4 ms·

pg, this is all your fault.

by blored 19y ago

omouse 19y ago
At least it isn't a 10 year old kid or something :P
staunch 19y ago
#9. Family to support http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html
- nostrademons 19y ago
  Though he did say "I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying that I don't want to take responsibility for advising it." PG is wrong when he says "You'll never found the next Google this way", though. IBM was founded by someone who had a wife and kid to support, and had just been convicted of antitrust violations, fired, and had a 1-year jail sentence hanging over his head (later reversed on appeal). You do need to be hungrier for profits and less willing to trade growth for money. The strategy I'm using (try lots of stuff until I build something useful, then try to get lots of users, then figure out how to monetize it) won't work for someone with a family to support. But the strategy my boss is using (go to your industry contacts, talk to them about their problems, get them to pay you up-front for development while you solve them, reinvest the profits for growth) could work very well.
  - sanj 19y ago
    "try lots of stuff until I build something useful, then try to get lots of users, then figure out how to monetize it" Seriously, would you consider business with anyone who worked like that? Stumbling around blindly for an idea, followed by hoping that you'll generate a set of expenses, and then finally hoping that you'll be able to earn revenues. I worry more about you than the bloke with the family to support.
    - nostrademons 19y ago
      Consumer web. People don't visit websites based on who developed them. They visit them because they want to. It's often difficult or impossible to figure out what consumers want, other than putting lots of ideas in front of them. Usually if you ask them, their responses will be wildly different from what they actually do. (I maintained that Reddit was a failure long after I started using it on a regular basis, and did the same with LiveJournal.) It's not a business model that works in every field - in particular, you absolutely don't want to try enterprise applications this way (really, nobody will buy from you if you try it, as you remark). But it does work.
      - sanj 19y ago
        I wasn't intending to imply that people care who developed a website. But I disagree that you the best approach is to throw things at the wall until you see if something sticks.
        yamada 19y ago
        You're both right and wrong; on the one hand it is often hard to figure out what people want based on what they say and trial and error works (lookup "skunkworks") well in many industries as long as you 1) keep failure costs low 2) have methodology to rapidly progress from failures and instantly apply insights. On the other hand, sanj is right to - there are many better ways to go about this. Think about all the things that tick you off about non-technical sites (sites that a larger audience cares about) and I guarantee you 9 times out of 10 if you go to people who use them and ask, "Why do they do this - wouldn't this be better if they did this instead?" most people would agree with you.
        hacker64 19y ago
        That's exactly how it works with consumer Internet projects. Consider that even Google didn't realized how valuable what they had was. They tried to sell their search technology in the early days, but only because nobody would buy it, they had to continue running the company on their own. The forumla seems to be: 1. Build a basic version of something you think people want. 2. Try it. 3. If people don't like it, modify and try again. Do that for a few times, and if it still doesn't work. Go back to step 1.
  - alex_c 19y ago
    In the "what does success mean to you" thread I was going to jokingly comment that success is when you successfully defend your first antitrust trial. Just saying, there's such a big difference between "had been convicted of antitrust violations" and "leaving 9-to-5 cubicle land" that the wife and kid are practically irrelevant to the comparison.
  - sethg 19y ago
    Well, I've got one out of four....
  - davidw 19y ago
    Tim O'Reilly also got his start with a wife and kid already present.
- far33d 19y ago
  The only reason having a family matters is because someone relies on your income. Hopefully, if you've had a job for a while, you have enough cash built up to live for a year or so. That means you have a year to either: 1) quit the startup and get a job. 2) get some VC funding or enough revenue to live on. Plus, big company boring jobs are always there for the taking...

pg, this is all your fault.

by blored 19y ago

pg, this is all your fault.

omouse 19y ago

At least it isn't a 10 year old kid or something :P

staunch 19y ago

#9. Family to support http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html

nostrademons 19y ago
Though he did say "I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying that I don't want to take responsibility for advising it." PG is wrong when he says "You'll never found the next Google this way", though. IBM was founded by someone who had a wife and kid to support, and had just been convicted of antitrust violations, fired, and had a 1-year jail sentence hanging over his head (later reversed on appeal). You do need to be hungrier for profits and less willing to trade growth for money. The strategy I'm using (try lots of stuff until I build something useful, then try to get lots of users, then figure out how to monetize it) won't work for someone with a family to support. But the strategy my boss is using (go to your industry contacts, talk to them about their problems, get them to pay you up-front for development while you solve them, reinvest the profits for growth) could work very well.
- sanj 19y ago
  "try lots of stuff until I build something useful, then try to get lots of users, then figure out how to monetize it" Seriously, would you consider business with anyone who worked like that? Stumbling around blindly for an idea, followed by hoping that you'll generate a set of expenses, and then finally hoping that you'll be able to earn revenues. I worry more about you than the bloke with the family to support.
  - nostrademons 19y ago
    Consumer web. People don't visit websites based on who developed them. They visit them because they want to. It's often difficult or impossible to figure out what consumers want, other than putting lots of ideas in front of them. Usually if you ask them, their responses will be wildly different from what they actually do. (I maintained that Reddit was a failure long after I started using it on a regular basis, and did the same with LiveJournal.) It's not a business model that works in every field - in particular, you absolutely don't want to try enterprise applications this way (really, nobody will buy from you if you try it, as you remark). But it does work.
    - sanj 19y ago
      I wasn't intending to imply that people care who developed a website. But I disagree that you the best approach is to throw things at the wall until you see if something sticks.
      - yamada 19y ago
        You're both right and wrong; on the one hand it is often hard to figure out what people want based on what they say and trial and error works (lookup "skunkworks") well in many industries as long as you 1) keep failure costs low 2) have methodology to rapidly progress from failures and instantly apply insights. On the other hand, sanj is right to - there are many better ways to go about this. Think about all the things that tick you off about non-technical sites (sites that a larger audience cares about) and I guarantee you 9 times out of 10 if you go to people who use them and ask, "Why do they do this - wouldn't this be better if they did this instead?" most people would agree with you.
      - hacker64 19y ago
        That's exactly how it works with consumer Internet projects. Consider that even Google didn't realized how valuable what they had was. They tried to sell their search technology in the early days, but only because nobody would buy it, they had to continue running the company on their own. The forumla seems to be: 1. Build a basic version of something you think people want. 2. Try it. 3. If people don't like it, modify and try again. Do that for a few times, and if it still doesn't work. Go back to step 1.
- alex_c 19y ago
  In the "what does success mean to you" thread I was going to jokingly comment that success is when you successfully defend your first antitrust trial. Just saying, there's such a big difference between "had been convicted of antitrust violations" and "leaving 9-to-5 cubicle land" that the wife and kid are practically irrelevant to the comparison.
- sethg 19y ago
  Well, I've got one out of four....
- davidw 19y ago
  Tim O'Reilly also got his start with a wife and kid already present.
far33d 19y ago
The only reason having a family matters is because someone relies on your income. Hopefully, if you've had a job for a while, you have enough cash built up to live for a year or so. That means you have a year to either: 1) quit the startup and get a job. 2) get some VC funding or enough revenue to live on. Plus, big company boring jobs are always there for the taking...