4 ms·

I agree with the point, although it's a little "all over the place". I'm taking it as a "beware sign" for knowing what's ahead; i.e. to consider the big-pictur

by tdr 15y ago

I agree with the point, although it's a little "all over the place". I'm taking it as a "beware sign" for knowing what's ahead; i.e. to consider the big-picture around whatever you are building (it's very easy to get sucked into some "interesting direction" and get side-tracked; us geeks tend to do that). To answer your question: yes, if I would be an investor, I'd also want to see the prototype/MVP, because: - less risk taken - 1 picture == 1000 words => demo == millions words - you show you can execute what you wish (not getting side-tracked) from founder point of view because: - early adopters will help you shape your product (I just pivoted this month)

michaelbarton 15y ago
I see what you mean about it being "all over the place" first they discuss a great product alone is not enough but then instead talk about plans and ideas rather than prototypes/implementations. I've never started a business so my naive viewpoint is that many of the most successful companies appear to be built on having a great product alone then focusing on profit second, for example Google, Facebook, and Twitter. These are the largest of the the large though, so is the story different for smaller companies?
- HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
  That's not even the story for most big companies. Consider Apple, Microsoft, Toyota, Honda and Ford. In most cases "build great product first then focus on profit later" means you run out of money before anyone buys enough of your product for you to get back in the black.
- Estragon 15y ago
  Never started a company either, but I think the key issue is barrier to entry. Facebook and Twitter have networks which are impossible to duplicate, and Google got a lot of money up front and used it to move really fast. In contrast, the great product they describe in the article is a standalone piece of software by a small group, easily duplicated if it takes off.

by tdr 15y ago

michaelbarton 15y ago

I see what you mean about it being "all over the place" first they discuss a great product alone is not enough but then instead talk about plans and ideas rather than prototypes/implementations. I've never started a business so my naive viewpoint is that many of the most successful companies appear to be built on having a great product alone then focusing on profit second, for example Google, Facebook, and Twitter. These are the largest of the the large though, so is the story different for smaller companies?

HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
That's not even the story for most big companies. Consider Apple, Microsoft, Toyota, Honda and Ford. In most cases "build great product first then focus on profit later" means you run out of money before anyone buys enough of your product for you to get back in the black.
Estragon 15y ago
Never started a company either, but I think the key issue is barrier to entry. Facebook and Twitter have networks which are impossible to duplicate, and Google got a lot of money up front and used it to move really fast. In contrast, the great product they describe in the article is a standalone piece of software by a small group, easily duplicated if it takes off.