4 ms·

Yes, you should launch without a product. Yes, you should get orders. Yes to all of that. But you are missing an important thing. A lot of world changing compan

Yes, you should launch without a product. Yes, you should get orders. Yes to all of that. But you are missing an important thing. A lot of world changing companies out there started without a business plan, much less a sale. It was about trying to see what could be done with X. Sales people don't get this. Tech is not only about making a quick buck, but about creating new things altogether. Sometimes, those new things can't simply be sold from the start. Sometimes they are not even defined. Just an idea.

nbouscal 14y ago
Exactly. Salespeople fundamentally do not create. For those of us who are in technology not to build a 'successful' company or pad our bank accounts, but rather to create new things, none of what this guy is talking about really has any relevance.
- chriswilliams 14y ago
  Disagree. I have bills to pay, and this means selling.
  - craigching 14y ago
    "Bills to pay" or whatever your motivation is, does not mean that's the best way to drive business in a software company. Sales is a required part of business and one driver of how products are developed, but if sales were the only driver of how products are developed, products would be one dimensional pretty quickly with tactical "if you do this, I can make this one sale" types of development features. You still need a robust product management team that is (hopefully) looking beyond current sales needs. Note, that's not always engineering, but sometimes it's hard to get product management looking beyond current sales needs, and therefore it does fall on engineering to do the strategic work. IMO, it doesn't matter who does the strategic work, sales, product management, or engineering, as long as someone is doing it.
  - super-serial 14y ago
    Some people are different. For example - I work a $10/hr part-time job for bills. I could get a programming job since I have a CS degree and a few years development experience... but instead I choose to work a non-programming part-time job while coding my startup. I've been coding it for 6 months without showing anyone my demo. (it's a big project) If I get investors this summer or not... I'm committed to "my vision" for the next 3 years. Bills aren't too hard to pay if you live minimally. (e.g. I don't own a cellphone) "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life. All that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." - Albert Einstein
  - nbouscal 14y ago
    I have bills to pay too, but I try very hard to prevent them from being the motivating factor in my life. If I am living to pay my bills, then I am living my life in a wrong fashion. Creation is one of the most important and fulfilling activities that I know. Pursuing that activity for the sole purpose of paying bills seems to me such a great perversion that I would rather not create at all. Being paid for my work is fine and good, but working only for the sake of being paid? No. I would rather be poor. (I imagine that this may be perceived as an extreme stance. To that I can only say: “It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” - Jiddu Krishnamurti)
bane 14y ago
A lot of world changing companies out there started without a business plan, much less a sale. It was about trying to see what could be done with X. Sales people don't get this. Tech is not only about making a quick buck, but about creating new things altogether. There's an interesting anti-pattern I see in business time and time again...it's the company that's run as follows: 1) Start with a successful product (regardless of how it happened to become successful) and put a top-tier MBA guy in charge 2) Slowly fire or alienate all of the engineers who had anything to do with the initially successful product (too expensive!), replace them with more sales guys and/or very cheap and incompetent "maintenance engineers" so abstract engineering vs. cost numbers can show diligent stewardship of the product 2b) Stop innovating entirely 3) Squeeze the product for cash like a vampire trying to squeeze blood from a stone 4) Eventually the product momentum runs out and the sales stop coming in Making a new product is both hard, and expensive, it's understandable that MBA types want to try and recoup that and make a multiplier on that initial investment. They're allergic to putting huge investments back in for a round 2 of innovation. It sometimes works (see Oracle), but usually ends up with a failed company being sold off for parts. Chrysler is a fantastic example, the First Generation 300 (2004) started out as a very popular car, selling over 110,000 copies in it's first year. A bad merger with Daimler-Benz later, Chrysler ended up in MBA-tastic Cerberus's hands in 2007. So what did they do with their almost 4 year old flagship that was selling over 120,000 copies a year? They let it sit for 2 more years. Nothing, no new models, no minor redesigns, no real updates. In 2008 sales were half, then in 2009 almost half again. It wasn't until 2011 that a new model finally came out, and it was a shockingly modest refresh after nearly 8 years and what happened? Sales almost doubled in 2012! My point is that it's not that hard, a new front end, some cosmetic interior changes and a fancier CD player and if doubled product sales. Why didn't they do that at any time in the preceding few years? They were simply working too hard trying to squeeze blood from stone. At the risk of being influenced by survivorship bias, Apple under Jobs is the counter argument to this. It's an example of what happens when you ruthlessly pour resources into keeping products fresh. But somehow this lesson seems to escape so many product companies (tech or other industry). Perhaps a better non-tech example is Coca-cola. Sure it's more or less the same product, but Coke spends extraordinary amounts of money keeping their brand fresh, slight changes in bottle shape, even slighter changes to the logo and packaging, effectively putting a new front-end on their product. It's one of the most valuable brands in the world.

nbouscal 14y ago

Exactly. Salespeople fundamentally do not create. For those of us who are in technology not to build a 'successful' company or pad our bank accounts, but rather to create new things, none of what this guy is talking about really has any relevance.

chriswilliams 14y ago
Disagree. I have bills to pay, and this means selling.
- craigching 14y ago
  "Bills to pay" or whatever your motivation is, does not mean that's the best way to drive business in a software company. Sales is a required part of business and one driver of how products are developed, but if sales were the only driver of how products are developed, products would be one dimensional pretty quickly with tactical "if you do this, I can make this one sale" types of development features. You still need a robust product management team that is (hopefully) looking beyond current sales needs. Note, that's not always engineering, but sometimes it's hard to get product management looking beyond current sales needs, and therefore it does fall on engineering to do the strategic work. IMO, it doesn't matter who does the strategic work, sales, product management, or engineering, as long as someone is doing it.
- super-serial 14y ago
  Some people are different. For example - I work a $10/hr part-time job for bills. I could get a programming job since I have a CS degree and a few years development experience... but instead I choose to work a non-programming part-time job while coding my startup. I've been coding it for 6 months without showing anyone my demo. (it's a big project) If I get investors this summer or not... I'm committed to "my vision" for the next 3 years. Bills aren't too hard to pay if you live minimally. (e.g. I don't own a cellphone) "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life. All that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." - Albert Einstein
- nbouscal 14y ago
  I have bills to pay too, but I try very hard to prevent them from being the motivating factor in my life. If I am living to pay my bills, then I am living my life in a wrong fashion. Creation is one of the most important and fulfilling activities that I know. Pursuing that activity for the sole purpose of paying bills seems to me such a great perversion that I would rather not create at all. Being paid for my work is fine and good, but working only for the sake of being paid? No. I would rather be poor. (I imagine that this may be perceived as an extreme stance. To that I can only say: “It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” - Jiddu Krishnamurti)

bane 14y ago

A lot of world changing companies out there started without a business plan, much less a sale. It was about trying to see what could be done with X. Sales people don't get this. Tech is not only about making a quick buck, but about creating new things altogether. There's an interesting anti-pattern I see in business time and time again...it's the company that's run as follows: 1) Start with a successful product (regardless of how it happened to become successful) and put a top-tier MBA guy in charge 2) Slowly fire or alienate all of the engineers who had anything to do with the initially successful product (too expensive!), replace them with more sales guys and/or very cheap and incompetent "maintenance engineers" so abstract engineering vs. cost numbers can show diligent stewardship of the product 2b) Stop innovating entirely 3) Squeeze the product for cash like a vampire trying to squeeze blood from a stone 4) Eventually the product momentum runs out and the sales stop coming in Making a new product is both hard, and expensive, it's understandable that MBA types want to try and recoup that and make a multiplier on that initial investment. They're allergic to putting huge investments back in for a round 2 of innovation. It sometimes works (see Oracle), but usually ends up with a failed company being sold off for parts. Chrysler is a fantastic example, the First Generation 300 (2004) started out as a very popular car, selling over 110,000 copies in it's first year. A bad merger with Daimler-Benz later, Chrysler ended up in MBA-tastic Cerberus's hands in 2007. So what did they do with their almost 4 year old flagship that was selling over 120,000 copies a year? They let it sit for 2 more years. Nothing, no new models, no minor redesigns, no real updates. In 2008 sales were half, then in 2009 almost half again. It wasn't until 2011 that a new model finally came out, and it was a shockingly modest refresh after nearly 8 years and what happened? Sales almost doubled in 2012! My point is that it's not that hard, a new front end, some cosmetic interior changes and a fancier CD player and if doubled product sales. Why didn't they do that at any time in the preceding few years? They were simply working too hard trying to squeeze blood from stone. At the risk of being influenced by survivorship bias, Apple under Jobs is the counter argument to this. It's an example of what happens when you ruthlessly pour resources into keeping products fresh. But somehow this lesson seems to escape so many product companies (tech or other industry). Perhaps a better non-tech example is Coca-cola. Sure it's more or less the same product, but Coke spends extraordinary amounts of money keeping their brand fresh, slight changes in bottle shape, even slighter changes to the logo and packaging, effectively putting a new front-end on their product. It's one of the most valuable brands in the world.