Ask HN: Dear Non-tech founders, how do you build MVPs?
32 comments
I use Newsy to test things out initially. Newsy (https://www.newsy.co) is a tool that converts a domain name into a content-aggregator (i.e. Reddit clone). Here's what I've been doing.
1. I have an idea for an app. I buy a domain name.
2. Usually, I don't have much time to develop the domain. And while I'm doing all the market research, I plug my domain to Newsy. Newsy asks me to fill in some niche keywords which are related to my idea or startup I'm thinking of. So I type in "workout", "weight training", "workout training exercises".
3. Newsy will automatically find contents and create it (here's an example - security related - https://www.getinfosec.news)
4. It comes with sitemap, newsletter, Twitter integration to regularly post tweets. I also let a few of my colleagues know. Over the next few weeks, it builds traffic. It even gets some people sign up as a newsletter subscriber or member on my Newsy site. Sometimes, I post links on Reddit just to kickstart some traffic driving to my site. It works from time to time.
5. I let it run for about 2-3 months. By this time, I have ~30-50 users signed up with real email address. Now I can actually start emailing these users to find out more about the problem space that I want to solve.
Above process has been super interesting - if anything other than to make sure my newly bought domain is being used, not just sitting there idle. Hope that helps someone.
1. I have an idea for an app. I buy a domain name.
2. Usually, I don't have much time to develop the domain. And while I'm doing all the market research, I plug my domain to Newsy. Newsy asks me to fill in some niche keywords which are related to my idea or startup I'm thinking of. So I type in "workout", "weight training", "workout training exercises".
3. Newsy will automatically find contents and create it (here's an example - security related - https://www.getinfosec.news)
4. It comes with sitemap, newsletter, Twitter integration to regularly post tweets. I also let a few of my colleagues know. Over the next few weeks, it builds traffic. It even gets some people sign up as a newsletter subscriber or member on my Newsy site. Sometimes, I post links on Reddit just to kickstart some traffic driving to my site. It works from time to time.
5. I let it run for about 2-3 months. By this time, I have ~30-50 users signed up with real email address. Now I can actually start emailing these users to find out more about the problem space that I want to solve.
Above process has been super interesting - if anything other than to make sure my newly bought domain is being used, not just sitting there idle. Hope that helps someone.
In order:
3 if your background is sales.
2. no
1. otherwise
3 if your background is sales.
2. no
1. otherwise
Hi, we are a development team with a broad experience in building MVPs.
If you are interested you can reach out through my email on my profile page.
One option you might consider is learning to code yourself. I understand you may not have the time or desire to but if you did it would be much cheaper (and possibly faster. It's hard to hire devs right now, especially good ones)
As a founder you'll also have to give up coding eventually, so it's not like you have to become a shaolin master. Just good enough to make an MVP+
As a founder you'll also have to give up coding eventually, so it's not like you have to become a shaolin master. Just good enough to make an MVP+
Depends on what it is.
I understand that English may be your second language, but note that you are using a male pronoun (“him”), whereas presumably you would consider female technical cofounders. You could write that as “ask them to code”.
If it’s a web site you could make a start creating wireframes with balsamiq or mockups with figma.
If it’s a web site you could make a start creating wireframes with balsamiq or mockups with figma.
Could I please ask for some explanation of the multiple downvotes I've received here? I note the following:
1. I made my point politely, and constructively.
2. I did also offer an answer.
3. My point was not related to "preferred pronouns" or even "political correctness". It's simply a violation of basic avoidance-of-sexism principles to use a male pronoun in this situation, when a technical cofounder may be any gender. (It hasn't been acceptable to do that for several decades.)
1. I made my point politely, and constructively.
2. I did also offer an answer.
3. My point was not related to "preferred pronouns" or even "political correctness". It's simply a violation of basic avoidance-of-sexism principles to use a male pronoun in this situation, when a technical cofounder may be any gender. (It hasn't been acceptable to do that for several decades.)
> (It hasn't been acceptable to do that for several decades.)
Really? Gender neutral text is something recent for me, I'd say in the last 10 years. And most of what you can find around still use most of the time males as examples, as a default, etc. I'll add that "avoidance-of-sexism" could be seen as political correctness depending on who you're talking about.
I agree with the idea of gender-neutral text in general though.
Really? Gender neutral text is something recent for me, I'd say in the last 10 years. And most of what you can find around still use most of the time males as examples, as a default, etc. I'll add that "avoidance-of-sexism" could be seen as political correctness depending on who you're talking about.
I agree with the idea of gender-neutral text in general though.
In the culture's that I'm familiar (western anglophone) it's entirely unacceptable to use the word "him" for a putative technical cofounder that does not exist.
I've flagged this thread to give the moderators an opportunity to consider this data point; HN is a great community but I think that it is numerically male-dominated. That of course needn't necessarily translate into cultural problems but I am disappointed by the behavior of thread participants here.
I've flagged this thread to give the moderators an opportunity to consider this data point; HN is a great community but I think that it is numerically male-dominated. That of course needn't necessarily translate into cultural problems but I am disappointed by the behavior of thread participants here.
stop trying to control other peoples' actions such that they are in alignment with your political beliefs.
"entirely unacceptable" sounds very strong to me. The Wikipedia page on gender-neutral language has a point on avoiding "him" and the reference dates back from 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_language. But nothing on that page suggests something as strong as what you say. Same thing with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English#P.... The page suggests that there is an ongoing debate, but no answer is accepted by everyone. Perhaps your social circles don't reflect the whole western anglophone sphere?
Considering all of that, you unnecessarily said that English may not be the author's primary language, implying that their usage of "him" was only rooted in ignorance and couldn't be a deliberate choice. You said that you made your point "politely", but that isn't the case. I don't know if you acted in bad faith or in ignorance, but in both cases, you should try to be a bit more nice and open about how you approach people here.
I don't really get what you're trying to say with "I've flagged this thread to give the moderators an opportunity to consider this data point; HN is a great community but I think that it is numerically male-dominated. That of course needn't necessarily translate into cultural problems but I am disappointed by the behavior of thread participants here.". Are you disappointed because you got downvoted without any explanation? Or that people don't react as much as they should to the "him"? Or something else?
Considering all of that, you unnecessarily said that English may not be the author's primary language, implying that their usage of "him" was only rooted in ignorance and couldn't be a deliberate choice. You said that you made your point "politely", but that isn't the case. I don't know if you acted in bad faith or in ignorance, but in both cases, you should try to be a bit more nice and open about how you approach people here.
I don't really get what you're trying to say with "I've flagged this thread to give the moderators an opportunity to consider this data point; HN is a great community but I think that it is numerically male-dominated. That of course needn't necessarily translate into cultural problems but I am disappointed by the behavior of thread participants here.". Are you disappointed because you got downvoted without any explanation? Or that people don't react as much as they should to the "him"? Or something else?
> you unnecessarily said that English may not be the author's primary language
They wrote "Which one is easy?" when they meant to write "Which one is easiest?" or perhaps "easier". Given that, I certainly assumed English wasn't their first language. I honestly thought I was improving matters by leading with the possibility that English wasn't their first language, in order to avoid it seeming that non-English speakers were being battered for a mistake. I'm interested you perceived that as impolite or disingenuous; it wasn't the latter, although in retrospect, and given my priors, a semi-literate native English speaker is a distinct possibility.
> Are you disappointed because ...people don't react as much as they should to the "him"?
Yes, this.
It seems we just disagree. You may be right that I am overstating the case regarding all gender-specific language being "unacceptable", but on reading this particular example, my immediate reaction, which has not weakened in the ensuing discussion, is that it is entirely inappropriate. Perhaps I'm failing to recognize a nuance or finer distinction whereby I place this example in a different category from certain other examples of he/him. I didn't think it was the subject matter context, although that is worth noting. I.e. that the male-gendered language here hardly helps the undeniably undesirable proportions of men and women in technical roles.
They wrote "Which one is easy?" when they meant to write "Which one is easiest?" or perhaps "easier". Given that, I certainly assumed English wasn't their first language. I honestly thought I was improving matters by leading with the possibility that English wasn't their first language, in order to avoid it seeming that non-English speakers were being battered for a mistake. I'm interested you perceived that as impolite or disingenuous; it wasn't the latter, although in retrospect, and given my priors, a semi-literate native English speaker is a distinct possibility.
> Are you disappointed because ...people don't react as much as they should to the "him"?
Yes, this.
It seems we just disagree. You may be right that I am overstating the case regarding all gender-specific language being "unacceptable", but on reading this particular example, my immediate reaction, which has not weakened in the ensuing discussion, is that it is entirely inappropriate. Perhaps I'm failing to recognize a nuance or finer distinction whereby I place this example in a different category from certain other examples of he/him. I didn't think it was the subject matter context, although that is worth noting. I.e. that the male-gendered language here hardly helps the undeniably undesirable proportions of men and women in technical roles.
That may just be my experience online but generally outside of extreme example (in which I wouldn't include the original post), there is usually almost no correlation between the quality of English of one person and English being his first language or not. Again in my online experience, implying that someone isn't a native speaker is generally considered rude. That may just be a difference in our social circles, or me being in the minority though.
I think there is a difference between "This is not how you should speak English the language", and "The way you say things doesn't improve or even worsen the current proportions of men and women in tech.". I agree that we disagree on one point: I don't think the proportion itself is undesirable, what's undesirable for me is discrimination. If tech becomes a perfect environment in regards to discrimination and there is still a low proportion of women in it, it's totally fine for me. But if there is a ratio that's perfectly representative of the population and discrimination still exists, it isn't fine for me.
Outside of our differences in views, you're pushing a certain view of things and certain values, and not everyone might agree with this. A few people probably expressed that by a silent downvote. Some people may also think that you're derailling the conversation. A common response to that is that these kind of issues are really important and are always on topic, but not everyone agrees with this.
I think there is a difference between "This is not how you should speak English the language", and "The way you say things doesn't improve or even worsen the current proportions of men and women in tech.". I agree that we disagree on one point: I don't think the proportion itself is undesirable, what's undesirable for me is discrimination. If tech becomes a perfect environment in regards to discrimination and there is still a low proportion of women in it, it's totally fine for me. But if there is a ratio that's perfectly representative of the population and discrimination still exists, it isn't fine for me.
Outside of our differences in views, you're pushing a certain view of things and certain values, and not everyone might agree with this. A few people probably expressed that by a silent downvote. Some people may also think that you're derailling the conversation. A common response to that is that these kind of issues are really important and are always on topic, but not everyone agrees with this.
OK, well we've already derailed it so let's continue :)
> I don't think the proportion itself is undesirable, what's undesirable for me is discrimination. If tech becomes a perfect environment in regards to discrimination and there is still a low proportion of women in it, it's totally fine for me.
I think I can make you see that you don't actually hold that position.
Consider the following hypothetical world:
(1) From the age of 8, all girls are encouraged (by schools, family, and the rest of the cultural environment) to view their role in life as to have children and to eschew all intellectual activities. Girls who want to pursue academic interests are unhappy but nevertheless follow the societal pressure.
(2) From the age of 8, all boys are encouraged that their role in life is to study academic subjects with a view to making the world a better place.
Now fast forwards to considering technical roles in the adult workplace in this hypothetical world.
There will clearly be a huge disparity in representation of the sexes, and this remains true if we posit zero discrimination.
And yet, despite the absence of discrimination, the state of this world is clearly "undesirable": young women are being treated awfully and their ambitions are being utterly thwarted by what's happening when they are young.
So in fact, many possible versions of our universe exist in which a highly skewed numerical proportion itself is undesirable, because it indicates that something is wrong. Since we do not know a priori which version of the universe we are in (we are not omniscient; this is an inference problem), we acknowledge that, having eliminated discrimination, numerical proportions far from the biological 50:50 are undesirable in that they are statistically associated with regions of parameter space that describe undesirable societal/cultural processes.
> I don't think the proportion itself is undesirable, what's undesirable for me is discrimination. If tech becomes a perfect environment in regards to discrimination and there is still a low proportion of women in it, it's totally fine for me.
I think I can make you see that you don't actually hold that position.
Consider the following hypothetical world:
(1) From the age of 8, all girls are encouraged (by schools, family, and the rest of the cultural environment) to view their role in life as to have children and to eschew all intellectual activities. Girls who want to pursue academic interests are unhappy but nevertheless follow the societal pressure.
(2) From the age of 8, all boys are encouraged that their role in life is to study academic subjects with a view to making the world a better place.
Now fast forwards to considering technical roles in the adult workplace in this hypothetical world.
There will clearly be a huge disparity in representation of the sexes, and this remains true if we posit zero discrimination.
And yet, despite the absence of discrimination, the state of this world is clearly "undesirable": young women are being treated awfully and their ambitions are being utterly thwarted by what's happening when they are young.
So in fact, many possible versions of our universe exist in which a highly skewed numerical proportion itself is undesirable, because it indicates that something is wrong. Since we do not know a priori which version of the universe we are in (we are not omniscient; this is an inference problem), we acknowledge that, having eliminated discrimination, numerical proportions far from the biological 50:50 are undesirable in that they are statistically associated with regions of parameter space that describe undesirable societal/cultural processes.
I don't understand. On one hand you said that there is zero discrimination, on the other that "From the age of 8, all girls are encouraged (by schools, family, and the rest of the cultural environment) to view their role in life as to have children and to eschew all intellectual activities. Girls who want to pursue academic interests are unhappy but nevertheless follow the societal pressure.". Those two can't coexist together. "societal pressure" is an example of discrimination. Young women being treated awfully and their ambition being utterly thwarted is discrimination. I'll concede that I only said "in tech", and you could argue that in your hypothetical world the pressure/discrimination is here before tech. So I'll change my position from "If tech becomes a perfect environment in regards to discrimination and there is still a low proportion of women in it, it's totally fine for me." to "If society becomes a perfect environment in regards to discrimination and there is still a low proportion of women in tech, it's totally fine for me." to account for that.
> Since we do not know a priori which version of the universe we are in (we are not omniscient; this is an inference problem), we acknowledge that, having eliminated discrimination, numerical proportions far from the biological 50:50 are undesirable in that they are statistically associated with regions of parameter space that describe undesirable societal/cultural processes.
Would you apply the same reasoning to prisons then? I'm genuinly asking here. I often use prisons as an example against people that promote quotas and ratios, since at this point most of them try to explain how this is totally different and has nothing to do with wanting rations close to 50:50 in other domains. So I'm curious about your views on gender equality in prisons.
> Since we do not know a priori which version of the universe we are in (we are not omniscient; this is an inference problem), we acknowledge that, having eliminated discrimination, numerical proportions far from the biological 50:50 are undesirable in that they are statistically associated with regions of parameter space that describe undesirable societal/cultural processes.
Would you apply the same reasoning to prisons then? I'm genuinly asking here. I often use prisons as an example against people that promote quotas and ratios, since at this point most of them try to explain how this is totally different and has nothing to do with wanting rations close to 50:50 in other domains. So I'm curious about your views on gender equality in prisons.
I think you may be confusing me for someone who believes in 50:50 ratios for their own sake. I do not.
> Would you apply the same reasoning to prisons then?
In prisons I expect more male inmates for biological reasons: men are on average more inclined to commit imprisonable offenses.
Here is the model. It's the same for tech jobs and prisons:
1. A population of 50:50 red and blue things exists.
2. Some of them approach the gates. The ratio of red and blue approaching the gates may not be 50:50
3. Of those that approach the gates, a subset are admitted. The red/blue ratio among those admitted may again differ from those at the gates.
So there are two points at which the proportions change. At stage (2) we call this a "pipeline effect". At stage (3) we call this "discrimination".
In the case of both prisons and tech jobs, there is a large pipeline effect. Therefore, in neither case do we need to posit discrimination to explain skewed ratios behind the gates. Furthermore, we both agree that discrimination's not desirable. We don't need to consider it further.
The difference is that in the prison case, it is right and normal that the ratios approaching the gates should be different, because of human biology. Whereas in the tech case, it is more complex. Perhaps there are some biological differences making males more attracted to tech jobs. But there is also a huge cultural/environmental component: teenage girls are not attracted to tech at the same rates as teenage boys partly because of role models and societal norms.
A few years ago it became popular among progressives to repeat the mantra: "Don't blame it on the pipeline: the problem is discrimination". But of course, that was complete nonsense. As usual, left-wing progressives were unable to distinguish between a description of how they want the world to be versus a description of how the world is.
There is in fact an enormous "pipeline problem". In tech. But not so much in prisons with respect to sex. (Sure, there are some male groups in society that could probably benefit from some attention.)
> "societal pressure" is an example of discrimination.
So it looks like we have a terminology disagreement. Could I ask you to consider whether it might make more sense to make a verbal distinction between the pipeline effect (societal pressure) and discrimination?
> Would you apply the same reasoning to prisons then?
In prisons I expect more male inmates for biological reasons: men are on average more inclined to commit imprisonable offenses.
Here is the model. It's the same for tech jobs and prisons:
1. A population of 50:50 red and blue things exists.
2. Some of them approach the gates. The ratio of red and blue approaching the gates may not be 50:50
3. Of those that approach the gates, a subset are admitted. The red/blue ratio among those admitted may again differ from those at the gates.
So there are two points at which the proportions change. At stage (2) we call this a "pipeline effect". At stage (3) we call this "discrimination".
In the case of both prisons and tech jobs, there is a large pipeline effect. Therefore, in neither case do we need to posit discrimination to explain skewed ratios behind the gates. Furthermore, we both agree that discrimination's not desirable. We don't need to consider it further.
The difference is that in the prison case, it is right and normal that the ratios approaching the gates should be different, because of human biology. Whereas in the tech case, it is more complex. Perhaps there are some biological differences making males more attracted to tech jobs. But there is also a huge cultural/environmental component: teenage girls are not attracted to tech at the same rates as teenage boys partly because of role models and societal norms.
A few years ago it became popular among progressives to repeat the mantra: "Don't blame it on the pipeline: the problem is discrimination". But of course, that was complete nonsense. As usual, left-wing progressives were unable to distinguish between a description of how they want the world to be versus a description of how the world is.
There is in fact an enormous "pipeline problem". In tech. But not so much in prisons with respect to sex. (Sure, there are some male groups in society that could probably benefit from some attention.)
> "societal pressure" is an example of discrimination.
So it looks like we have a terminology disagreement. Could I ask you to consider whether it might make more sense to make a verbal distinction between the pipeline effect (societal pressure) and discrimination?
> The difference is that in the prison case, it is right and normal that the ratios approaching the gates should be different, because of human biology. Whereas in the tech case, it is more complex. Perhaps there are some biological differences making males more attracted to tech jobs. But there is also a huge cultural/environmental component: teenage girls are not attracted to tech at the same rates as teenage boys partly because of role models and societal norms.
That sounds right to me. Biological differences will mean that even if in general men and women are close, in extreme cases (ex: prisons), there will be a very large difference between men and women. I also think that "tech" in general is less extreme than prisons, and thus should have a lower difference in ratio than prisons. That assumption may be false though. But outside of tech, that reasoning would also explain for me why men are at top positions in society. It's not discimination or society, it's just that we're biologically different, and men show up at the extremes (prisons and the top).
> So there are two points at which the proportions change. At stage (2) we call this a "pipeline effect". At stage (3) we call this "discrimination".
> So it looks like we have a terminology disagreement. Could I ask you to consider whether it might make more sense to make a verbal distinction between the pipeline effect (societal pressure) and discrimination?
That's a fair distinction. If I understood correctly, your point is that if we only focus on discrimination without changing the culture, we can still have a pipeline problem? I think one of the thing causing confusion is that I was using "discrimination" in the neutral sense, whereas you were using it in the negative sense. For example, wikipedia has "Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.", which would be what I call "neutral discrimination". Google has "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.", which would be what I call "negative discrimination". I agree that making a distinction between neutral discrimination (societal pressure, pipeline effect) and negative discrimination is useful here.
So to restate my position, I think focusing on removing pipeline effect and negative discrimination is more important than focusing on having a 50:50 ratio at the end. But I think at this point we agree?
That sounds right to me. Biological differences will mean that even if in general men and women are close, in extreme cases (ex: prisons), there will be a very large difference between men and women. I also think that "tech" in general is less extreme than prisons, and thus should have a lower difference in ratio than prisons. That assumption may be false though. But outside of tech, that reasoning would also explain for me why men are at top positions in society. It's not discimination or society, it's just that we're biologically different, and men show up at the extremes (prisons and the top).
> So there are two points at which the proportions change. At stage (2) we call this a "pipeline effect". At stage (3) we call this "discrimination".
> So it looks like we have a terminology disagreement. Could I ask you to consider whether it might make more sense to make a verbal distinction between the pipeline effect (societal pressure) and discrimination?
That's a fair distinction. If I understood correctly, your point is that if we only focus on discrimination without changing the culture, we can still have a pipeline problem? I think one of the thing causing confusion is that I was using "discrimination" in the neutral sense, whereas you were using it in the negative sense. For example, wikipedia has "Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.", which would be what I call "neutral discrimination". Google has "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.", which would be what I call "negative discrimination". I agree that making a distinction between neutral discrimination (societal pressure, pipeline effect) and negative discrimination is useful here.
So to restate my position, I think focusing on removing pipeline effect and negative discrimination is more important than focusing on having a 50:50 ratio at the end. But I think at this point we agree?
> I think focusing on removing pipeline effect and negative discrimination is more important than focusing on having a 50:50 ratio at the end
Yes it sounds like we're in agreement. We both think the ratio in tech "should" be closer to 50:50 than it is, in the sense that we think that biological differences are not sufficiently pronounced to explain the currently observed skew, and we should get rid of the bad pipeline effects and negative discrimination.
> it's just that we're biologically different, and men show up at the extremes (prisons and the top).
I haven't said I agreed with this. I said men show up in prison for biological reasons, but I haven't said men show up at the top of technical subjects for biological reasons. Is your claim that men also show up more at the bottom of technical subjects for the same reasons? (and is that empirically true?)
Yes it sounds like we're in agreement. We both think the ratio in tech "should" be closer to 50:50 than it is, in the sense that we think that biological differences are not sufficiently pronounced to explain the currently observed skew, and we should get rid of the bad pipeline effects and negative discrimination.
> it's just that we're biologically different, and men show up at the extremes (prisons and the top).
I haven't said I agreed with this. I said men show up in prison for biological reasons, but I haven't said men show up at the top of technical subjects for biological reasons. Is your claim that men also show up more at the bottom of technical subjects for the same reasons? (and is that empirically true?)
What "No-code" platform? It makes no sense at all! First, you're extremely limited in what you can do. Second, in all these limitations, you are completely dependent on what someone else decides to create for you (or not). Just forget it.
It all depends on what you want to create. If your idea is relatively simple, like CRUD-based, you will do yourself a favor by trying to implement it yourself in something like Laravel or Django. These projects have huge communities with tons of modules. You don't have to be that "technical" to use them. Creating an MVP will give you a rough idea of the level of complexity and effort needed, and this will help you to make a decision about the actual implementation.
Besides, an experience you get while working on this MVP will make your next projects much easier. You will also understand your coding colleagues better and it will be difficult for you to be ripped off when outsourcing to another team.
It all depends on what you want to create. If your idea is relatively simple, like CRUD-based, you will do yourself a favor by trying to implement it yourself in something like Laravel or Django. These projects have huge communities with tons of modules. You don't have to be that "technical" to use them. Creating an MVP will give you a rough idea of the level of complexity and effort needed, and this will help you to make a decision about the actual implementation.
Besides, an experience you get while working on this MVP will make your next projects much easier. You will also understand your coding colleagues better and it will be difficult for you to be ripped off when outsourcing to another team.
Honestly here is what I would recommend:
1) if your app is more of an "app" - use a low code platform like bubble to develop the app. This will help you learn technical concepts and work out some of your idea.
2) if your idea is more "content based" (like blog or directory with filters), use Webflow
3) if your idea is a game, learn unity or unreal.
You basically have to become much more technical to be helpful to your startup at the beginning. I think "learning to code" is a good answer, but realistically if you want to sort of figure things out in the next 1-2 years, these other approaches are the best ones to work.
I also think you will have a dramatically easier time getting a technical co founder of you have a prototype, can share your vision, and also be a better product manager. It's very hard for completely non technical people to contribute to technical development.
1) if your app is more of an "app" - use a low code platform like bubble to develop the app. This will help you learn technical concepts and work out some of your idea.
2) if your idea is more "content based" (like blog or directory with filters), use Webflow
3) if your idea is a game, learn unity or unreal.
You basically have to become much more technical to be helpful to your startup at the beginning. I think "learning to code" is a good answer, but realistically if you want to sort of figure things out in the next 1-2 years, these other approaches are the best ones to work.
I also think you will have a dramatically easier time getting a technical co founder of you have a prototype, can share your vision, and also be a better product manager. It's very hard for completely non technical people to contribute to technical development.
'Be a better product manager' is key here. I would say if non-tech people have to learn one skill to manage a tech company it's learn product management. Then in my opinion any of the approaches will work.
Your clarity of thought and features and roadmap and scope is the most critical to building a good product. Very, very rarely can you outsource that.
Your clarity of thought and features and roadmap and scope is the most critical to building a good product. Very, very rarely can you outsource that.
[deleted]
Why do you want the easy option instead of the correct option considering long-term...which people here can provide you insight toward?
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Which one is easy?"
None of them.
I am sure you are an industrious hard worker. And to do this successfully, you need to expand your determination, resourcefulness, and sheer visceral grit far beyond what you have ever done before.
It is not easy. AND, you can do it, if you decide to.
Allow me to advise you: for each of these three options, write out all steps in the process of building an MVP through that method. As much detail as you can. Get to the point where you can imagine being successful using ANY of them. Then you will have clarity to choose.
And then: follow it to the end, regardless of what it asks of you. Then you will change your HN username. You will see yourself as a true entrepreneur; not because you want to be one, but because you KNOW you are.
Best of luck building your MVP. Keep at it, and you will be successful.
(Source: I am an entrepreneur who bootstrapped my company to 6-figs revenue while retaining 100% equity, expecting to break 7-figs in 2022, and believe I will reach 8 figs by 2023 or earlier.)
None of them.
I am sure you are an industrious hard worker. And to do this successfully, you need to expand your determination, resourcefulness, and sheer visceral grit far beyond what you have ever done before.
It is not easy. AND, you can do it, if you decide to.
Allow me to advise you: for each of these three options, write out all steps in the process of building an MVP through that method. As much detail as you can. Get to the point where you can imagine being successful using ANY of them. Then you will have clarity to choose.
And then: follow it to the end, regardless of what it asks of you. Then you will change your HN username. You will see yourself as a true entrepreneur; not because you want to be one, but because you KNOW you are.
Best of luck building your MVP. Keep at it, and you will be successful.
(Source: I am an entrepreneur who bootstrapped my company to 6-figs revenue while retaining 100% equity, expecting to break 7-figs in 2022, and believe I will reach 8 figs by 2023 or earlier.)
"expecting to break 7-figs in 2022, and believe I will reach 8 figs by 2023 or earlier"
That will be something and would love to learn why/how you think you can achieve that being bootstrapped. Going from 1M to 10M in 1 year being bootstrapped has to be something special. Not doubting but just wondering how you believe you can achieve this without funding/extra money ?
That will be something and would love to learn why/how you think you can achieve that being bootstrapped. Going from 1M to 10M in 1 year being bootstrapped has to be something special. Not doubting but just wondering how you believe you can achieve this without funding/extra money ?
Different business models have different capitalization requirements; some (e.g. a grocery store chain) are nearly impossible to rapidly scale without massive outside investment.
If a business model has (a) a high enough gross margin, and (b) good-enough intrinsic economies of scale, then by the time it reaches several $100k in revenue, there is a good chance it will be crystal clear how to scale up 7 and then 8 figures. And you will be sitting on a big enough pile of cash that there is no need to take outside funding to implement that. Many B2B SaaS business models in particular can find themselves in this excellent situation.
You can still take outside funding; after all, a growing business at that point is attractive to outside investors. But then it becomes a choice about growth rate in exchange for keeping equity and strategic control. I decided in my case it was completely unnecessary, so I am not doing it.
If a business model has (a) a high enough gross margin, and (b) good-enough intrinsic economies of scale, then by the time it reaches several $100k in revenue, there is a good chance it will be crystal clear how to scale up 7 and then 8 figures. And you will be sitting on a big enough pile of cash that there is no need to take outside funding to implement that. Many B2B SaaS business models in particular can find themselves in this excellent situation.
You can still take outside funding; after all, a growing business at that point is attractive to outside investors. But then it becomes a choice about growth rate in exchange for keeping equity and strategic control. I decided in my case it was completely unnecessary, so I am not doing it.
I would focus on what you bring to the table. If you’re able to drive sales for this idea, or come up with a compelling marketing plan to drive user acquisition, then you should have no trouble finding someone to make the app for you.
Depends on the scope of your MVP, but nowadays I would start in Bubble.io if it’s a web app or Adalo if going native.
Use the prototype you create there for validation and early traction, and then consider bringing that to a tech co-founder. It’s far easier to find a tech co-founder if you have shown the initiative to build a prototype and have early traction.
Note that none of your options are ‘easy’ per se - all three entail a lot of work…
Use the prototype you create there for validation and early traction, and then consider bringing that to a tech co-founder. It’s far easier to find a tech co-founder if you have shown the initiative to build a prototype and have early traction.
Note that none of your options are ‘easy’ per se - all three entail a lot of work…
I had the same question.
So I learned to develop web apps. Now I realize I wouldn't want a non-tech co-founder unless they have significant business experience.
So I learned to develop web apps. Now I realize I wouldn't want a non-tech co-founder unless they have significant business experience.
Would learn enough to code my mvp, getting a co-founder with tech experience is very tough if you have no leverage or ideas scratched out already.
No code is a way to achieve this but again i would recommend being a part of the process.
No code is a way to achieve this but again i would recommend being a part of the process.
1. Would you find a tech co-founder and ask him to code?
2. Would you use a No-code platform to build?
3. Would you outsource to a development team?