5 ms·

Aaron Swartz: How To Launch Software

148 points by mqt 18y ago

axod 18y ago
Can you guess which method cuil chose. If you remember what cuil is of course. Perhaps they should have read this first.
- rokhayakebe 18y ago
  Somehow Cuil vanished at the end of Week 1. My biggest concern is those 25 millions that came from Teachers' pension funds.
- netcan 18y ago
  That's exactly what I was thinking when I read it. But Cuil was trying to pull off a bigger sting than most.
- alaskamiller 18y ago
  Cuil, the company that announced it was beta 10 months prior, refined its crawler multiple times when people start complaining, and the one that did the traditional massive PR push a couple weeks back but failed because their marketing team are just inept? That one?
tptacek 18y ago
37Signals has launched four (4) commercial products, and takes in (by my guess, from headcount and subscription numbers) mid-high 7 figures from them. Aaron Swartz has launched, by my count, no successful products (unless I'm wrong and Reddit wasn't already a success story when he got there). From Aaron's own web page, here's what I get when I click on his "my day job" link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29804691@N02/2786744327/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/29804691@N02/2786744327/ Why am I being such a dick about this? Because the argument he's making is disingenuous. Aaron advocates for an extended friends-and-family beta before launch. Aaron has no idea what 37signals does to beta and dogfood their product before the "Hollywood Launch". From what I can tell, everything 37signals does happens just before "step 5" in his master plan. The difference between 37signals and Aaron Swartz isn't methodology. Methodology is a band-aid. The difference between Aaron Swartz and 37signals is ability to execute. Here's a much better writeup from a much more credible source on the same topic: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/PickingShipDate.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/PickingShipDate.html
- axod 18y ago
  I think that's a harsh analysis and I don't think it's necessary to get personal about it. I'd say the launch of gmail was expertly done, and one that a lot of people copy. Look at what happens when companies decide to "release" to everyone at the same time with a big PR frenzy - cuil. The companies that slowly but constantly grow seem to do better than the ones that go for a big style "launch" IMHO. Releasing with a big style "Version 1" approach just doesn't fit with the dynamism of the web. Throw something up, get a few users, update it every day, and grow slowly but surely.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    You're right: if you do a glamour launch of your product without making the effort on quality, you end up like Cuil (and I concede that Cuil is a good counterexample). I object to the "either-or" argument the original post makes, and I object to the snide "we're only doing it this way because 37signals says to", as if 37signals doesn't have a store of credibility here that Aaron lacks.
    - axod 18y ago
      Apart from 37signals though (Which isn't a good example IMHO - they have a rails 'fanbase'), what successful "Big release hollywood film" examples are there?
      - tptacek 18y ago
        That's a good question. I'm having a slow day today; let me go look. If you don't see a response, I'll have conceded that there is no other good example of a successful "Hollywood" launch by a small startup. That would definitely hurt my argument. [edit: my slow day got fast, but I also did have trouble coming up with a clear-cut example of a small company glamour launch success.]
        kul 18y ago
        Paypal?
ivankirigin 18y ago
But does the Hollywood launch hurt? It seems like the reasonable way to go is to get a big bump when you open doors, iterate using the feedback of people that stay, and get more coverage whenever you release a big new feature set. Certain sites don't really make sense with invite codes too.
- tstegart 18y ago
  You're right. I think web apps get a huge benefit from soft launches, beta testing and user feedback. Its just invaluable information to have before you really present yourself. On the other hand, if you're launching the next ValleyWag site, the Hollywood launch might be the way to go.
shinvee 18y ago
I think both of them are important.
profgubler 18y ago
I think that both can work. It depends on the goals of the company and type of software they are launching. I do think that gmail is a terrible example though. Google can launch anything, slowly or Hollywood style and it will get attention.Granted not everything they do succeeds, but Google has an advantage with any new product launches. A better example might be the original launch of Google.
mojombo 18y ago
I find this to be excellent advice. This is exactly the approach we took at GitHub almost down to the letter. It took about 2 months until the site was good enough to use to host the GitHub source, another month until we started private beta with invites, and three more months until public launch. Artificial scarcity is a great technique to generate excitement for a product while also limiting growth to a rate that won't melt your servers. We worked through a huge number of problems and early users gave us some of the ideas that have defined GitHub. By doing a Hollywood launch, things would have been very different and I am convinced, very much worse. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT underestimate how much your users will help you to define your product. If you launch without having significant user feedback time, you've essentially thrown away a massive (and free) focus group study. Let me also say that when we finally did our public launch, there was plenty of buzz, and all of it was the RIGHT kind of buzz. The buzz that attracts real, lasting customers (and no, we weren't on TechCrunch, that traffic is garbage).
- axod 18y ago
  Completely agree. There is just so much value to be gained from early users suggestions, and going through a few iterations. Those early users are amazingly important. The overly passionate verging on stalker types that IM you asking if you just changed the color of a link and then tell you exactly what they think about it. It was a similar story with Mibbit, although I didn't bother with beta, just threw the site up there and started iterating. The growth isn't quite a hockey stick, but it's extremely consistent which means I can grow the product along with the userbase. Also I agree about techcrunch type traffic. Early on with Mibbit it got to the top on proggit. It was sort of fun, got a reasonable number of people in that night who looked around, said this is cool, then went... never to be seen again. Next day it was pretty dead. I think that's pretty typical.
yan 18y ago
I think it boils down to how comfortable you are with your product. If your stuff feels iffy and has less-than-ideal engineering practices, the slow and steady launch might work great. Expose enough of your idea to keep people idling around and begin free beta testing. This isn't bad, per se. Everything is a trade off, and if engineering skill or time is not something you have an excess of, the slow and gradual launch can work. On the other hand, if you have experience building and scaling and are confident that: a) the core of your idea is apparent in your product, and b) you did enough testing that things won't break on launch, by all means, build the hype and open the flood gates on launch day.
run4yourlives 18y ago
The big elephant in the room that nobody here seems to be taking into consideration: 37Signals charges their users to use their product. The Hollywood launch allows for such a case, whereas this example makes that much more difficult. Do you force beta users to pay? Do they pay the same amount as others? Etc etc. Hollywood launches allow you to broadcast a product as "finished". The issues Aaron cites seem to arise from broadcasting the "finished" announcement when the product is clearly not in that state.
- hbien 18y ago
  I think GitHub did a free beta launch, followed by a few iterations with feedback, and then they started charging users. That's reasonable for beta users, especially if they get a discount for their feedback.
jimgreer 18y ago
We actually did the same thing for Kongregate. Except we gave out an invite code to everyone who asked - usually same day. So the artificial scarcity was... artificial. But if we'd had a big problem we could have stopped the invites. We did that for about two months and then took the invite barrier down. Worked for us. edit: I forgot the second half of this story. A few months after we took the invite barrier down, we decided to do a "Hollywood" launch - really all we were doing was changing the "alpha" to "beta" and releasing some new features (earning cards by playing games). It worked, we got lots of press. Fox News even called and asked if I could go on their afternoon cable show. I did (here's the video - http://tinyurl.com/2gpz7x http://tinyurl.com/2gpz7x). Our site immediately cratered - it was a much, much bigger surge than Digg. We got it back up in about 20 minutes and the follow on traffic was good as well. So I guess we did a hybrid Gmail/Hollywood.
ComputerGuru 18y ago
Can people please stop using "software" and "webapp" interchangeably? I realize most members here are founders of startups that deal with webapps, but there are some startups that deal with traditional desktop applications - true "software," who share similar interests. That said - I wonder which of these two approaches is better for desktop software development. I'd imagine the fact that a user has installed your software is a "hook" of sorts - they're easier to reel in than website visitors which can escape rather more easily.
- ComputerGuru 18y ago
  -3? Looks like I'm the only desktop developer here then. My bad.
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    Looks like I'm the only desktop developer here then. I'm sure it's because you imply that the only installable software is on the desktop. You insensitive clod. (I'm kidding, of course, but I also build non-web-apps and also found this advice only marginally useful, though I do find that having users from very early in the process is vital.)
  - hbien 18y ago
    You're not alone, I develop for the desktop too.
- jlouis 18y ago
  Isn't that a subset relation? webapps are a subset of software. So interchange only works in a single direction.
  - etal 18y ago
    Maybe more like an intersection: web apps contain software, but the software isn't usually what's being sold; the user community, collected data and marketing/branding of the original site are a bigger deal than in shrink-wrap or contract software.
fleaflicker 18y ago
One of Fleaflicker's biggest advantages was having a smaller userbase than other sites. This meant I could mess up in spectacular fashion and still fix things before anybody noticed. "Fixing things" involved computationally intensive tasks and the bigger sites just couldn't do that quickly. http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?id=2832928 http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?id=2832...

148 points by mqt 18y ago

axod 18y ago

Can you guess which method cuil chose. If you remember what cuil is of course. Perhaps they should have read this first.

rokhayakebe 18y ago
Somehow Cuil vanished at the end of Week 1. My biggest concern is those 25 millions that came from Teachers' pension funds.
netcan 18y ago
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read it. But Cuil was trying to pull off a bigger sting than most.
alaskamiller 18y ago
Cuil, the company that announced it was beta 10 months prior, refined its crawler multiple times when people start complaining, and the one that did the traditional massive PR push a couple weeks back but failed because their marketing team are just inept? That one?

tptacek 18y ago

37Signals has launched four (4) commercial products, and takes in (by my guess, from headcount and subscription numbers) mid-high 7 figures from them. Aaron Swartz has launched, by my count, no successful products (unless I'm wrong and Reddit wasn't already a success story when he got there). From Aaron's own web page, here's what I get when I click on his "my day job" link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29804691@N02/2786744327/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/29804691@N02/2786744327/ Why am I being such a dick about this? Because the argument he's making is disingenuous. Aaron advocates for an extended friends-and-family beta before launch. Aaron has no idea what 37signals does to beta and dogfood their product before the "Hollywood Launch". From what I can tell, everything 37signals does happens just before "step 5" in his master plan. The difference between 37signals and Aaron Swartz isn't methodology. Methodology is a band-aid. The difference between Aaron Swartz and 37signals is ability to execute. Here's a much better writeup from a much more credible source on the same topic: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/PickingShipDate.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/PickingShipDate.html

axod 18y ago
I think that's a harsh analysis and I don't think it's necessary to get personal about it. I'd say the launch of gmail was expertly done, and one that a lot of people copy. Look at what happens when companies decide to "release" to everyone at the same time with a big PR frenzy - cuil. The companies that slowly but constantly grow seem to do better than the ones that go for a big style "launch" IMHO. Releasing with a big style "Version 1" approach just doesn't fit with the dynamism of the web. Throw something up, get a few users, update it every day, and grow slowly but surely.
- tptacek 18y ago
  You're right: if you do a glamour launch of your product without making the effort on quality, you end up like Cuil (and I concede that Cuil is a good counterexample). I object to the "either-or" argument the original post makes, and I object to the snide "we're only doing it this way because 37signals says to", as if 37signals doesn't have a store of credibility here that Aaron lacks.
  - axod 18y ago
    Apart from 37signals though (Which isn't a good example IMHO - they have a rails 'fanbase'), what successful "Big release hollywood film" examples are there?
    - tptacek 18y ago
      That's a good question. I'm having a slow day today; let me go look. If you don't see a response, I'll have conceded that there is no other good example of a successful "Hollywood" launch by a small startup. That would definitely hurt my argument. [edit: my slow day got fast, but I also did have trouble coming up with a clear-cut example of a small company glamour launch success.]
      - kul 18y ago
        Paypal?

ivankirigin 18y ago

But does the Hollywood launch hurt? It seems like the reasonable way to go is to get a big bump when you open doors, iterate using the feedback of people that stay, and get more coverage whenever you release a big new feature set. Certain sites don't really make sense with invite codes too.

tstegart 18y ago
You're right. I think web apps get a huge benefit from soft launches, beta testing and user feedback. Its just invaluable information to have before you really present yourself. On the other hand, if you're launching the next ValleyWag site, the Hollywood launch might be the way to go.

shinvee 18y ago

I think both of them are important.

profgubler 18y ago

I think that both can work. It depends on the goals of the company and type of software they are launching. I do think that gmail is a terrible example though. Google can launch anything, slowly or Hollywood style and it will get attention.Granted not everything they do succeeds, but Google has an advantage with any new product launches. A better example might be the original launch of Google.

mojombo 18y ago

I find this to be excellent advice. This is exactly the approach we took at GitHub almost down to the letter. It took about 2 months until the site was good enough to use to host the GitHub source, another month until we started private beta with invites, and three more months until public launch. Artificial scarcity is a great technique to generate excitement for a product while also limiting growth to a rate that won't melt your servers. We worked through a huge number of problems and early users gave us some of the ideas that have defined GitHub. By doing a Hollywood launch, things would have been very different and I am convinced, very much worse. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT underestimate how much your users will help you to define your product. If you launch without having significant user feedback time, you've essentially thrown away a massive (and free) focus group study. Let me also say that when we finally did our public launch, there was plenty of buzz, and all of it was the RIGHT kind of buzz. The buzz that attracts real, lasting customers (and no, we weren't on TechCrunch, that traffic is garbage).

axod 18y ago
Completely agree. There is just so much value to be gained from early users suggestions, and going through a few iterations. Those early users are amazingly important. The overly passionate verging on stalker types that IM you asking if you just changed the color of a link and then tell you exactly what they think about it. It was a similar story with Mibbit, although I didn't bother with beta, just threw the site up there and started iterating. The growth isn't quite a hockey stick, but it's extremely consistent which means I can grow the product along with the userbase. Also I agree about techcrunch type traffic. Early on with Mibbit it got to the top on proggit. It was sort of fun, got a reasonable number of people in that night who looked around, said this is cool, then went... never to be seen again. Next day it was pretty dead. I think that's pretty typical.

yan 18y ago

I think it boils down to how comfortable you are with your product. If your stuff feels iffy and has less-than-ideal engineering practices, the slow and steady launch might work great. Expose enough of your idea to keep people idling around and begin free beta testing. This isn't bad, per se. Everything is a trade off, and if engineering skill or time is not something you have an excess of, the slow and gradual launch can work. On the other hand, if you have experience building and scaling and are confident that: a) the core of your idea is apparent in your product, and b) you did enough testing that things won't break on launch, by all means, build the hype and open the flood gates on launch day.

run4yourlives 18y ago

The big elephant in the room that nobody here seems to be taking into consideration: 37Signals charges their users to use their product. The Hollywood launch allows for such a case, whereas this example makes that much more difficult. Do you force beta users to pay? Do they pay the same amount as others? Etc etc. Hollywood launches allow you to broadcast a product as "finished". The issues Aaron cites seem to arise from broadcasting the "finished" announcement when the product is clearly not in that state.

hbien 18y ago
I think GitHub did a free beta launch, followed by a few iterations with feedback, and then they started charging users. That's reasonable for beta users, especially if they get a discount for their feedback.

jimgreer 18y ago

We actually did the same thing for Kongregate. Except we gave out an invite code to everyone who asked - usually same day. So the artificial scarcity was... artificial. But if we'd had a big problem we could have stopped the invites. We did that for about two months and then took the invite barrier down. Worked for us. edit: I forgot the second half of this story. A few months after we took the invite barrier down, we decided to do a "Hollywood" launch - really all we were doing was changing the "alpha" to "beta" and releasing some new features (earning cards by playing games). It worked, we got lots of press. Fox News even called and asked if I could go on their afternoon cable show. I did (here's the video - http://tinyurl.com/2gpz7x http://tinyurl.com/2gpz7x). Our site immediately cratered - it was a much, much bigger surge than Digg. We got it back up in about 20 minutes and the follow on traffic was good as well. So I guess we did a hybrid Gmail/Hollywood.

ComputerGuru 18y ago

Can people please stop using "software" and "webapp" interchangeably? I realize most members here are founders of startups that deal with webapps, but there are some startups that deal with traditional desktop applications - true "software," who share similar interests. That said - I wonder which of these two approaches is better for desktop software development. I'd imagine the fact that a user has installed your software is a "hook" of sorts - they're easier to reel in than website visitors which can escape rather more easily.

ComputerGuru 18y ago
-3? Looks like I'm the only desktop developer here then. My bad.
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  Looks like I'm the only desktop developer here then. I'm sure it's because you imply that the only installable software is on the desktop. You insensitive clod. (I'm kidding, of course, but I also build non-web-apps and also found this advice only marginally useful, though I do find that having users from very early in the process is vital.)
- hbien 18y ago
  You're not alone, I develop for the desktop too.
jlouis 18y ago
Isn't that a subset relation? webapps are a subset of software. So interchange only works in a single direction.
- etal 18y ago
  Maybe more like an intersection: web apps contain software, but the software isn't usually what's being sold; the user community, collected data and marketing/branding of the original site are a bigger deal than in shrink-wrap or contract software.

fleaflicker 18y ago

One of Fleaflicker's biggest advantages was having a smaller userbase than other sites. This meant I could mess up in spectacular fashion and still fix things before anybody noticed. "Fixing things" involved computationally intensive tasks and the bigger sites just couldn't do that quickly. http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?id=2832928 http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?id=2832...