3 ms·

I am trying to bootstrap a business, and this article presents a way to approach that challenge that I never understood at all, yet seems so very common, especi

by sph 3y ago

I am trying to bootstrap a business, and this article presents a way to approach that challenge that I never understood at all, yet seems so very common, especially on this forum. I quote: > I always wanted to build a company. Startups are frequently the most efficient way to make a profound impact. Build something that people need. > At first, the insurance sector seemed ripe for disruption. The customer experience was lacklustre, and incumbents were reaping substantial profits. Our thorough analysis of startups in this domain revealed numerous well-executed attempts to shake up the space. [...] While we did spot some niche opportunities, they didn’t pave the way to building a billion-dollar enterprise. > Next, we shifted our focus to employment of record and payroll services, a sector that had grown post-Covid. Following a disciplined approach, we conducted customer interviews and market research. [...] Although the concept was sound, we missed the train. Our timing was too late. > Our journey led us to technological advancements that agriculture should have adopted more widely. [...] Former ag tech founders warned us about this being a dead zone. Even with the most progressive farmers, the conversations were challenging. We simply lacked founder-market fit. --- I really do not get this approach of "I want to build a business. I have no idea what. I'll try something that VCs might like the sound of, but if I can't raise money after 2 months, I'll move onto something else." This is such a common sentiment which to me does not make sense at all. Building a business is something that takes hard, hard work, long hours, fighting against impostor syndrome and the excitement of an idea that slowly fades away, while only the insurmountable mountain remains. Then the actual work of chipping away at the mountain really starts. The only way to succeed against all these odds stacked against you is to have a passion, have a vision for a product, however modest and stupid as mine might be, that keeps you going. Because the difference between a cool idea and a profitable business is not how quickly people are throwing money at you, but how much effort, blood, sweat and tears you have sacrificed for your crazy idea. People can make billions selling hyper-advanced technology as well as selling shoes or nails. The thing they have in common is the effort their founders put in their idea. Am I hopelessly naive in this belief? The entire indie hacking world seems to focus on making money as quickly as possible (the goal always being to disrupt an established player), ideally before you even have a product, and no one really seems to care about the product and effort required to build it. As much as I am a huge fan of Paul Graham and his writing, I believe this fail early-fail fast approach comes from his Silicon Valley / venture capital way of making things which has conquered the Internet and this space in particular, but is totally antithetical to how the rest of the (non-tech, non-SV) world does business, where raw effort and stubborn belief in an idea is what separates the successful entrepreneur from the failed one.

loremm 3y ago
I'm not really in the SV/VC world so what do I know. But I see what you mean. I actually put this in my list of articles which I call "Another planet's worldview" because the way they phrase their experiences and thoughts is entirely self-consistent but so alien to my own. No judgement and I actually find it valuable to read but it does feel a little like a "CS Savior complex" (although still less egregious than some of the AI savior complexes I see lots of places) I can read Graham without thinking he's in another planet but, as an example, George Hotz's livestream really makes me think that.
orev 3y ago
There are many people who go to school (or have an interest in) “business”, with the goal of building and running one. That education is about the structures of how to build/run a business, like legal structures, financing, building a culture, leadership, process building, finding a market, etc. All of those things are actual skills, and things people can be really good at, even if they don’t have an idea for a specific product or service. For those people, the company structure is the passion, and finding a product to sell is just part of the process. People who have a passion for something can also build a business, and this is who you may be thinking of, and also this is the type that’s often glorified in the tech space. But many passionate founders are quickly hampered by the reality of having to build the company structures instead of being able to focus on the actual passion/product. This is why many VCs prefer teams of founders instead of a sole one, as they can divide and focus on these separate areas. The idea of a sole passionate founder who grinds away in their garage is more of a “chosen one” trope than a common reality.
- sph 3y ago
  > The idea of a sole passionate founder who grinds away in their garage is more of a “chosen one” trope than a common reality. There is an entire spectrum between a sole founder chipping at something in a garage, and a non-technical founder picking random ideas from a hat and dropping them with the same nonchalance. How do you think the various Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos or Henry Ford went about it? Dropping big names because I am certain we both know these figures, but applies to most pre-2010 company founder.
3y ago

by sph 3y ago

loremm 3y ago

I'm not really in the SV/VC world so what do I know. But I see what you mean. I actually put this in my list of articles which I call "Another planet's worldview" because the way they phrase their experiences and thoughts is entirely self-consistent but so alien to my own. No judgement and I actually find it valuable to read but it does feel a little like a "CS Savior complex" (although still less egregious than some of the AI savior complexes I see lots of places) I can read Graham without thinking he's in another planet but, as an example, George Hotz's livestream really makes me think that.

orev 3y ago

There are many people who go to school (or have an interest in) “business”, with the goal of building and running one. That education is about the structures of how to build/run a business, like legal structures, financing, building a culture, leadership, process building, finding a market, etc. All of those things are actual skills, and things people can be really good at, even if they don’t have an idea for a specific product or service. For those people, the company structure is the passion, and finding a product to sell is just part of the process. People who have a passion for something can also build a business, and this is who you may be thinking of, and also this is the type that’s often glorified in the tech space. But many passionate founders are quickly hampered by the reality of having to build the company structures instead of being able to focus on the actual passion/product. This is why many VCs prefer teams of founders instead of a sole one, as they can divide and focus on these separate areas. The idea of a sole passionate founder who grinds away in their garage is more of a “chosen one” trope than a common reality.

sph 3y ago
> The idea of a sole passionate founder who grinds away in their garage is more of a “chosen one” trope than a common reality. There is an entire spectrum between a sole founder chipping at something in a garage, and a non-technical founder picking random ideas from a hat and dropping them with the same nonchalance. How do you think the various Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos or Henry Ford went about it? Dropping big names because I am certain we both know these figures, but applies to most pre-2010 company founder.

3y ago