4 ms·

Yes, but the reasons are somewhat different. If anything, startup costs have gone down with technology costs and as access to technology increases. The problem

by cargo8 14y ago

Yes, but the reasons are somewhat different. If anything, startup costs have gone down with technology costs and as access to technology increases. The problem now is that with the great saturation of these consumer web startups, and the "startup-gold-rush" mentality of everyone trying to start a company, the "bar" has been set much higher for an acceptable product. It's no longer good enough to have an app that works, it must work, and be beautiful, and be cross-platform, and use the cloud, and have social integration, and ...

fredwilson 14y ago
yes, and the cost of developing for iOS, Android, and web at the same time
- ohashi 14y ago
  Do you expect costs to continue to rise, stabilize or decrease in the next 5-10 years and why?
  - fredwilson 14y ago
    i think they will start to go back down once we make developing for mobile easier
Silhouette 14y ago
It's no longer good enough to have an app that works, it must work, and be beautiful, and be cross-platform, and use the cloud, and have social integration, and ... Or maybe (he writes, donning his HN-proof flamesuit) having genuinely innovative ideas actually does matter. There are plenty of people around here who keep saying it's the execution that counts, launch with a MVP because you need data so you can pivot, what matters is having a great team, and all that. I'm sure there is some element of truth in all of those things, but most of the "businesses" based on that philosophy seem to build something obvious that a thousand other people thought of and any 15 year old geek could do in a weekend, and then act all surprised when they don't become the next Facebook. If these are the kinds of people who are approaching VCs with a view to serious funding, it's hardly surprising that most of the ones that don't have literally the best execution in a market with hundreds or thousands of plausible competitors will fail. To me, it seems crazy today to even try going after mass-market, low-level consumer services. There's far more money in B2B unless you really make it to the top in B2C, which you are extremely unlikely to do even with a fantastic offering. And if you are happy to settle for a business that is merely very lucrative rather than the next Facebook/Google, you can do very well in B2C with a good idea in just about any specialised field, where the market is not every consumer in the world but the people in the market really want what you're offering because it genuinely benefits them in some way that nothing else did before. [Edit: I see Fred is posting here, so I'll mention that it would be interesting to know how many of the companies VCs take on tend to be in that latter category these days. Is specialist B2C just too small for VC-style deals to make sense most of the time?]
- dhimes 14y ago
  There are plenty of people around here who keep saying it's the execution that counts, launch with a MVP because you need data so you can pivot, what matters is having a great team, and all that. I've been calling bullshit on the "execution is everything" meme for a while now, but I hadn't thought of it as maybe a cause of increasing difficulty in the startup ecosystem. That is an interesting hypothesis.
  - acgourley 14y ago
    The problem is you can stuff any meaning you want into the word "execution" - designers can stuff in beautiful design, programmers can stuff in cross platform deployment, etc. It should probably mean, "relentlessly finding market fit"
    - Silhouette 14y ago
      [Execution] should probably mean, "relentlessly finding market fit" The trouble is, that doesn't really say much either. "Finding market fit" essentially means producing something good enough that people will pay for it, so arguing that execution is all that matters for success with that definition is a circular argument. On the other hand, if we contrast "execution" with "idea", as is often the case in HN discussions where the "ideas have little value" argument is made, we're effectively comparing having a good idea that we can make money from with having an arbitrarily bad idea and assuming that it can be incrementally adapted (<ahem> pivoted) into a good idea that we can make money from. I simply don't accept the premise that you can start from anywhere you like and always wind up making money as effectively as someone who started from any other point.
      - acgourley 14y ago
        > I simply don't accept the premise that you can start from anywhere you like Is anyone saying that? I believe it's a strawman. What people say is "ideas are worthless" which is quotable hyperbole used to club stubborn NDA wielding entrepreneurs over the head. What people mean is: ideas are effectively worthless because until you start executing you don't have a good way to know if the idea is good or not. So yes, starting point matters. Unfortunately, until you start to execute, you only have the an extremely hazy understanding if your starting point was good. Sure you can weed out absolute loser ideas, and you can get an idea of the risk profile of the venture, but not much more.

by cargo8 14y ago

fredwilson 14y ago

yes, and the cost of developing for iOS, Android, and web at the same time

ohashi 14y ago
Do you expect costs to continue to rise, stabilize or decrease in the next 5-10 years and why?
- fredwilson 14y ago
  i think they will start to go back down once we make developing for mobile easier

Silhouette 14y ago

It's no longer good enough to have an app that works, it must work, and be beautiful, and be cross-platform, and use the cloud, and have social integration, and ... Or maybe (he writes, donning his HN-proof flamesuit) having genuinely innovative ideas actually does matter. There are plenty of people around here who keep saying it's the execution that counts, launch with a MVP because you need data so you can pivot, what matters is having a great team, and all that. I'm sure there is some element of truth in all of those things, but most of the "businesses" based on that philosophy seem to build something obvious that a thousand other people thought of and any 15 year old geek could do in a weekend, and then act all surprised when they don't become the next Facebook. If these are the kinds of people who are approaching VCs with a view to serious funding, it's hardly surprising that most of the ones that don't have literally the best execution in a market with hundreds or thousands of plausible competitors will fail. To me, it seems crazy today to even try going after mass-market, low-level consumer services. There's far more money in B2B unless you really make it to the top in B2C, which you are extremely unlikely to do even with a fantastic offering. And if you are happy to settle for a business that is merely very lucrative rather than the next Facebook/Google, you can do very well in B2C with a good idea in just about any specialised field, where the market is not every consumer in the world but the people in the market really want what you're offering because it genuinely benefits them in some way that nothing else did before. [Edit: I see Fred is posting here, so I'll mention that it would be interesting to know how many of the companies VCs take on tend to be in that latter category these days. Is specialist B2C just too small for VC-style deals to make sense most of the time?]

dhimes 14y ago
There are plenty of people around here who keep saying it's the execution that counts, launch with a MVP because you need data so you can pivot, what matters is having a great team, and all that. I've been calling bullshit on the "execution is everything" meme for a while now, but I hadn't thought of it as maybe a cause of increasing difficulty in the startup ecosystem. That is an interesting hypothesis.
- acgourley 14y ago
  The problem is you can stuff any meaning you want into the word "execution" - designers can stuff in beautiful design, programmers can stuff in cross platform deployment, etc. It should probably mean, "relentlessly finding market fit"
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    [Execution] should probably mean, "relentlessly finding market fit" The trouble is, that doesn't really say much either. "Finding market fit" essentially means producing something good enough that people will pay for it, so arguing that execution is all that matters for success with that definition is a circular argument. On the other hand, if we contrast "execution" with "idea", as is often the case in HN discussions where the "ideas have little value" argument is made, we're effectively comparing having a good idea that we can make money from with having an arbitrarily bad idea and assuming that it can be incrementally adapted (<ahem> pivoted) into a good idea that we can make money from. I simply don't accept the premise that you can start from anywhere you like and always wind up making money as effectively as someone who started from any other point.
    - acgourley 14y ago
      > I simply don't accept the premise that you can start from anywhere you like Is anyone saying that? I believe it's a strawman. What people say is "ideas are worthless" which is quotable hyperbole used to club stubborn NDA wielding entrepreneurs over the head. What people mean is: ideas are effectively worthless because until you start executing you don't have a good way to know if the idea is good or not. So yes, starting point matters. Unfortunately, until you start to execute, you only have the an extremely hazy understanding if your starting point was good. Sure you can weed out absolute loser ideas, and you can get an idea of the risk profile of the venture, but not much more.