11 ms·

Looking through the list, it seems to me like a good 90% of these (if not more) can be summarised as "lack of product-market fit", meaning that they blew their

by jdimov9 11y ago

Looking through the list, it seems to me like a good 90% of these (if not more) can be summarised as "lack of product-market fit", meaning that they blew their money on building something that nobody wants. Anyone notice anything else standing out?

hharnisch 11y ago
> "focused on engineering first & customers second" Not so much on this list, but one I've heard repeatedly for Bay Area startups.
- eastbayjake 11y ago
  I'm an engineer and I'm incredibly frustrated by this. There are so many companies for whom "running lean" means "be ready to pivot at any moment" instead of "find paying customers and build the thing they want how they want it". I know there's a lot of grumbling on here when sales teams promise products that aren't built yet, but I'd rather build a product with an actual end-user case than a product with a hypothetical customer that no one may ever end up using. (It's also the reason I hate "stealth" startups -- your idea isn't unique, and if you think your competitive advantage is the element of surprise instead of implementation then you're in for a bad time.) Any other engineers in the same boat?
  - mgkimsal 11y ago
    sort of, except there's still a problem of building things people ask for vs building things paying customers ask for. And until you've got paying customers, everyone is a potential paying customer, and trying to discern what specifics to build to get the payments coming in... it's difficult. Not impossible, certainly, but it also gets very easy for people to dismiss good input from potential customers by saying it's not part of the "vision". There's a tough balance to strike there, and it's been compounded (imo) by half the founders out there thinking they're steve jobs, and focusing on their own vision of things above all else. I'm heartened by this autopsy.io site, hoping it grows, as it can be a place where failure can be reviewed and lessons can be learned, directly from the horses' mouths, so to speak. Failure gets swept under the rug too much, and I think we're seeing a bit of shifting in that area, to start acknowledging it publicly. I have met 2 of the founders in this list personally, and was a bit surprised by the stories - not entirely, there's nothing earth-shattering in the details - but still surprised to see the shutdowns.
- tonyhb 11y ago
  I think that, boiled down, it down it's part of the same problem. Lack of traction comes from poor focus on customers — whether that's marketing, feedback, or strategy. Without that pure focus on your paying customers you can't iterate and create a great product.
imaginenore 11y ago
I see a few "we weren't in love with the idea or market", which I feel is bullshit. You can hate lemonade, but can still make money selling it.
- AdamFernandez 11y ago
  Yes you can, if your primary motivation is making money and having a successful 'business' (business type or market is irrelevant to people with that motivation). You can definitely be successful with that strategy. But for many, loving the idea, or 'passion', is requisite for the amount of time and hard work it will take to succeed.
- beat 11y ago
  You don't have to be in love with the idea or the market, but you have to be in love with something. Otherwise, you might as well just get a day job.
- k__ 11y ago
  So why do a risky thing like startup if you hate it? I can understand that many people working for McDonalds hate their job, but it's no risky task, just quick money.
- blazespin 11y ago
  Absolutely, but your not going to put more than 8 hours a day into it. If that.
- chrisduesing 11y ago
  That is code for "wow, this is way more work than I thought it was going to be."
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  I've seen this all too often with co-founders I've had in the past (which didn't work out). They first love the idea and work on it with lots of passion. As soon as they need to do the boring work (IE: 90% of the hard work involved in any business), interest is lost and they want to quit. I call these people employees because they aren't willing to do what it takes to build and maintain a business.
Disruptive_Dave 11y ago
I've been working on my own version of this, "a business guy's take on 100 startup postmortems". The results (thus far) fall in line with what you're picking up. As I told a programmer friend recently, you don't see too many failed startups saying they just couldn't get the code right so they had to shut down. More often than not it's about product/market fit, growth/traction, and sales. (Another reason why aggressively code-focused startups typically irk me...while also presenting a great opportunity for guys like to me to make some money.)
- narrator 11y ago
  I think Friendster was a case of the company failing because they couldn't get the code right. Same goes for all the search companies that lost out to Google.
badclient 11y ago
I'm a bit tired of seeing "product-market fit" over simplified in posts such as yours. In reality, product market fit isn't black and white. Even when you build something that people want, you might not have product market fit. Even when you've built something that nobody wants right now, you may have still product market fit. And then there are a billion shades in between. We should talk about nuances of why startups failed. Otherwise, "lack of product market fit" is just jargon for "we failed." Of course, we already know they failed. And since they are startups, they probably didn't fail with millions in revenue.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  I think though that it's a good general term that distinguishes from the failure modes of: The technology never worked, founders/personal issues, priced incorrectly, ran out of money etc... It tells you that they might have had a great team and great technology but had no clue how to sell it. Selling being something that the technology crowd loves to hate (myself included) it really drives home that marketing really does matter.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    I think though that it's a good general term that distinguishes from the failure modes of: [...] priced incorrectly, ran out of money etc... I'm not sure it makes sense to separate a concept like product-market fit from a concept like "correct" pricing. Changing the price point significantly may dramatically affect the market you're aiming at and the expectations of that market. Your product might have mass appeal but only as a casual/impulse purchase (typical mobile app). Your product might have only niche appeal but to the right market of people who appreciate it, it could be worth a fortune (original works by famous artists sometimes sell for more money than most of us will earn in a lifetime). To make things more challenging, it can also be relatively difficult to test different pricing levels.
blazespin 11y ago
So, traction is a huge indicator of likely success.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  I'd say if you really do have solid, sustained traction then you've basically already made it. The only question left is how successful you'll be. However, it's the thousand little details that go into gaining that traction in the face of diverse challenges that are probably more interesting if we're looking at this as a learning exercise. Why did a business that could have gained enough traction to succeed actually fail before that point? What could the leadership of that business have known earlier or done differently to change their fate?
josu 11y ago
Had the iPhone failed it would have fit perfectly in that category. In an alternate universe nobody wanted a huge display with no physical keyboard. When you introduce new products or services the market may or may not buy them, it's very difficult to predict beforehand. If your product is disruptive enough the market won't even exist, so you'll have to create it. If you fail it will be easy to blame it on "lack of product-market fit" but that will just be obvious. What else did fail? Why weren't these products able to create market demand?
- bcg1 11y ago
  Its not that hard to predict though, and if you can't... either the idea might not be developed enough or you may need to grow slow until you get real feedback/sales IMHO comparing some of these ideas to the iPhone is a copout. As a kid I watched Inspector Gadget and saw Penny's "computer book" and wanted one instantly. When I was older I watched Star Trek and they all had PADD (sp?) devices that were a large screen with no keyboard. iPhone wasn't a revolutionary new idea for which there was no demand... its just that Apple knew that the time was right and that they could technically pull it off. They certainly didn't just engineer the iPhone on a wing and a prayer hoping that they might figure out a business plan one day.
  - josu 11y ago
    >iPhone wasn't a revolutionary new idea for which there was no demand... its just that Apple knew that the time was right and that they could technically pull it off. They certainly didn't just engineer the iPhone on a wing and a prayer hoping that they might figure out a business plan one day. This also applies to Blackberry and Nokia, but they failed miserably. The reason why we don't see them on this list it's because they were well established companies, and they could afford failure. That's the main difference with a startup, you pull off a Maemo, a Newton or a Virtual Boy and that's it, you are done. And let's not forget about the ROKR E1. You make it look like the iPhone's success was a very predictable and obvious thing, but just take a look at the reviews from 2007.
    - brador 11y ago
infinitone 11y ago
As the saying goes... every company ever are in one stage or the other: before product-market fit and after product-market fit.
misterbee 11y ago
the term "product-market (mis)fit" means that the product failed to find its market, not that the product has no market. The term for that is "shitty product".

by jdimov9 11y ago

hharnisch 11y ago

> "focused on engineering first & customers second" Not so much on this list, but one I've heard repeatedly for Bay Area startups.

eastbayjake 11y ago
I'm an engineer and I'm incredibly frustrated by this. There are so many companies for whom "running lean" means "be ready to pivot at any moment" instead of "find paying customers and build the thing they want how they want it". I know there's a lot of grumbling on here when sales teams promise products that aren't built yet, but I'd rather build a product with an actual end-user case than a product with a hypothetical customer that no one may ever end up using. (It's also the reason I hate "stealth" startups -- your idea isn't unique, and if you think your competitive advantage is the element of surprise instead of implementation then you're in for a bad time.) Any other engineers in the same boat?
- mgkimsal 11y ago
  sort of, except there's still a problem of building things people ask for vs building things paying customers ask for. And until you've got paying customers, everyone is a potential paying customer, and trying to discern what specifics to build to get the payments coming in... it's difficult. Not impossible, certainly, but it also gets very easy for people to dismiss good input from potential customers by saying it's not part of the "vision". There's a tough balance to strike there, and it's been compounded (imo) by half the founders out there thinking they're steve jobs, and focusing on their own vision of things above all else. I'm heartened by this autopsy.io site, hoping it grows, as it can be a place where failure can be reviewed and lessons can be learned, directly from the horses' mouths, so to speak. Failure gets swept under the rug too much, and I think we're seeing a bit of shifting in that area, to start acknowledging it publicly. I have met 2 of the founders in this list personally, and was a bit surprised by the stories - not entirely, there's nothing earth-shattering in the details - but still surprised to see the shutdowns.
tonyhb 11y ago
I think that, boiled down, it down it's part of the same problem. Lack of traction comes from poor focus on customers — whether that's marketing, feedback, or strategy. Without that pure focus on your paying customers you can't iterate and create a great product.

imaginenore 11y ago

I see a few "we weren't in love with the idea or market", which I feel is bullshit. You can hate lemonade, but can still make money selling it.

AdamFernandez 11y ago
Yes you can, if your primary motivation is making money and having a successful 'business' (business type or market is irrelevant to people with that motivation). You can definitely be successful with that strategy. But for many, loving the idea, or 'passion', is requisite for the amount of time and hard work it will take to succeed.
beat 11y ago
You don't have to be in love with the idea or the market, but you have to be in love with something. Otherwise, you might as well just get a day job.
k__ 11y ago
So why do a risky thing like startup if you hate it? I can understand that many people working for McDonalds hate their job, but it's no risky task, just quick money.
blazespin 11y ago
Absolutely, but your not going to put more than 8 hours a day into it. If that.
chrisduesing 11y ago
That is code for "wow, this is way more work than I thought it was going to be."
paulhauggis 11y ago
I've seen this all too often with co-founders I've had in the past (which didn't work out). They first love the idea and work on it with lots of passion. As soon as they need to do the boring work (IE: 90% of the hard work involved in any business), interest is lost and they want to quit. I call these people employees because they aren't willing to do what it takes to build and maintain a business.

Disruptive_Dave 11y ago

I've been working on my own version of this, "a business guy's take on 100 startup postmortems". The results (thus far) fall in line with what you're picking up. As I told a programmer friend recently, you don't see too many failed startups saying they just couldn't get the code right so they had to shut down. More often than not it's about product/market fit, growth/traction, and sales. (Another reason why aggressively code-focused startups typically irk me...while also presenting a great opportunity for guys like to me to make some money.)

narrator 11y ago
I think Friendster was a case of the company failing because they couldn't get the code right. Same goes for all the search companies that lost out to Google.

badclient 11y ago

I'm a bit tired of seeing "product-market fit" over simplified in posts such as yours. In reality, product market fit isn't black and white. Even when you build something that people want, you might not have product market fit. Even when you've built something that nobody wants right now, you may have still product market fit. And then there are a billion shades in between. We should talk about nuances of why startups failed. Otherwise, "lack of product market fit" is just jargon for "we failed." Of course, we already know they failed. And since they are startups, they probably didn't fail with millions in revenue.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
I think though that it's a good general term that distinguishes from the failure modes of: The technology never worked, founders/personal issues, priced incorrectly, ran out of money etc... It tells you that they might have had a great team and great technology but had no clue how to sell it. Selling being something that the technology crowd loves to hate (myself included) it really drives home that marketing really does matter.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  I think though that it's a good general term that distinguishes from the failure modes of: [...] priced incorrectly, ran out of money etc... I'm not sure it makes sense to separate a concept like product-market fit from a concept like "correct" pricing. Changing the price point significantly may dramatically affect the market you're aiming at and the expectations of that market. Your product might have mass appeal but only as a casual/impulse purchase (typical mobile app). Your product might have only niche appeal but to the right market of people who appreciate it, it could be worth a fortune (original works by famous artists sometimes sell for more money than most of us will earn in a lifetime). To make things more challenging, it can also be relatively difficult to test different pricing levels.

blazespin 11y ago

So, traction is a huge indicator of likely success.

Silhouette 11y ago
I'd say if you really do have solid, sustained traction then you've basically already made it. The only question left is how successful you'll be. However, it's the thousand little details that go into gaining that traction in the face of diverse challenges that are probably more interesting if we're looking at this as a learning exercise. Why did a business that could have gained enough traction to succeed actually fail before that point? What could the leadership of that business have known earlier or done differently to change their fate?

josu 11y ago

Had the iPhone failed it would have fit perfectly in that category. In an alternate universe nobody wanted a huge display with no physical keyboard. When you introduce new products or services the market may or may not buy them, it's very difficult to predict beforehand. If your product is disruptive enough the market won't even exist, so you'll have to create it. If you fail it will be easy to blame it on "lack of product-market fit" but that will just be obvious. What else did fail? Why weren't these products able to create market demand?

bcg1 11y ago
Its not that hard to predict though, and if you can't... either the idea might not be developed enough or you may need to grow slow until you get real feedback/sales IMHO comparing some of these ideas to the iPhone is a copout. As a kid I watched Inspector Gadget and saw Penny's "computer book" and wanted one instantly. When I was older I watched Star Trek and they all had PADD (sp?) devices that were a large screen with no keyboard. iPhone wasn't a revolutionary new idea for which there was no demand... its just that Apple knew that the time was right and that they could technically pull it off. They certainly didn't just engineer the iPhone on a wing and a prayer hoping that they might figure out a business plan one day.
- josu 11y ago
  >iPhone wasn't a revolutionary new idea for which there was no demand... its just that Apple knew that the time was right and that they could technically pull it off. They certainly didn't just engineer the iPhone on a wing and a prayer hoping that they might figure out a business plan one day. This also applies to Blackberry and Nokia, but they failed miserably. The reason why we don't see them on this list it's because they were well established companies, and they could afford failure. That's the main difference with a startup, you pull off a Maemo, a Newton or a Virtual Boy and that's it, you are done. And let's not forget about the ROKR E1. You make it look like the iPhone's success was a very predictable and obvious thing, but just take a look at the reviews from 2007.
  - brador 11y ago

infinitone 11y ago

As the saying goes... every company ever are in one stage or the other: before product-market fit and after product-market fit.

misterbee 11y ago

the term "product-market (mis)fit" means that the product failed to find its market, not that the product has no market. The term for that is "shitty product".