5 ms·

Oh, oops. Why is sarcasm the hardest thing to convey via email/IM/simple text? Hey maybe a one-person startup could takle _that_ problem! :)

ericb 18y ago
The author of this site, Paul Graham (pg), is an essayist who listed single founders as number one on his startup mistakes list. It's not an opinion I share, so yes, sarcasm intended. :-) Agreed 100% about sarcasm being hard to see in text. While an extra person can be an advantage, I think he overestimates the advantages and underestimates the disadvantages. Nice work on the site and app! Congrats! http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  It's merely a difference of approach. Balsamiq seems to be a very nice business...but it's not a startup according to pg's definition. The goal does not seem to be "get acquired or have an IPO". Building a lifestyle business as a solo founder is entirely feasible...if a little exhausting after a while (I ran a solo founder business for seven years before starting my current business).
  - ericb 18y ago
    I guess, to me, maybe that's a part of the issue. I define a third route for a startup. Make money. So I have trouble with that lesser definition. I'd have called 37 Signals a startup (still might, when does being a startup end--I don't know how to draw the line). I worked at a software company which has 5 buildings it owns outright, employs thousands of people, and has 300 million+ in annual revenue. In the 70's it was started by one person. I'd have called it a "startup" at the time. It is still private. The difference perhaps revolves around "startup appropriate for Y Combinator" vs "startup."
    - SwellJoe 18y ago
      The difference perhaps revolves around "startup appropriate for Y Combinator" vs "startup." Actually, it would be "startup appropriate for any investor". If there is no exit planned, then it's not something an investor wants to be involved in. It's purely semantics, which is why I specifically said, "according to pg's definition". Your definition may be different...but if you're talking about pg's rules of thumb for "startups", you have to accept his definition of "startup" for the purpose of context.
      - ericb 18y ago
        It's a good point, and those may be his definitions, but I don't see the rules mentioned in the essay in particular. There are all sorts of investment that don't fit the Silicon Valley VC short-term mold, so appropriate for "any investor" might be over-stating things, even for startups. Investing in cash-cow businesses is not a bad strategy--I wish I could have invested in the private company I mentioned above in the 70's. Jeff Bezos thought 37 signals was interesting enough to invest in. Warren Buffett seems to like cash cow businesses as well.
        icey 18y ago
        Successful entrepreneurs are the ones who break the rules.
      - eru 18y ago
        > If there is no exit planned, then it's not something an investor wants to be involved in. Buy and hold anyone?
    - asmosoinio 18y ago
      Earlier discussion about startup (DHH) vs startup (pg): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=173000 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=173000
Prrometheus 18y ago
I thought they solved that problem when they invented the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.

ericb 18y ago

The author of this site, Paul Graham (pg), is an essayist who listed single founders as number one on his startup mistakes list. It's not an opinion I share, so yes, sarcasm intended. :-) Agreed 100% about sarcasm being hard to see in text. While an extra person can be an advantage, I think he overestimates the advantages and underestimates the disadvantages. Nice work on the site and app! Congrats! http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html

SwellJoe 18y ago
It's merely a difference of approach. Balsamiq seems to be a very nice business...but it's not a startup according to pg's definition. The goal does not seem to be "get acquired or have an IPO". Building a lifestyle business as a solo founder is entirely feasible...if a little exhausting after a while (I ran a solo founder business for seven years before starting my current business).
- ericb 18y ago
  I guess, to me, maybe that's a part of the issue. I define a third route for a startup. Make money. So I have trouble with that lesser definition. I'd have called 37 Signals a startup (still might, when does being a startup end--I don't know how to draw the line). I worked at a software company which has 5 buildings it owns outright, employs thousands of people, and has 300 million+ in annual revenue. In the 70's it was started by one person. I'd have called it a "startup" at the time. It is still private. The difference perhaps revolves around "startup appropriate for Y Combinator" vs "startup."
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    The difference perhaps revolves around "startup appropriate for Y Combinator" vs "startup." Actually, it would be "startup appropriate for any investor". If there is no exit planned, then it's not something an investor wants to be involved in. It's purely semantics, which is why I specifically said, "according to pg's definition". Your definition may be different...but if you're talking about pg's rules of thumb for "startups", you have to accept his definition of "startup" for the purpose of context.
    - ericb 18y ago
      It's a good point, and those may be his definitions, but I don't see the rules mentioned in the essay in particular. There are all sorts of investment that don't fit the Silicon Valley VC short-term mold, so appropriate for "any investor" might be over-stating things, even for startups. Investing in cash-cow businesses is not a bad strategy--I wish I could have invested in the private company I mentioned above in the 70's. Jeff Bezos thought 37 signals was interesting enough to invest in. Warren Buffett seems to like cash cow businesses as well.
      - icey 18y ago
        Successful entrepreneurs are the ones who break the rules.
    - eru 18y ago
      > If there is no exit planned, then it's not something an investor wants to be involved in. Buy and hold anyone?
  - asmosoinio 18y ago
    Earlier discussion about startup (DHH) vs startup (pg): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=173000 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=173000

Prrometheus 18y ago

I thought they solved that problem when they invented the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.