Product Market Fit(kevinslin.com)
kevinslin.com
Product Market Fit
https://www.kevinslin.com/notes/htchyy536bb169mzu47ksb6/
79 comments
If you listen to Jensen Huang, founder on NVIDIA speak at Stanford about how NVIDA was able to succeed as a GPU company when there were many, many companies building graphics cards in the 90s, he has a single answer to the question "Perspective". Unfortunately I can no longer find the video of this lecture. I've tried for months now. I watched it about 10 years ago online and this statement about perspective always stuck with me. He basically says that NVIDIA's/his unique perspective on the graphics chip market and where it was going was what allowed nvidia to succeed in the market where others would fail.
The unique insight the founder brings is what differentiates them from other founder/teams going after the same market at the same (right) time.
I am not sure what you mean by "market is too efficient", but the market chooses your product because it built with the unique insight that makes it the preferred choice among other choices that were built with less superior insights. If you mean that all companies collapses on the same "efficient" product, this just isn't true. Businesses are not efficient in this regard and are actually very stubborn. Usually by the time it's given that one insight was critical, the company that began with it has an insurmountable lead.
EDIT: I found the video. It even has a labelled section called "perspective and why it matters". My memory was bad and that he was using yahoo and search engine as an example here. But the point stands. Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn1EsFe7snQ
EDIT EDIT: He does follow on to talk about GPUs and competition in 1995 and why perspective matters. My memory is on point. Phew. Such a good video. Watching again.
The unique insight the founder brings is what differentiates them from other founder/teams going after the same market at the same (right) time.
I am not sure what you mean by "market is too efficient", but the market chooses your product because it built with the unique insight that makes it the preferred choice among other choices that were built with less superior insights. If you mean that all companies collapses on the same "efficient" product, this just isn't true. Businesses are not efficient in this regard and are actually very stubborn. Usually by the time it's given that one insight was critical, the company that began with it has an insurmountable lead.
EDIT: I found the video. It even has a labelled section called "perspective and why it matters". My memory was bad and that he was using yahoo and search engine as an example here. But the point stands. Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn1EsFe7snQ
EDIT EDIT: He does follow on to talk about GPUs and competition in 1995 and why perspective matters. My memory is on point. Phew. Such a good video. Watching again.
Thanks for sharing, really curious to watch the video now. What I’m wondering before I do, though, is whether this isn’t that just an instance of survivorship bias? If there was another winner in the GPU space, you could be sharing video of someone else’s unique perspective, no?
Related, there was a rather interesting episode in the Netflix documentary about gaming industry history (High Score, E4 This is War). The episode is about Sega console and how it succeeded over Nintendo and others. It shows the strategy of the Sega CEO and I’ve wondered since then if the strategy of the CEO was just his genius, luck of the market circumstances, or just survivorship bias.
Related, there was a rather interesting episode in the Netflix documentary about gaming industry history (High Score, E4 This is War). The episode is about Sega console and how it succeeded over Nintendo and others. It shows the strategy of the Sega CEO and I’ve wondered since then if the strategy of the CEO was just his genius, luck of the market circumstances, or just survivorship bias.
What a great video. We need more like these, direct founder perspectives with no bullshit. Any other examples you like?
> I'm fairly convinced that unique insight is just a VC pitch thing
Ask HN: do the great majority of competitors improperly understand the core insights behind a product?
When I have been involved with successful products in the past, most competitors were ineffective because to me it seemed they missed something critical to the success of our product. Effective competitors are rare in my experience. Are startups in this decade better at grokking the core insights and improving upon that? Disclaimer: my experience is in the wopwops on the edge of the world (New Zealand), and I am also out of date.
Also, it is my impression that what everyone “knows” is important to a product market is often well off the mark (morphic-resonance gone wrong ;-). If lucky, we all finally catch up with the insight that a founder had, but only after the insight has lost its unique value (maybe a few years). The cliché of yelling a valuable idea and nobody hearing it (part of the insight’s value is often that it is misunderstood - sometimes even though it has already been proven valuable!).
Obviously the only competitor that would matter is the one that understood the insights. But does that competitor always exist… In a complex dynamic market the efficient market theory is wrong in practice I believe.
Ask HN: do the great majority of competitors improperly understand the core insights behind a product?
When I have been involved with successful products in the past, most competitors were ineffective because to me it seemed they missed something critical to the success of our product. Effective competitors are rare in my experience. Are startups in this decade better at grokking the core insights and improving upon that? Disclaimer: my experience is in the wopwops on the edge of the world (New Zealand), and I am also out of date.
Also, it is my impression that what everyone “knows” is important to a product market is often well off the mark (morphic-resonance gone wrong ;-). If lucky, we all finally catch up with the insight that a founder had, but only after the insight has lost its unique value (maybe a few years). The cliché of yelling a valuable idea and nobody hearing it (part of the insight’s value is often that it is misunderstood - sometimes even though it has already been proven valuable!).
Obviously the only competitor that would matter is the one that understood the insights. But does that competitor always exist… In a complex dynamic market the efficient market theory is wrong in practice I believe.
I linked a video below of Jensen Huang founder of NVIDIA speaking at Stanford. He says at one point in the 90s there were 100s of companies in their space and he goes on to list a series of unique insights/perspectives they had that led to become the last one standing. NVIDIA understood the insights that mattered.
I would say a more modern example of this the insight that to build the best mobile phone product, you need to design the hardware, operating system and APIs (and thus first party apps) together as a single thing. Apple brought this insight from their past experience building less sophisticated computers. They knew a phone given it's size and use case would require this to an even _greater_ degree.
Google on the other hand, based on their experience of working in open ecosystems and linux machines from server to desktop, thought the phone market would extend from an open OS platform. This was their perspective/insight.
Ultimately, the company that won this argument was Apple. We know this because Google has finally adopted this truth that Apple knew all along with the Pixel hardware lineup. Furthermore, the Android phones that succeeded today have nothing to do with the fact they are "Android". Samsung phones are about the Samsung ecosystem. Choosing Android is more important to the OEM than the user because of the app ecosystem that cannot be bootstrapped from scratch any more. Android is the developer/oem platform, not the user platform.
Now, think about how long it took Google to finally give in to that insight? These perspectives lead to very stubborn decision making. This perspective was often a debatable thing for a long time. It's no longer. Hence I think everything you said here is right and aligned what what we see in one of the biggest product categories on the planet right now.
I would say a more modern example of this the insight that to build the best mobile phone product, you need to design the hardware, operating system and APIs (and thus first party apps) together as a single thing. Apple brought this insight from their past experience building less sophisticated computers. They knew a phone given it's size and use case would require this to an even _greater_ degree.
Google on the other hand, based on their experience of working in open ecosystems and linux machines from server to desktop, thought the phone market would extend from an open OS platform. This was their perspective/insight.
Ultimately, the company that won this argument was Apple. We know this because Google has finally adopted this truth that Apple knew all along with the Pixel hardware lineup. Furthermore, the Android phones that succeeded today have nothing to do with the fact they are "Android". Samsung phones are about the Samsung ecosystem. Choosing Android is more important to the OEM than the user because of the app ecosystem that cannot be bootstrapped from scratch any more. Android is the developer/oem platform, not the user platform.
Now, think about how long it took Google to finally give in to that insight? These perspectives lead to very stubborn decision making. This perspective was often a debatable thing for a long time. It's no longer. Hence I think everything you said here is right and aligned what what we see in one of the biggest product categories on the planet right now.
> Ultimately, the company that won this argument was Apple. We know this because Google has finally adopted this truth that Apple knew all along with the Pixel hardware lineup.
I'm not convinced that Pixel hardware is anything other than reference designs: each device is developed from a clean slate and none sell in appreciable numbers
> Samsung phones are about the Samsung ecosystem.
What Samsung ecosystem? Samsung makes fantastic stand-alone hardware, but it's no ecosystem. No one buys Samsung earbuds because they work particularly well with the Galaxy 22, or their calendar and music are already integrated with Bixby
I'm not convinced that Pixel hardware is anything other than reference designs: each device is developed from a clean slate and none sell in appreciable numbers
> Samsung phones are about the Samsung ecosystem.
What Samsung ecosystem? Samsung makes fantastic stand-alone hardware, but it's no ecosystem. No one buys Samsung earbuds because they work particularly well with the Galaxy 22, or their calendar and music are already integrated with Bixby
Pixel is not reference design. If you go any major city with mass transit, you’ll notice that Google has absolutely taken over physical advertising space with Pixel 7 spots. Watch any NBA game and you’ll see the same thing.
I understand why one would bucket Pixel hardware into that old played out “reference hardware”. That has been Google’s approach over the years.
But herein lies my point: Google has changed their tune. The top brass have now bought into the integration of hw, sw and services ecosystem that Apple had set out with from the get go. This isn’t some Googler asking Sundar for budget so they can make some vanilla smartphone. This is Sundar putting a stake in the ground with real long term budget to saying: 10 years from now, if we continue to execute on pixel, the US market and perhaps more will be a healthier mix of Apple and Google phones. And I think a reasonable target is like 2:1 iphone to Pixel.
Given the importance of the phone as the primary computing device in peoples lives and the amount of profit Google draws in from consumer computing activity, and the lack of leverage Google really has over other OEMs phones, it is super important for Google to eventually hit something like 2 iphones to 1 pixel in sales. Its no a long shot either. With enough money and time this will happen.
I understand why one would bucket Pixel hardware into that old played out “reference hardware”. That has been Google’s approach over the years.
But herein lies my point: Google has changed their tune. The top brass have now bought into the integration of hw, sw and services ecosystem that Apple had set out with from the get go. This isn’t some Googler asking Sundar for budget so they can make some vanilla smartphone. This is Sundar putting a stake in the ground with real long term budget to saying: 10 years from now, if we continue to execute on pixel, the US market and perhaps more will be a healthier mix of Apple and Google phones. And I think a reasonable target is like 2:1 iphone to Pixel.
Given the importance of the phone as the primary computing device in peoples lives and the amount of profit Google draws in from consumer computing activity, and the lack of leverage Google really has over other OEMs phones, it is super important for Google to eventually hit something like 2 iphones to 1 pixel in sales. Its no a long shot either. With enough money and time this will happen.
Does Google make the design files for the Pixel phones available to Android partners under NDA?
The value of a reference design is basically zero without the schematics/layout and BSP. Or do you just mean upstreaming BSP drivers?
The value of a reference design is basically zero without the schematics/layout and BSP. Or do you just mean upstreaming BSP drivers?
Schematics can be reverse-engineered in a few days, I suspect; there's no point to hide it.
The interesting part is the choice of components, the rationale behind that choice, and the software support.
I suppose that Google makes available the Android OS with support for all the new capabilities as they emerge (OLED, NFC, fingerprint scanners, etc) which OEMs can leverage with their hardware and closed-source software (both apps and drivers).
The Pixel line is the Google's vision of the platform, with Google's control over hardware implementation and a commitment to support it (longer than many OEMs but not nearly as great as iPhones).
The interesting part is the choice of components, the rationale behind that choice, and the software support.
I suppose that Google makes available the Android OS with support for all the new capabilities as they emerge (OLED, NFC, fingerprint scanners, etc) which OEMs can leverage with their hardware and closed-source software (both apps and drivers).
The Pixel line is the Google's vision of the platform, with Google's control over hardware implementation and a commitment to support it (longer than many OEMs but not nearly as great as iPhones).
“Reference design” is a term of art in electrical engineering, not aspirational product marketing. Reverse engineering 10-20 layer mixed signal PCBs with buried microvias is nontrivial and is the exact opposite of what reference designs are supposed to be.
> “Reference design” is a term of art in electrical engineering, not aspirational product marketing.
Root comment author here: I used the term mostly in mockery of the hobby-level effort Google has put into Pixel in the past. However, when it cones to Android devices the lines are blurred between "reference design" and "competitor flagship".
Consider:
* Android's roadmap is controlled by Google, which decides which features go into the next release. Once those features are in the codebase, they can be used by any OEM
* OHA OEMs get early access to upcoming Android versions and work with Google
* Android devices share the same set of suppliers for sensors/chips/SoC/modems: this is highly commoditized. Once the API & drivers for a feature are there, any OEM will have an easier time implementing it; perhaps choosing a different part number in the same product line.
So Google in not sharing its circuit diagrams & CAD files, but the OEMs don't have to reverse-engineer anything post-release either. The reality is someplace inbetween: cooperative development
Root comment author here: I used the term mostly in mockery of the hobby-level effort Google has put into Pixel in the past. However, when it cones to Android devices the lines are blurred between "reference design" and "competitor flagship".
Consider:
* Android's roadmap is controlled by Google, which decides which features go into the next release. Once those features are in the codebase, they can be used by any OEM
* OHA OEMs get early access to upcoming Android versions and work with Google
* Android devices share the same set of suppliers for sensors/chips/SoC/modems: this is highly commoditized. Once the API & drivers for a feature are there, any OEM will have an easier time implementing it; perhaps choosing a different part number in the same product line.
So Google in not sharing its circuit diagrams & CAD files, but the OEMs don't have to reverse-engineer anything post-release either. The reality is someplace inbetween: cooperative development
I assume people who own samsung phones and want a smartwatch buy a galaxy watch and not an apple watch. Or am I wrong about this?
A person who owns a Samsung phone gets the same functionality from any Wear OS watch, of which the Galaxy watch is one of many (the Pixel watch is just as compatible with their phone as a Galaxy watch). Google owns the ecosystem, Samsung has to rely on brand loyalty - not an ecosystem, because it doesn't have one, despite its years-long efforts (Samsung app Store, Bixby, and other duplicates to Google's services)
I think Samsung has a lot more power than you are suggesting here. Samsung is what ties together a Windows Laptop, an Android phone and a Tizen TV. As for wearOS I see your point with Google owning this compatibility layer, but it doesn’t carry much weight when there are a mere handful of devices to mix and match with. There is just not much leverage created out of spending the time and effort to make the ecosystem. How many combinations of Android TV products pair up with Android phones?
> Samsung is what ties together a Windows Laptop, an Android phone and a Tizen TV.
This is mostly hypothetical - does Samsung actually do that in practice? I haven't heard of anyone using -, nor am I aware of Samsung publicizing any such unifying services.
I own several Samsung devices, and have a Samsung account, and it is something of an annoyance to use. The power/potential is there no doubt, but services aren't a Samsung core competency.
This is mostly hypothetical - does Samsung actually do that in practice? I haven't heard of anyone using -, nor am I aware of Samsung publicizing any such unifying services.
I own several Samsung devices, and have a Samsung account, and it is something of an annoyance to use. The power/potential is there no doubt, but services aren't a Samsung core competency.
[deleted]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn1EsFe7snQ
Amazing video thank you. From ~2009 that keeps hammering the unique perspective topic, especially during formation in 1993 and change of focus in 1998. I would be interested to know which of the failed hundreds of competitors had the same “unique perspective”, but maybe just failed because another leg of the company was too weak.
Successful companies have a few core perspectives that they nail with A grades, but they have to get a C grade in all other areas of the business. It can take only one F grade in one topic to make a business fail. The meta-skill of recognising and fixing a critical failing is hard to learn.
Edit: I love Jen-Hsun’s definition of a startup starting about 57:50: a startup is an enterprise that is nearly out of business all the time.
Amazing video thank you. From ~2009 that keeps hammering the unique perspective topic, especially during formation in 1993 and change of focus in 1998. I would be interested to know which of the failed hundreds of competitors had the same “unique perspective”, but maybe just failed because another leg of the company was too weak.
Successful companies have a few core perspectives that they nail with A grades, but they have to get a C grade in all other areas of the business. It can take only one F grade in one topic to make a business fail. The meta-skill of recognising and fixing a critical failing is hard to learn.
Edit: I love Jen-Hsun’s definition of a startup starting about 57:50: a startup is an enterprise that is nearly out of business all the time.
Yes it would be interesting. 3DFX was the big 3D chip company at the time when NVIDIA was still in fight mode. I know this because I remember wanting a 3DFX Voodoo 2 card so badly. I just checked wiki and it sounds like 3DFX died due to mismanagement. In the chip industry missing timing or delivery of a product cycle or two at that stage would be deadly. So in the case of 3DFX the execution leg might just have been weak. Would be interesting to go back and analyze all of these company cases though.
Jen-Hsun interviews Morris Chang https://youtube.com/watch?v=u-x7PdnvCyI
Long interview, but I think it has moments where it reinforces the same concept that it is very difficult to copy a business, even if the CEO is directly telling you their secrets. Interesting interview - although exponentially above my pay grade.
Long interview, but I think it has moments where it reinforces the same concept that it is very difficult to copy a business, even if the CEO is directly telling you their secrets. Interesting interview - although exponentially above my pay grade.
> the market is too efficient for your 'unique insight' to really benefit you all that much beyond your Seed or Series A pitch
It feels like the HN community combines a poor understanding of economics with a religious-like capitalist zeal into beliefs that, at least to my eyes, appear absurd or even farcical.
Is everyone the same? Do they all have access to the same information at the same time? Do conditions never change in asymmetric ways?
It feels like the HN community combines a poor understanding of economics with a religious-like capitalist zeal into beliefs that, at least to my eyes, appear absurd or even farcical.
Is everyone the same? Do they all have access to the same information at the same time? Do conditions never change in asymmetric ways?
In my experience, the founder(s) are one of the few people who will be able to push and innovate as others start to copy you. I think PMF is a continuum and what is PMF for $1M ARR is highly unlikely to be sufficient to get you to $10M ARR which will require more evolution to get to $25M ARR.
Your argument is a “unique insight” isn’t enough to provide an enduring competitive advantage (or “moat”). But that’s not what the OP is talking about.
A unique insight (and great timing / market) is often enough to get to early PMF (and - like you mention - to Series A).
A unique insight (and great timing / market) is often enough to get to early PMF (and - like you mention - to Series A).
unique insights come from your perspective. It is your unique perspective which is a _factory_ for unique insights that allow you to solve a series of problems that hit your startup/company in succession. It is this durable perspective that has built up through long term experience that can't easily be copied/duplicated that makes you win a market.
Unique insight can also mean something that you deeply believe that isn't obvious on the surface. E.g. Doordash with their suburb strategy - I'm sure lots of other delivery companies heard about suburbs. None of them took it seriously enough to really invest heavily into suburbs. And, Doordash is now one of the top delivery companies.
Lower density means longer delivery trips and fewer orders delivered in one trip. It was (and still is) a higher-hanging fruit than delivery in dense cities, maybe requiring deeper pockets than, say, GrubHub / Seamless had.
> A big part of PMF is timing and luck - factors that are for most parts,out of your control. This is why even other founders that have found PMF are of limited help.
> What you can control is the market, your team, and the unique insight that you bring as the founder. Your job as a founder is to leverage these strengths to get to PMF.
How can you control the market? The market seems like a timing and luck factor that's outside of your control.
> What you can control is the market, your team, and the unique insight that you bring as the founder. Your job as a founder is to leverage these strengths to get to PMF.
How can you control the market? The market seems like a timing and luck factor that's outside of your control.
> How can you control the market?
I think the phrase "control the market" in it's classical definition: a monopoly. It means control the definition of the market. By "controlling the market" your set constraints that should make it easier to get the product right, and then easier to sell after launch.
> The market seems like a timing and luck factor that's outside of your control.
There's a lot that is outside of control in any startup, or for that matter, when you bring a new product to market in an established company. Some of it is luck. Some of it is being able to quickly iterate and improve. Some of it is having the capital to stay on the playing field long enough. The timing part is the hardest, and is so complex that it might as well be luck. In the end, you control what you can, and have to be ok with riding the trade-winds and current on the rest of it.
I think the phrase "control the market" in it's classical definition: a monopoly. It means control the definition of the market. By "controlling the market" your set constraints that should make it easier to get the product right, and then easier to sell after launch.
> The market seems like a timing and luck factor that's outside of your control.
There's a lot that is outside of control in any startup, or for that matter, when you bring a new product to market in an established company. Some of it is luck. Some of it is being able to quickly iterate and improve. Some of it is having the capital to stay on the playing field long enough. The timing part is the hardest, and is so complex that it might as well be luck. In the end, you control what you can, and have to be ok with riding the trade-winds and current on the rest of it.
They meant the vertical.
I guess you can control the markets you're focusing in - within reason. E.g. picking a particular sector to sell into. How much choice you get depends on the product you're building, so I suppose it's a bit circular.
Yea you can pick a sector to sell into. But any sector you sell into is constantly evolving. You need to correctly predict the direction things are moving in, which is somewhat a timing and luck factor.
It's possible that by both of us choosing ecommerce we are making PMF harder for ourselves. I remember selling Shopify circa 2017 was like the easiest job ever. I bet it is a lot harder for their sales team to hit it's number now. Similar for Covid induced mega growth followed by defunding of ecommerce projects.
Isn't Lean Startup and its derivatives about taking a systematic approach to going from cool idea but blind/no market, using Validated Learning to gain insight about a market, failing fast on what doesn't work, and (assuming you're in the ballpark of a viable market) move towards Product Market Fit? ie. not totally out of your control, nor totally within it.
Interesting that is now short-handed as Lean Startup. Steve Blank pioneered that formula in the 90s under the term "customer-driven development". But it seems he adopted the "lean" terminology over time, as well.
I think they mean you can control it by choosing where to play.
> Anything that is not in service of this does not matter in an early stage startup.
This is too true and something I didn't internalize fully until maybe 6 months into my startup. If you have PMF, people can help you with everything else. If you don't, no one can really do anything for you.
This is too true and something I didn't internalize fully until maybe 6 months into my startup. If you have PMF, people can help you with everything else. If you don't, no one can really do anything for you.
Even if you get PMF, you don't magically sustain it and extend it.
You need PMF and the business model*.
Example: Yahoo search had PMF. Google search had PMF paired with the winning business model.
*and much more, depending on your addressable market and aspirations...but PMF and business model are two legs of your stool
You need PMF and the business model*.
Example: Yahoo search had PMF. Google search had PMF paired with the winning business model.
*and much more, depending on your addressable market and aspirations...but PMF and business model are two legs of your stool
Also very true! PMF for dog-dating apps (intentionally bad example) is virtually useless. OTOH PMF in the database market is frickin amazing and you're likely drowning in revenue! As much as people don't want to believe it, TAM is a very very real in a startup's success.
> Also very true! PMF for dog-dating apps (intentionally bad example) is virtually useless. OTOH PMF in the database market is frickin amazing and you're likely drowning in revenue! As much as people don't want to believe it, TAM is a very very real in a startup's success.
TAM?
TAM?
market size, total addressable market
Yes! Decent execution (incl. your Go-To-Market strategy) combined with PMF = likely some success. Great attempts at execution combined with poor PMF = almost impossible.
I thought the whole point of product market fit was finding a product with a value proposition the market thought was worth paying for?
Relevant article on how to zero in on Product Market Fit:
https://review.firstround.com/how-superhuman-built-an-engine...
https://review.firstround.com/how-superhuman-built-an-engine...
Superhuman seems like an odd example because for an 8+ yr old startup it doesn't seem at all obvious that they have PMF yet.
Everyone I know tried Superhuman, thought the experience was cool, and then went back to their old inboxes because it turns out that shaving milliseconds off email workflows doesn't actually save that much time or materially change the experience. Maybe it’s game changing for EA type jobs where the day is primarily spent managing and navigating an inbox, but for the rest of us, that’s just not the case. Superhuman feels like a feature not a product.
Making an app you spend significant time in every day more useful & powerful can be a path to PMF (see Slack vs Hipchat, for example)
I’d argue Superhuman does have PMF - just in a smaller market of email power users.
I’d argue Superhuman does have PMF - just in a smaller market of email power users.
I'm seeing tons of ads on FB and wondering what the strategy is. If you have a waitlist of 400k prospective users, why advertise on FB?
A funny thing about this is there’s an obvious typo in the quote from Mark Zuckerberg. It says “Twitter is such as mess” rather than “a mess”. Searching for that quote finds a 2013 tweet from Benedict Evans containing the typo, quoting a review of the book “Hatching Twitter” which also has the typo.
That review describes a conflict between two of the founders which today I find baffling: “Dorsey saw Twitter as a way to update one’s “status,” the ability to say what you’re doing the moment you’re doing it. Williams saw Twitter as a way to describe what’s happening in the world around you.”
https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/397814437014700032?...
https://allthingsd.com/20131104/in-hatching-twitter-a-billio...
That review describes a conflict between two of the founders which today I find baffling: “Dorsey saw Twitter as a way to update one’s “status,” the ability to say what you’re doing the moment you’re doing it. Williams saw Twitter as a way to describe what’s happening in the world around you.”
https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/397814437014700032?...
https://allthingsd.com/20131104/in-hatching-twitter-a-billio...
Feels like an overstatement to say that the only thing that matters is Product Market fit.
Product market fit is certainly necessary but its not sufficient. Actually building and supporting the product (which includes culture, hiring etc) better than the competition also counts. FB vs Myspace could be an example.
Product market fit is certainly necessary but its not sufficient. Actually building and supporting the product (which includes culture, hiring etc) better than the competition also counts. FB vs Myspace could be an example.
I think the point is: If you had no abilities, and only f*cked stuff up without outside help, but you had solid product market fit, that's the only thing that matters because everything else you can acquire (including funds to compensate for your shortcomings).
At first it does sound wrong, but as I think back to all successful people I've known, including the ones that I could not for the life of me figure out how they got more success than I (eg, grade school dropouts, alcoholics, etc), I _can_ see how they leveraged an insight about PMF to achieve many things that I've always wanted and never achieved for myself. Very enlightening, but still kinda sad, actually, lol.
At first it does sound wrong, but as I think back to all successful people I've known, including the ones that I could not for the life of me figure out how they got more success than I (eg, grade school dropouts, alcoholics, etc), I _can_ see how they leveraged an insight about PMF to achieve many things that I've always wanted and never achieved for myself. Very enlightening, but still kinda sad, actually, lol.
Product-market-fit is also not everlasting. Especially in the tech industry, things change really fast and even if you achieve a strong fit 1 time, you need to adapt over time or you become irrelevant.
> Conversely, you can do everything right but if you don't have PMF, it doesn't matter (eg. Google Wave).
Google Wave did everything right, but had no PMF?
Maybe I’m seriously misremembering things (very possible), but didn’t they have a product that many people thought was an amazing idea with many uses, yet the UX and UI were so bad that it never got traction? That sounds more like having decent PMF, but doing things wrong.
Google Wave did everything right, but had no PMF?
Maybe I’m seriously misremembering things (very possible), but didn’t they have a product that many people thought was an amazing idea with many uses, yet the UX and UI were so bad that it never got traction? That sounds more like having decent PMF, but doing things wrong.
Fun fact. We at AirGradient never had to find PMF.
Why was that?
Because the first 9 months it was a volunteer project fixing the air quality problem of the school our kids go to. During the so called "burning season" the school did not know if the air purifiers in the classrooms can keep up.
So we developed a solution tackling exactly this problem spending many many days on campus and talking to teachers, administration, parents and operations.
So instead of starting with an IDEA of a product/service, we started focusing 100% on fixing an existing massive PROBLEM on the ground.
Another thing that worked for us was to early on offer an open-source version of our air quality monitor [1] that allowed us to see what adjustments the community came up with - as in many cases these adjustments made the monitor fit better to problems we might not have been aware of. So basically a kind of community driven market fit.
[1] https://www.airgradient.com/open-airgradient/kits/
Why was that?
Because the first 9 months it was a volunteer project fixing the air quality problem of the school our kids go to. During the so called "burning season" the school did not know if the air purifiers in the classrooms can keep up.
So we developed a solution tackling exactly this problem spending many many days on campus and talking to teachers, administration, parents and operations.
So instead of starting with an IDEA of a product/service, we started focusing 100% on fixing an existing massive PROBLEM on the ground.
Another thing that worked for us was to early on offer an open-source version of our air quality monitor [1] that allowed us to see what adjustments the community came up with - as in many cases these adjustments made the monitor fit better to problems we might not have been aware of. So basically a kind of community driven market fit.
[1] https://www.airgradient.com/open-airgradient/kits/
Sounds like textbook talk to the customer, solve a real problem, product market fit stuff.
Your comment seems orthogonal to the point made in the article.
PMF is when your customers push or pull you along, helping accelerate your product into a market. Lack of PMF is when you are trying to push your customers - no acceleration - no help from customers.
PMF is when your customers push or pull you along, helping accelerate your product into a market. Lack of PMF is when you are trying to push your customers - no acceleration - no help from customers.
I would really like to understand your comment but I am not sure what you mean with "orthogonal" in this context. Could you please explain more?
Our customer which was the school having this problem we tried to fix pulled us in and then along and we had constant interaction with them until our Product fit that Market (the school).
Our customer which was the school having this problem we tried to fix pulled us in and then along and we had constant interaction with them until our Product fit that Market (the school).
Sorry. On rereading your comment I think you are saying you have PMF, and just giving your own example? Maybe I misread you, but it is not clear that you are saying you have PMF. Or are you just saying you have a little? Having customers is not necessarily PMF.
My misreading was mostly that your comment began on the topic of your first customer. One customer would not usually be called a market? Oddly, you then did a similar thing in your reply “our customer” and “that Market (the school)”.
I mostly wanted to play with the metaphor: “PMF is when your product is pushed by a crowd of customers, a herd, almost uncontrollable. Sometimes going with the crowd is surprising and productive, and sometimes you have to try your hardest to go your own desired direction against the flow”.
“Orthogonal” meant going off on a tangent to the core topic - maybe “peripheral” as a synonym (odd that my chosen words also have STEM meanings). Your comment feels a bit like a self-promotion. To reply to the core topic of the article would be to discuss “chasing the boulder”. This comment has also drifted along another different dimension, sorry.
My misreading was mostly that your comment began on the topic of your first customer. One customer would not usually be called a market? Oddly, you then did a similar thing in your reply “our customer” and “that Market (the school)”.
I mostly wanted to play with the metaphor: “PMF is when your product is pushed by a crowd of customers, a herd, almost uncontrollable. Sometimes going with the crowd is surprising and productive, and sometimes you have to try your hardest to go your own desired direction against the flow”.
“Orthogonal” meant going off on a tangent to the core topic - maybe “peripheral” as a synonym (odd that my chosen words also have STEM meanings). Your comment feels a bit like a self-promotion. To reply to the core topic of the article would be to discuss “chasing the boulder”. This comment has also drifted along another different dimension, sorry.
Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, we believe we have PMF and I wanted to illustrate with an example that we did not have any issues with 'finding' it because we had the problem to solve - even before we decided that this could be a product/startup.
Too often I see people asking "give me an idea for a startup" but in reality it should be the opposite way "give me a problem to solve".
Yes, one customer is not necessarily a market but in most cases the problem that one customers faces is not isolated and if it is faced by a multitude of customers I believe you can call it a 'market'.
Yes, we believe we have PMF and I wanted to illustrate with an example that we did not have any issues with 'finding' it because we had the problem to solve - even before we decided that this could be a product/startup.
Too often I see people asking "give me an idea for a startup" but in reality it should be the opposite way "give me a problem to solve".
Yes, one customer is not necessarily a market but in most cases the problem that one customers faces is not isolated and if it is faced by a multitude of customers I believe you can call it a 'market'.
you're describing how most startups are founded: find a problem, build a solution, find users. from what you're describing you're doing an excellent job at it.
PMF is only needed when you're trying to build a certain type of company. if your goal is to build the next AirBnB or Coinbase, then you absolutely need it. if not, then you might not need it. you can build a "successful" company (in quotes because I learned that ppl define success wildly differently, sometimes) and wealth without needing PMF
PMF is only needed when you're trying to build a certain type of company. if your goal is to build the next AirBnB or Coinbase, then you absolutely need it. if not, then you might not need it. you can build a "successful" company (in quotes because I learned that ppl define success wildly differently, sometimes) and wealth without needing PMF
[deleted]
What was product market fit called before the new wave of jargon took over? “Building shit people actually want”?
It was called "product market fit". Earliest mention was in 1972: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=product+market...
Building something people want is the first part of PMF. There's a big gap between "want" and "willing to pay for" and an even bigger gap between "willing to keep paying for". I think someone else here pointed out that PMF is an old phrase from the '70s.
Yea, so let's just say:
- It's nice
- It's useful
- It's something I depend on
- It's something my business depends on
The jargoning is just saying the simplest things. So OP's statement is on a spectrum where the axis variable is "how badly you want something". We need to cut all this startup bullshit and just speak simply. Steve Jobs did that well.
- It's nice
- It's useful
- It's something I depend on
- It's something my business depends on
The jargoning is just saying the simplest things. So OP's statement is on a spectrum where the axis variable is "how badly you want something". We need to cut all this startup bullshit and just speak simply. Steve Jobs did that well.
Product market fit is the context of an investible startups is quite different. You can always build shit people want. For eg. A static website hosting you know that market exists. But in case of an investible startups, you have a product hypothesis that has never been tested ever, validating the tech that is new, innovative gtm motion and business. The point I'm trying to make is the question whether the market exists for the idea is validated which is where the opportunity lies.
Even for static website hosting, it's unclear if a given product has market fit. Some other host could be well-known, strictly cheaper, more reliable and "better" in all ways customers care about.
The product that loses on all dimensions is unlikely to find a market fit, even if it would have been competitive ten years ago.
The product that loses on all dimensions is unlikely to find a market fit, even if it would have been competitive ten years ago.
It's been called that for a long time...
[deleted]
I highly recommend Ty Webb's talk on PMF.
Is this a joke reply? All I could find on Ty Webb is a bunch of Caddyshack references (I can't stand golf, so was clueless). Can you provide a link to the talk you're talking about?
Sadly I don't have a link. Not sure if there is one (https://twitter.com/breckyunits/status/1583587203338280961)
Do you have a link where to find the talk?
Sadly I don't. Not sure if there is one (https://twitter.com/breckyunits/status/1583587203338280961)
Agree with everything here except (maybe I'm contrarian) the 'unique insight that you bring as the founder' part. I'm fairly convinced that unique insight is just a VC pitch thing. In reality, the market is too efficient for your 'unique insight' to really benefit you all that much beyond your Seed or Series A pitch. There will almost certainly be plenty of competitors ripping you off and at least one or two funded by other top-tier VCs. If the only thing you have different is your 'authentic unique insight', you're going to lose anyway.