mousetrap and the users will come" approach just apply to every scenario. Maybe to yours, but not to everyone's. No idea what you are going on about here. I never said anything about building better mousetraps, neither literally nor metaphorically. 3) I wrote a big long reply explaining why you're wrong, but Nostrademons said it far more clearly, so I'll leave his words as the definitive answer...

pg 18y ago

Regardless of whether ISV = small, surely small ISV = small.

demallien 18y ago
Yeeesssss, good point - we probably need to define what we mean when we talk about a 'small' ISV. Eric defines it as being about headcount, whereas you - in labelling these as normal small businesses (and taking into account previous comments by you indicating that ability to scale was what seperates startups from other businesses), would seem to be saying that 'small' ISVs don't scale. My reply was specifically addressing that perspective. If you actually wanted your comment to be taken as a seperate thing, and not read in conjunction with your other writing, then I guess we don't have anything to talk about - as Eric defines small ISVs, they are effectively... small :-)