Signs that a startup is focused on stuff that doesn’t matter(groovehq.com)
groovehq.com
Signs that a startup is focused on stuff that doesn’t matter
https://www.groovehq.com/blog/startups-playing-startup
284 comments
>This is my opinion, and I know it won't be popular, [...] a startup is focusing on the wrong thing when: They're using the 'newest', most obscure, programming language or frameworks
I'm not sure where you get that idea that boring technology is a minority opinion. Your conservative approach favoring mature technology is a sentiment expressed by the majority and brought up repeatedly on HN as a highly upvoted point of pride. Examples:
577 points: Choose Boring Technology : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9291215
553 points: Happiness is a Boring Stack : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12788804
I have seen zero articles upvoted to the front page that make a case for using the latest whizbang tech stack for an "unscientific best reasons". (E.g. Rust is new ... but the front page articles on it are usually tutorials, proof-of-concept comparisons to C++, or something about DropBox using it in limited spots where Golang's memory footprint was unacceptable. I haven't seen any frontpage article proselytizing its use as a tech strategy to help a startup succeed or scale out.)
I'm not sure where you get that idea that boring technology is a minority opinion. Your conservative approach favoring mature technology is a sentiment expressed by the majority and brought up repeatedly on HN as a highly upvoted point of pride. Examples:
577 points: Choose Boring Technology : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9291215
553 points: Happiness is a Boring Stack : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12788804
I have seen zero articles upvoted to the front page that make a case for using the latest whizbang tech stack for an "unscientific best reasons". (E.g. Rust is new ... but the front page articles on it are usually tutorials, proof-of-concept comparisons to C++, or something about DropBox using it in limited spots where Golang's memory footprint was unacceptable. I haven't seen any frontpage article proselytizing its use as a tech strategy to help a startup succeed or scale out.)
Of course there's no blog post about how you should use a new piece of tech at your company because you saw a toy example of using it and like it - because when you put it that way it sounds ridiculous. Instead you have people posting toy examples of code that isn't used in production or is used in production for very specific reasons that usually don't apply, and other people thinking "hey that looks neat" and deciding to use it in production without doing actual analysis. See: the sharp rise of NoSQL and chase of "big (not actually big) data" starting ~7 years ago.
If this wasn't a phenomena then the posts you linked seem kinda pointless.
If this wasn't a phenomena then the posts you linked seem kinda pointless.
>, and other people thinking "hey that looks neat" and deciding to use it in production
That may actually happen but it's not relevant to my point.
I'm pointing out that exabrial presented his opinion about choosing "uncool" tech as if he was a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. He's not a lone voice.
Even though exabrial ran into a project apparently enamored by shiny new toys, that doesn't take away from the fact that the overwhelming popular opinion is to just use the older stuff.
For example, every time a thread about "Javascript fatigue" comes up, the HN commenters pile on complaining about the speed of change in the ecosystem and the flavor-of-the-week framework. No thread about new tech ever has "I'm going to use this brand new week-old framework in production!" as the top voted comment -- nor is there ever an article recommending such a strategy upvoted to the front page.
>If this wasn't a phenomena then the posts you linked seem kinda pointless.
They're not pointless but they may have been triggered by a sample size of one (Dan M. writing about regrets at Etsy) or zero projects (Jason Kester writing about what he hypothetically would do). Both those blog posts can be written for audience contemplation ... but ... simultaneously not an indicator about most of us being restless programmers trying to deploy shiny toys into production.
Based on those 2 blog posts (and many others like them), and the followup comments in HN threads overwhelmingly expressing the same conservatism, I'd say exabrial doesn't realize the majority actually agree with him.
That may actually happen but it's not relevant to my point.
I'm pointing out that exabrial presented his opinion about choosing "uncool" tech as if he was a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. He's not a lone voice.
Even though exabrial ran into a project apparently enamored by shiny new toys, that doesn't take away from the fact that the overwhelming popular opinion is to just use the older stuff.
For example, every time a thread about "Javascript fatigue" comes up, the HN commenters pile on complaining about the speed of change in the ecosystem and the flavor-of-the-week framework. No thread about new tech ever has "I'm going to use this brand new week-old framework in production!" as the top voted comment -- nor is there ever an article recommending such a strategy upvoted to the front page.
>If this wasn't a phenomena then the posts you linked seem kinda pointless.
They're not pointless but they may have been triggered by a sample size of one (Dan M. writing about regrets at Etsy) or zero projects (Jason Kester writing about what he hypothetically would do). Both those blog posts can be written for audience contemplation ... but ... simultaneously not an indicator about most of us being restless programmers trying to deploy shiny toys into production.
Based on those 2 blog posts (and many others like them), and the followup comments in HN threads overwhelmingly expressing the same conservatism, I'd say exabrial doesn't realize the majority actually agree with him.
I agree with your major point but not with your example. That just sounds like:
* "18..." -> JS Libraries?
* "certain version..." -> TypeScript / Babel?
* "another to run" -> CommonJS / SystemJS?
* "stylesheets were written" -> SASS / SCSS?
Bleeding edge syndrome is definitely a problem in technology but the opposite can be too. Not leveraging technologies that increase productivity and performance can be just as impactful. I'm not implying that you're doing that.
* "18..." -> JS Libraries?
* "certain version..." -> TypeScript / Babel?
* "another to run" -> CommonJS / SystemJS?
* "stylesheets were written" -> SASS / SCSS?
Bleeding edge syndrome is definitely a problem in technology but the opposite can be too. Not leveraging technologies that increase productivity and performance can be just as impactful. I'm not implying that you're doing that.
Most people outside the JS community look in with horror.
https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-160...
https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-160...
> You see the Node.js philosophy is to take the worst fucking language ever designed and put it on the server.
Had to laugh at that!
In the recent Westworld episode (S01E05), the lab tech was trying to program the bird's AI and his file was called "New Script.wws", where .wws is apparently "west world script".
Look here: http://i.imgur.com/oG9xM8o.png
Immediately, the thought crossed my mind, "Must be fucking JavaScript! No wonder the AI will soon start killing the humans" :-)
In my faux outrage, I went into theoretical scenarios of how exactly JS caused SkyNet. To be fair, once my flash of righteousness passed, I took a closer look and .wws looks nothing like JS. Also, there seems to be C or C++ on the LHS.
I still bet WWS is some kind of duck-typed shite that relies on the cult of TDD to keep the robots' behaviour safe.
checkNoKillMode(str). "Look, all my tests pass. We have 100% coverage".
Yeah, except when str == '', in which case it evals to false. Of course, there's no test case for that.
Had to laugh at that!
In the recent Westworld episode (S01E05), the lab tech was trying to program the bird's AI and his file was called "New Script.wws", where .wws is apparently "west world script".
Look here: http://i.imgur.com/oG9xM8o.png
Immediately, the thought crossed my mind, "Must be fucking JavaScript! No wonder the AI will soon start killing the humans" :-)
In my faux outrage, I went into theoretical scenarios of how exactly JS caused SkyNet. To be fair, once my flash of righteousness passed, I took a closer look and .wws looks nothing like JS. Also, there seems to be C or C++ on the LHS.
I still bet WWS is some kind of duck-typed shite that relies on the cult of TDD to keep the robots' behaviour safe.
checkNoKillMode(str). "Look, all my tests pass. We have 100% coverage".
Yeah, except when str == '', in which case it evals to false. Of course, there's no test case for that.
"You see the Node.js philosophy is to take the worst fucking language ever designed and put it on the server."
My theory is that there are many front-end designers that only know html, javascript, and css, and suggested javascript on the back-end, because they don't know any other language.
I've been a part of many of the javascript framework communities like Ember.js over the years and it's filled with designers, not developers.
But it also depends on your optimizations. If you are a small company, you want to focus on having a small footprint because server space costs more to you.
Large companies don't care about server space costs, because it's negligible compared to the cost of a developer salary and benefits. So, they would rather use a large and bloated framework that helps with productivity because less lines of code need to be written.
I've worked at a few large corporations that didn't get that much traffic. They all used enterprisey, inefficient, and bloated frameworks. Nobody really noticed because they could just throw some more hardware at it and the traffic to the site was fairly low.
My theory is that there are many front-end designers that only know html, javascript, and css, and suggested javascript on the back-end, because they don't know any other language.
I've been a part of many of the javascript framework communities like Ember.js over the years and it's filled with designers, not developers.
But it also depends on your optimizations. If you are a small company, you want to focus on having a small footprint because server space costs more to you.
Large companies don't care about server space costs, because it's negligible compared to the cost of a developer salary and benefits. So, they would rather use a large and bloated framework that helps with productivity because less lines of code need to be written.
I've worked at a few large corporations that didn't get that much traffic. They all used enterprisey, inefficient, and bloated frameworks. Nobody really noticed because they could just throw some more hardware at it and the traffic to the site was fairly low.
> I still bet WWS is some kind of duck-typed shite that relies on the cult of TDD to keep the robots' behaviour safe.
> checkNoKillMode(str). "Look, all my tests pass. We have 100% coverage".
> Yeah, except when str == '', in which case it evals to false. Of course, there's no test case for that.
So much this.
> checkNoKillMode(str). "Look, all my tests pass. We have 100% coverage".
> Yeah, except when str == '', in which case it evals to false. Of course, there's no test case for that.
So much this.
Yeah, I cringe at a lot of it too.
I think this is a result of all of the tooling and automated building that's "necessary" to cludge everything together.
ES6 features and TypeScript are great, for many reasons, but they don't work immediately in the browser. You need precompiling and something like CommonJS or SystemJS to handle importing libraries not defined in HTML. SASS/SCSS really improves stylesheets, tremendously improves them, but you need to...precompile. Finally, JS heavy apps turn into a hodgepodge of JS, CSS, and HTML that just doesn't really...sit well, so most people will use tooling to establish some sense of ordering.
That last step is both a boon and a curse. Automating the process makes development very easy and saves a lot of time. That tooling is also inherently complicated to an outsider and is a large, ugly barrier to entry.
I think this is a result of all of the tooling and automated building that's "necessary" to cludge everything together.
ES6 features and TypeScript are great, for many reasons, but they don't work immediately in the browser. You need precompiling and something like CommonJS or SystemJS to handle importing libraries not defined in HTML. SASS/SCSS really improves stylesheets, tremendously improves them, but you need to...precompile. Finally, JS heavy apps turn into a hodgepodge of JS, CSS, and HTML that just doesn't really...sit well, so most people will use tooling to establish some sense of ordering.
That last step is both a boon and a curse. Automating the process makes development very easy and saves a lot of time. That tooling is also inherently complicated to an outsider and is a large, ugly barrier to entry.
On, on a far snarkier take on it:
http://cube-drone.com/comics/c/relentless-persistence
http://cube-drone.com/comics/c/relentless-persistence
Frankly speaking, if you invest some time in learning these tools it's not really that bad. Once the project's toolchain is setup properly one can be productive for a long time without worrying much.
One of the major problem front end development seems hacky is the browser quirks and developer's wish to get more out of browsers for which they were not designed for.
One of the major problem front end development seems hacky is the browser quirks and developer's wish to get more out of browsers for which they were not designed for.
I've seen too many examples of this... but its not limited to start-ups. Had a term for it - RDD, resume driven development, where the teams focus is developing their resume as opposed to a product.
I don't blame them. They want to get paid well, and having experience with 'stuff that hasn't even been invented yet' makes them look innovative. And, generally, looking innovative means a big pay increase.
What's funny to me is that I've had a track record of leading and building core parts of successful applications used by millions of people. Yet, when I go to interviews, often they don't seem to care about my successes. And, to them, my methods look ancient. And, they express disbelief when I ask for $200k (a paltry sum compared to how much time and money that they'll spend).
What's funny to me is that I've had a track record of leading and building core parts of successful applications used by millions of people. Yet, when I go to interviews, often they don't seem to care about my successes. And, to them, my methods look ancient. And, they express disbelief when I ask for $200k (a paltry sum compared to how much time and money that they'll spend).
Which to be fair is entirely rational from their own points of view
Yes mostly due to Resume Driven Recruitment. All the soft skills and technical acumen become worthless to many companies if you can't hit those language and stack bullet points.
Maybe but if their managers are okay with this, then either they aren't technical enough or they're not being paid enough.
or the managers don't have the right incentive. I manage a team of devs at a startup, and beside some promise of "do well, get liquidation event" I have no incentive to make a good product other than personal pride.
>You can tell a startup is focusing on the wrong thing when: They're using the 'newest', most obscure, programming language or frameworks available because it's the 'best' for some unscientific reason.
I don't think he was talking about technical details, he was merely trying to emphasis on the importance of ignoring trivial things that might not mean (at an early stage esp.,) as much as one might think... And I'd agree..
At an early stage one should have google like garage office and just stay focused... focused.
twitter isn't facing problems due to less revenue.. but due to abundance of the expenses.... just gave a very broad example to make the point.
I don't think he was talking about technical details, he was merely trying to emphasis on the importance of ignoring trivial things that might not mean (at an early stage esp.,) as much as one might think... And I'd agree..
At an early stage one should have google like garage office and just stay focused... focused.
twitter isn't facing problems due to less revenue.. but due to abundance of the expenses.... just gave a very broad example to make the point.
Exactly. Nothing in this article even talked about technology specific startups at all. It could apply to a craft beer company as much as a new SaaS product.
Yes
Or they are using $(Obscure new Functional Programming thing) which makes Haskell look like VB in ease of use and only two people on the team know how to use it (kind of)
Or using (invented here thing that could be replaced by regular DB/other existing system) but since it was one of the founders that did it nobody is allowed to touch it or fix bugs
Or they are using $(Obscure new Functional Programming thing) which makes Haskell look like VB in ease of use and only two people on the team know how to use it (kind of)
Or using (invented here thing that could be replaced by regular DB/other existing system) but since it was one of the founders that did it nobody is allowed to touch it or fix bugs
I had a gig once where my predecessor was a Haskell guy and had written Haskell-in-Javascript :( The comments were things like "this is a simple functor that produces a monad that, when curried to a function, will return a lambda that will do what we need".
Needless to say, I wrote zero lines of code during those two weeks, and the company shut down shortly after that.
Needless to say, I wrote zero lines of code during those two weeks, and the company shut down shortly after that.
So even if js is capable of being written with the structure of a functional language, doing so renders it incomprehensible to other js programmers?
Eh, most languages are capable of being written functionally, but bringing a completely different language's idioms in results in unmaintainable code.
At the very least they needed to hire a Haskell dev, not a JS dev, even if the language itself was JS.
At the very least they needed to hire a Haskell dev, not a JS dev, even if the language itself was JS.
A sign of a good programmer is that he can write in Fortran in any language at hand.
The more I look at the latest frameworks, the happier I got with just JQuery + bootstrap.
To some people, jQuery and bootstrap are overkill (motherfuckingwebsite.com, etc).
The rule of thumb is if someone is using a more complicated stack than me then they're foolishly overengineering their app and if they're using a simpler stack than me then they're unsophisticated novices.
The rule of thumb is if someone is using a more complicated stack than me then they're foolishly overengineering their app and if they're using a simpler stack than me then they're unsophisticated novices.
I don't like the obsession with the newest, most shiny stuff myself, but to me it looks different from a business perspective.
Let's say that I'm a startup CEO and don't have a lot of money, but want to hire great engineers. I'm competing with giants with a lot of money, so I'm trying to offer everything I can - and all I really have is creative freedom. And if engineers choose to use it to learn new frameworks and in general, get a little crazy, it's fine by me, as long as it keeps them happy and not looking for greener pastures.
Let's say that I'm a startup CEO and don't have a lot of money, but want to hire great engineers. I'm competing with giants with a lot of money, so I'm trying to offer everything I can - and all I really have is creative freedom. And if engineers choose to use it to learn new frameworks and in general, get a little crazy, it's fine by me, as long as it keeps them happy and not looking for greener pastures.
How about equity. Not options but a real share of the company.
"keeps them happy and not looking for greener pastures"
These types of developers are always looking for greener pastures. No fault of their own. They should be. If all you "really have is creative freedom" you can't compete with the bigger guys who provide that + higher pay + equity + perks.
It would be better to choose a tech stack that is best for your company and attract talent that actually wants to work on what your startup is doing vs playing with the latest shiny thing.
These types of developers are always looking for greener pastures. No fault of their own. They should be. If all you "really have is creative freedom" you can't compete with the bigger guys who provide that + higher pay + equity + perks.
It would be better to choose a tech stack that is best for your company and attract talent that actually wants to work on what your startup is doing vs playing with the latest shiny thing.
Suppose you have a fairly interesting business but your tech needs are 'boring' -- you might have a few unique problems but nothing really interesting enough for a talented engineer that's mostly driven by problem solving. What can you do to attract that kind of engineering talent?
You could offer them money, or equity, or perks, but the kinds of people you really want would happily take a QoL and pay cut for more stimulating work -- the kind of work that puts them at the forefront of their field -- the kind of work they could write blog posts and give conference lectures about. So you offer them creative freedom, let them pick their own stack, let them use the new trendy framework, let them set up a fancy build and deployment pipeline even though you're a small shop, let them use their favorite language that they never get to use outside of personal projects. Let them solve your boring problems in fancy, clever, maybe a little over-engineered, but fun ways that also make you, the business, look like you're up to date, modern, and ahead of your competition.
You could offer them money, or equity, or perks, but the kinds of people you really want would happily take a QoL and pay cut for more stimulating work -- the kind of work that puts them at the forefront of their field -- the kind of work they could write blog posts and give conference lectures about. So you offer them creative freedom, let them pick their own stack, let them use the new trendy framework, let them set up a fancy build and deployment pipeline even though you're a small shop, let them use their favorite language that they never get to use outside of personal projects. Let them solve your boring problems in fancy, clever, maybe a little over-engineered, but fun ways that also make you, the business, look like you're up to date, modern, and ahead of your competition.
Fair points but at some point you have to ask yourself at what cost to the business, especially if you are a small shop. Implementing all new trendy frameworks & over-engineered setup comes at a cost.
I am not at all opposed to using new and shiny. I use new frameworks, etc. in my business often but there is a balance. I generally stick to boring and proven for business crucial stuff (especially back-end) and new/shiny for not so crucial. OR sometimes a new framework is the best decision for the business. In that case, that framework wins.
I guess I feel as a business owner, I have a responsibility to do what is right for the business and our customers. If a developer doesn't want to work on what is right for the business or our customers, I don't want that developer.
I am not at all opposed to using new and shiny. I use new frameworks, etc. in my business often but there is a balance. I generally stick to boring and proven for business crucial stuff (especially back-end) and new/shiny for not so crucial. OR sometimes a new framework is the best decision for the business. In that case, that framework wins.
I guess I feel as a business owner, I have a responsibility to do what is right for the business and our customers. If a developer doesn't want to work on what is right for the business or our customers, I don't want that developer.
I value more no crazy schedules, ability to work remotely, cool office atmosphere, interesting product, getting to do stuff together after work... than shiny toys.
That's what drives me crazy.
People just adding cool toys not because they need it but because it is "cool" or "new".
Why do we need to "compile" our JS which just adds to our development time and then we have to dedicate time to debugging these when they break.
I like ES6 but sometimes I question whether it is worth the trouble.
People just adding cool toys not because they need it but because it is "cool" or "new".
Why do we need to "compile" our JS which just adds to our development time and then we have to dedicate time to debugging these when they break.
I like ES6 but sometimes I question whether it is worth the trouble.
This debate isn't simple. I'll try to distill it as best I can.
Sure, some people only want to work with new things because they are novel. That's human nature.
However, that's not all of it. Many people strive for new tools not simply because they are new, but because they are better in some way. Of course, I understand that some people over-estimate how much better the "new" technology is, in practice. Transitions take time.
A side note: most "new" things are often based on combinations of "old" things. One of the big problems with some "new" tools isn't simply that they are "new" -- it has to do with their maturity. Applied person-hours, working on representative problems, helps shake out problems or edge cases with various technologies.
Take Clojure, for example. I reject the notion that calling it "new" or "old" is particularly useful. When it was released, it was based on many iterations of Lisp and the JVM. Clojure has been very stable.
Some people underestimate the importance of tooling and the ecosystem. Or they may underestimate integration; e.g. in the case of a new language, does it have a solid C or Java native interface?
Sure, some people only want to work with new things because they are novel. That's human nature.
However, that's not all of it. Many people strive for new tools not simply because they are new, but because they are better in some way. Of course, I understand that some people over-estimate how much better the "new" technology is, in practice. Transitions take time.
A side note: most "new" things are often based on combinations of "old" things. One of the big problems with some "new" tools isn't simply that they are "new" -- it has to do with their maturity. Applied person-hours, working on representative problems, helps shake out problems or edge cases with various technologies.
Take Clojure, for example. I reject the notion that calling it "new" or "old" is particularly useful. When it was released, it was based on many iterations of Lisp and the JVM. Clojure has been very stable.
Some people underestimate the importance of tooling and the ecosystem. Or they may underestimate integration; e.g. in the case of a new language, does it have a solid C or Java native interface?
I don't know. Once you have ES6 -> ES5 in your pipeline, it's not really any extra trouble.
Sure
Also that for the 10 other 'not any extra trouble' things
Until of course something breaks. Or is not giving you the result you wanted.
Or you need to urgently again and one of the hundred requires you need got a new bug or npm is out.
Also that for the 10 other 'not any extra trouble' things
Until of course something breaks. Or is not giving you the result you wanted.
Or you need to urgently again and one of the hundred requires you need got a new bug or npm is out.
Until it is.
But it isn't. There's no aspect of it that would be extra trouble. It's just mechanical transforms. That's like saying true refactoring is "trouble".
Dealing with sourcemaps absolutely causes extra trouble. Transpiler errors and bugs can also pop up at the worst times. Any time you add more steps to your compilation and deployment process, you're adding risk and potential trouble. That's just a fact of life. I'm not saying not to use es6 because I do and it's awesome, but I am not under the illusion that it's all sunshine and rainbows.
Until one found the code failed on some version on browsers, or worst - mobile browsers...
Then you need to debugger your code, compiled code, sourcemap files, compiler, compiler options, the layer and layers of configuration JSON scripts and mobile browser.
Then you need to debugger your code, compiled code, sourcemap files, compiler, compiler options, the layer and layers of configuration JSON scripts and mobile browser.
I've been working with es6 for two years now and never even heard of this happening to someone. Given the huge number of people who use babeljs, if there were to be a bug in it, it'd be reported and fixed rather quickly.
Yes, transpiling es6 -> es5 is adding another layer of complexity to your codebase, another thing that could potentially go wrong, but the reality is that the development gains we get from being able to use es6 are far more important than a small chance of a problem. It works well enough that you don't even think about it after leaving webpack in watch mode.
Yes, transpiling es6 -> es5 is adding another layer of complexity to your codebase, another thing that could potentially go wrong, but the reality is that the development gains we get from being able to use es6 are far more important than a small chance of a problem. It works well enough that you don't even think about it after leaving webpack in watch mode.
Really curious about the tangible gains of using ES6 over ES5.
Especially since ES6 is being converted to ES5 at the end of the day.
Especially since ES6 is being converted to ES5 at the end of the day.
Block scoping (using const/let instead of var which is scoped to the function) alone is really nice, but I also make heavy use of destructuring, arrow functions, template literals, export/import syntax and promises. Es6 makes javascript more pleasant to code with, and can greatly improve readability.
es6 has become pretty well supported by modern browsers, so maybe after a year or so, we'll just be calling it "javascript" and running it without babel. I expect everyone to continue to transpile, though, to get newer features as they come, as the plan for ES is to release new language updates on a yearly basis.
es6 has become pretty well supported by modern browsers, so maybe after a year or so, we'll just be calling it "javascript" and running it without babel. I expect everyone to continue to transpile, though, to get newer features as they come, as the plan for ES is to release new language updates on a yearly basis.
It adds some extra nice language features to JS. It really is a good productivity improvement, especially with JSX which enables HTML literals: pretty much essential when working with a complex React front-end in my opinion.
My team has been using it for most of this year now and we've had no problems so far.
My team has been using it for most of this year now and we've had no problems so far.
> Then you need to debugger your code, compiled code, sourcemap files, compiler, compiler options, the layer and layers of configuration JSON scripts and mobile browser.
This seems like you're deliberately trying to make things sound way more complicated than they actually are. If there is a bug in the code on a certain platform, you examine the bug on that platform and add the appropriate feature detection code to fix it. There is no need to debug the compiler and every other tool in your stack, it all compiles to javascript at the end of the day and assuming you're not running a minifier in development, 99% of platform specific bugs are readily apparent and almost certainly the developer's fault (i.e. not the tool's fault)
This seems like you're deliberately trying to make things sound way more complicated than they actually are. If there is a bug in the code on a certain platform, you examine the bug on that platform and add the appropriate feature detection code to fix it. There is no need to debug the compiler and every other tool in your stack, it all compiles to javascript at the end of the day and assuming you're not running a minifier in development, 99% of platform specific bugs are readily apparent and almost certainly the developer's fault (i.e. not the tool's fault)
Have you tried add OAuth support to your web app?
After with, do your team do automated regressive tests the oauth support and all other functionalities on all the regular browsers and mobile browsers?
+ Older version browsers?
+ Older browsers in older version of Linux, Mac, Windows?
+ Browsers with plugins such umatix, unblock origin, noscript that blocks scripts from your own domains + other domains?
After with, do your team do automated regressive tests the oauth support and all other functionalities on all the regular browsers and mobile browsers?
+ Older version browsers?
+ Older browsers in older version of Linux, Mac, Windows?
+ Browsers with plugins such umatix, unblock origin, noscript that blocks scripts from your own domains + other domains?
I'm not really sure what your point is. If OAuth integration is a requirement for your project then its your responsibility to test it across the platforms you intend to support and that's a universal truth no matter what development stack you're working with.
Care to elaborate?
Maybe its a good recruiting tool though? If you're not a famous or wealthy company it can be a way to recruit good people if you use leading (not bleeding) edge technology. It didn't attract you but lots of people seem to like shiny things.
this. we are a small team but really wanted a person that we liked to work with (he was a long time friend) but he had some language prefs. Its not without a major cost since generally the rest of us dont touch the software stack as much anymore (we are a hardware startup with a lot of EE/Mech and FW) but right now I'm not sure thats a bad thing as we can focus on our respective parts. Rolling with a modern language and framework set was a small price to pay for a great hire. We did stipulate that the backend framework had to by things we were fluent with though.
Sounds odd to me that you'd accept his actions that feel like a price to pay (which I take as a loss of business value) in order to get a great hire.
But If they are doing things that are destroying value then are they so great? Or maybe they are great but not a good fit for you. I.e. they need a Google not a Crud Inc.
But If they are doing things that are destroying value then are they so great? Or maybe they are great but not a good fit for you. I.e. they need a Google not a Crud Inc.
We didn't 'accept his actions' but instead he told us upfront that he was partial to working in certain languages and frameworks. We mulled it over before agreeing and coulnd't be happier. He is great because he is great to work with, highly productive, self motivated, and brilliant. Sure, I could have hired a dev that only did the exact same things as me, but I might be tempted to get into the weeds more than I probably should. You defining 'his actions' as destroying business value is a poor mischaracterization as he has created enormous amounts of business value. Couldn't be happier with our decision on this.
I have been in similar situations and agree 100% with you on the technical side. But they may not have been actively engaging in self-harm. If a dev isn't very experienced in front-end, it's easy these days to fall into the trap of creating an SPA without realizing what you're doing, just because that's what libraries expect you to do by default. For example, any library that supports client-side routing without discussing the alternative.
You might have been able to turn things around for the company with your experienced view.
You might have been able to turn things around for the company with your experienced view.
There is, however, some value in letting engineers choose which tools and platforms they want to build upon as long as the consequences to the business and hiring are understood and agreed upon.
Sadly far from limited to web tech...
woah(2)
> he points out that a one-hour meeting with eight people isn’t really a one-hour meeting at all; it’s a meeting that just consumed eight hours of productive time from your team
I still think this is an underestimate.
Odds are people were working on something before the meeting and stopped just a bit early to get their notes together or read that email chain or whatever. Count on at least 5 minutes but assume more like 15. And then after the meeting people collect their notes, head back to their desks, and then to read the recap after. Another 15 minutes is likely.
So that 1 hour meeting just became 1.5+ hours times 8 people.
What a waste.
I still think this is an underestimate.
Odds are people were working on something before the meeting and stopped just a bit early to get their notes together or read that email chain or whatever. Count on at least 5 minutes but assume more like 15. And then after the meeting people collect their notes, head back to their desks, and then to read the recap after. Another 15 minutes is likely.
So that 1 hour meeting just became 1.5+ hours times 8 people.
What a waste.
I think a better point is to simply say cut all the bullshit. Bullshit work is just as bad if not worse than bullshit meetings. Programmers hate bullshit meetings but many will happily do bullshit work and change over the whole project to a new, flavor of the week js framework.
Sometimes meetings are required, just like sometimes changing frameworks is required. The skill is separating the required from the bullshit.
Sometimes meetings are required, just like sometimes changing frameworks is required. The skill is separating the required from the bullshit.
My rule: No agenda, no attenda.
(I didn't come up with it.)
(I didn't come up with it.)
My rule: Call going to take longer than 2 minutes? Send me an email.
I don't waste my time talking to people when I could be working. Personal preference, I know not everyone will agree with it.
I don't waste my time talking to people when I could be working. Personal preference, I know not everyone will agree with it.
Ugh, yes. To be fair, running a meeting well is an acquired skill. It's just that it's never taught and nobody realizes that they run shitty, inefficient meetings.
Add to that the fact that the meeting breaks up everyones day, making it more difficult for attendees to have long uninterrupted periods of deep, concentrated work.
Eating also takes time and breaks up people's days. So should not eat?
Some of the debate I'm seeing here is lacking synthesis of the tradeoffs. First, getting people to communicate is essential (a collective activity). Second, giving individuals time to work productively is essential. Some work is done best solo, some is done best collaboratively. The key is intelligently striking a balance.
Some of the debate I'm seeing here is lacking synthesis of the tradeoffs. First, getting people to communicate is essential (a collective activity). Second, giving individuals time to work productively is essential. Some work is done best solo, some is done best collaboratively. The key is intelligently striking a balance.
Mind you, alignment before said work is important. I had a colleague that started at an assignment the same day I did. We had an onboarding day (lots of stuff to explain), and only a few hours in he was rubbing his hands asking when he could start coding.
But there wasn't anything to code yet, or if there was, that wasn't explained to him yet, so, ????
Morale: don't write code if there's no clear "what to build".
But there wasn't anything to code yet, or if there was, that wasn't explained to him yet, so, ????
Morale: don't write code if there's no clear "what to build".
What about an 8 hour meeting with 25 people? Sadly, this is not an exaggeration...
I know it's not, for we had an 8 hour meeting with 50 people -- the entire dev team.
Did the meeting have any positive outcomes?
Everyone is now trained on the department-wide foobar system that is expected to save 200 man-hours each year. No, don't do the math! Stop doing the math! Pencils down!
The goal was to plan a milestone for the end of the next 8 weeks. Since progress at software orgs is about as predictable as weather, I'll leave it to your imagination how effective these meetings were at mapping work.
This. It's the pre- and post- transitions that are the most invisible and harmful. I think 15min is conservative, in my experience 2+ hrs for a 1hr meeting is average.
Is every bum-on-seat-hour ACTUALLY valuable?
Maybe in a sweatshop....
Maybe in a sweatshop....
They are valuable when you're paying them.
Unfortunately, this misconception or perhaps misguided idea of the value you get when paying for work is still surprisingly common today.
Yes, for lack of a more accurate measure work is generally measured in "hours spent". However, as an employer or as a client, what you actually want is not someone's wasted hours but the business value created during those hours.
Insisting on someone filling an office chair just because you paid him to do so seems petty. It's almost this liege lord kind of thinking comically displayed in Dilbert where the people you pay to play "butts in seats" are your part-time serfs to do with as you please.
Yes, for lack of a more accurate measure work is generally measured in "hours spent". However, as an employer or as a client, what you actually want is not someone's wasted hours but the business value created during those hours.
Insisting on someone filling an office chair just because you paid him to do so seems petty. It's almost this liege lord kind of thinking comically displayed in Dilbert where the people you pay to play "butts in seats" are your part-time serfs to do with as you please.
We're talking about wasting time(money) in meetings.
No. But >0 of the 8 people involved in the example would've spent a productive hour if the meeting hadn't intervened.
To misquote John Wanamaker, “Half the people in a meeting shouldn't be there; the trouble is we don't know which half.”
On the other hand, a relevant person being out of the meeting and out of the loop can easily mean that the other 7 people spend the following week on something that shouldn't have been done in the first place.
It's easy to spend a hundred productive engineer-hours that eventually add up to a negative added value.
It's easy to spend a hundred productive engineer-hours that eventually add up to a negative added value.
True indeed, and arguably that's how I spent Wednesday and Thursday this week, but you're a little close to saying "although meetings tend to waste time, that's excusable because other things aren't perfect either".
I'm saying that deficiencies in information exchange are even more likely to waste (a lot!) of time than meetings.
It's desirable to reduce time wastage at meetings, but it's not ok to do so by simply randomly not appearing to them - if you want many people to skip these meetings, then you have to have a solid alternative on how you'll get the info exchange.
It's desirable to reduce time wastage at meetings, but it's not ok to do so by simply randomly not appearing to them - if you want many people to skip these meetings, then you have to have a solid alternative on how you'll get the info exchange.
Depends on whether they had anything to do or whether the goal of that meeting was to determine what goals should be achieved the next period.
[deleted]
Lol, anybody who needs to tack 30mins just to get their shit together for a meeting should go work for Yahoo! or something. The reality is that everybody brought their laptops to the meeting and many are passively if not actively working. And it's not like attendees were all going to be busting their asses for an hour straight otherwise. Meetings are actually helpful, but it's no good if you're working with a bunch of idiots who see it as break time.
The mental cost is high.
> The reality is that everybody brought their laptops to the meeting and many are passively if not actively working.
Working on your laptop while you're in a meeting is one of the most rude behaviors possible.
If you have something more important than the meeting, decline the invite. If you're too busy, decline the invite. If you're not going to be utilized for enough of the meeting for it to be useful to you, decline the invite.
Don't be that asshole in the back responding to emails or working on some unrelated project and not listening to what's going on.
Working on your laptop while you're in a meeting is one of the most rude behaviors possible.
If you have something more important than the meeting, decline the invite. If you're too busy, decline the invite. If you're not going to be utilized for enough of the meeting for it to be useful to you, decline the invite.
Don't be that asshole in the back responding to emails or working on some unrelated project and not listening to what's going on.
Don't worry, we can add this guy into the equation too.
The assclown in the meeting on his laptop is generally operating at between 0 and 50% efficiency; about 25% on Google Chat and 25% in the meeting asking questions that have already been answered. Let's be generous and say 50%, but its probably less.
Now, that's 1.5 hours lost in the meeting plus preparation, but the meeting needs twice as much time to get the same done so that's 2.5 hours now times 8 people per meeting.
It's probably exponential though, since laptop people have to talk to other laptop people in the meeting at only 0.5 efficiency. So its probably more like 0.5 to the power of the number of people on their laptops.
The assclown in the meeting on his laptop is generally operating at between 0 and 50% efficiency; about 25% on Google Chat and 25% in the meeting asking questions that have already been answered. Let's be generous and say 50%, but its probably less.
Now, that's 1.5 hours lost in the meeting plus preparation, but the meeting needs twice as much time to get the same done so that's 2.5 hours now times 8 people per meeting.
It's probably exponential though, since laptop people have to talk to other laptop people in the meeting at only 0.5 efficiency. So its probably more like 0.5 to the power of the number of people on their laptops.
You are right but if you are in a meeting where only 5 minutes are relevant for you, you can either spend the rest sleeping or at least doing some work.
Yes, the problem is one of poor management where the system starts working against itself.
Yes, the problem is one of poor management where the system starts working against itself.
Working on your laptop while you're in a meeting is one of the most rude behaviors possible.
Many varieties of rudeness are culture-specific.
No matter how popular it is to say that all meetings should only include people who will need to be 100% engaged the whole time, should only ever be attended entirely at each participant's discretion, etc, things do not always work out this way.
If I'm attending a big status meeting where I go second and only need to listen to the first and sixth updates or when my name is mentioned, guess what happens for the rest of the time?
Many varieties of rudeness are culture-specific.
No matter how popular it is to say that all meetings should only include people who will need to be 100% engaged the whole time, should only ever be attended entirely at each participant's discretion, etc, things do not always work out this way.
If I'm attending a big status meeting where I go second and only need to listen to the first and sixth updates or when my name is mentioned, guess what happens for the rest of the time?
You listen to 3-5. Not only because it's rude not to, but because you might actually learn something. Whether technical, or about the business, or just reaffirming your distaste for the person giving update #4.
Either you're naive, or pretending. Enjoy hanging on every word in every meeting like it's your first job.
The mediocre work you can do on a laptop in a meeting is not going to get you a promotion over anyone else. It's just common courtesy to listen to someone when they're talking.
But please, continue thinking that people are naive for not being rude.
But please, continue thinking that people are naive for not being rude.
Or maybe don't spam the invite to several unrelated people
Or maybe don't waste people's times with useless meetings or with an unfocused meeting
Or maybe don't make the meeting take longer when discussing things that could be decided quickly by fewer people or I dunno, just wasteful meeting behaviours like repeating the same thing several times...
Or maybe don't waste people's times with useless meetings or with an unfocused meeting
Or maybe don't make the meeting take longer when discussing things that could be decided quickly by fewer people or I dunno, just wasteful meeting behaviours like repeating the same thing several times...
My personal favorite is the GoToMeeting planned days in advance where the invite goes out to 15 people and the only "work" that gets done is two of the attendees say "I will e-mail you the details" to each other, followed by 30 seconds of awkward silence and the end of the call.
The architects and BAs in our office are expected to bring their laptops and get a little work done during meetings. And it makes sense, since they're often in meetings for at least 5 hours out of the day.
The developers don't have laptops, so we just lose development time when we're in meetings. Although we generally get just enough work assigned to us that we can still work only 40 hours a week, so I'm not really complaining.
The developers don't have laptops, so we just lose development time when we're in meetings. Although we generally get just enough work assigned to us that we can still work only 40 hours a week, so I'm not really complaining.
That doesn't make any sense at all. If they're doing work in the meeting, then they probably didn't need to be there. If they do need to be there, then they should be concentrating on the meeting. Otherwise the number of meetings needs to be cut down.
I've been to a decent number of the meetings here to know what it's like. You might only be really needed to answer one or two questions, or for one item on the agenda. You can mostly ignore the meeting and can work on other things.
For example, I was stuck in a two hour support call meeting the other day, and I really only had to be passively listening to it and speak maybe four or five times briefly. I was designing puzzles in my notebook the rest of the time. They don't give devs laptops, so I couldn't get real work done.
But hey, I've been in plenty of classes back in the day when I didn't have to pay close attention and only had pen and paper to keep me entertained (I drew, wrote stories and poems, designed games and databases, etc), so it doesn't bother me too much.
There's a reason why there's a full team of BA's and they can't write up work fast enough to keep the devs busy, and I think this is part of the reason. But there isn't enough of a push to change things, and it seems like most people would rather communicate in person here instead of via email when possible.
For example, I was stuck in a two hour support call meeting the other day, and I really only had to be passively listening to it and speak maybe four or five times briefly. I was designing puzzles in my notebook the rest of the time. They don't give devs laptops, so I couldn't get real work done.
But hey, I've been in plenty of classes back in the day when I didn't have to pay close attention and only had pen and paper to keep me entertained (I drew, wrote stories and poems, designed games and databases, etc), so it doesn't bother me too much.
There's a reason why there's a full team of BA's and they can't write up work fast enough to keep the devs busy, and I think this is part of the reason. But there isn't enough of a push to change things, and it seems like most people would rather communicate in person here instead of via email when possible.
Any set up where someone is in meetings 5 hours a day every day is a set up where there are huge functional problems where a complete up-down blowup and reorg is needed.
You just supported the typical anti-pattern of management where someone new gets hired and proceeds to re-orgs everyone after a couple months of meetings to superficially understand how an organization works. This thereby usually causes many, many more meetings all in the name of trying to reduce the meetings.
The programmer equivalent attitude is "this code is horrible, it's due for a total re-write." Re-factors and re-orgs are the same things, but there's few regression tests for business besides "oh crap, we lost a bunch of money all of a sudden" which is a lot closer to coding directly in production.
The programmer equivalent attitude is "this code is horrible, it's due for a total re-write." Re-factors and re-orgs are the same things, but there's few regression tests for business besides "oh crap, we lost a bunch of money all of a sudden" which is a lot closer to coding directly in production.
That's... an insightful comparison. I like it a lot.
Sounds like a plain job-creation measure for these guys.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but they've definitely lost a few people because they got sick of how many meetings happened here. But they also have people that have been here for well over five years doing that role, so I guess most people are okay with it. I don't think I would, so I'm not gunning to get promoted here.
Then don't say I'm "required" when I've got all of 5 seconds of valuable input. Just fucking shoot me a slack message and ask a question.
This great advice - especially for new engineers. An outlook invite doesn't trump more important tasks. If you need to be working at that time, decline the invite and send a note back saying you can't make it due to other responsibilities. It's better to miss the meeting than to be at the meeting and look like you don't care about the conversation.
Meh.. It depends on the complexity of work. I sit in a cubicle and sometimes work from peaceful room at home. Guess what, I can handle/solve more complex problems at home, but if I need to build up that focus. At the cubicle, I can only do very simple tasks.
So if they're working on their laptops, why were they in the meeting? They're not paying attention, they're not contributing to the discussion, and worse, if they do need to pay attention and contribute, they're going to make people repeat themselves because they're not paying attention.
I would add three others:
1. Spending too much time designing an "About" page, a "Who we are" page, an "FAQ" page, to present the startup and what the product will be, rather than actually developing the product.
2. Being very secretive about your very great (but generally vague) startup idea, instead of working on execution.
3. Having a product that is perpetually "almost ready" to launch but never getting around to taking care of that last 80%.
1. Spending too much time designing an "About" page, a "Who we are" page, an "FAQ" page, to present the startup and what the product will be, rather than actually developing the product.
2. Being very secretive about your very great (but generally vague) startup idea, instead of working on execution.
3. Having a product that is perpetually "almost ready" to launch but never getting around to taking care of that last 80%.
I'd argue point #1 isn't that terrible if you're a B2B company. Having some veil of being a legitimate company isn't the worst thing if you're trying to get a business to commit to using and paying for your product.
That isn't to say those pages need to be grandiose but knowing that the product is supported by more than one person is something you probably want to convey if you're looking for growth.
That isn't to say those pages need to be grandiose but knowing that the product is supported by more than one person is something you probably want to convey if you're looking for growth.
Sure. Everything on these lists is something that's valuable to some extent. But it shifts into "playing startup" the moment you're doing it because it makes you feel more important, because it makes you look better in the eyes of somebody besides the customers you need to acquire in the next few months.
Well said re: secrecy. If you aren't testing your ideas in the marketplace, you run a huge risk of keeping your business's best iteration a total secret from yourself.
to 1: The About page is not always targeted towards the customer but it's important for investors and other businesses. You just have to look good, the first impression counts. It also doesn't take a lot of effort to create it, so why not?
But I get what you are saying. If the website, videos, and social media posts look awesome and the startup has more swag to offer than real progress, they obviously spend their money and time at the wrong end.
Thanks for these. Way more direct than the article.
[deleted]
The biggest killer: pursuing the wrong customers/users. I like Groove's list, but all seven of its sins flow out of that more-fundamental problem.
Get a few troublesome customers ... and you will be stuck in a lot of meetings, trying to figure out what they want, how to deal with their latest crazy requirements/deadlines, etc. The meetings are a symptom. Not the root cause.
It's the same story with "vanity benchmarks." Good benchmarks reinforce smart business choices (i.e doing business with the right people.) The way you know you're worshiping vanity benchmarks is if they keep generating traffic, leads, etc. that take you ever deeper into the valley of canceled accounts and anti-profits.
Get a few troublesome customers ... and you will be stuck in a lot of meetings, trying to figure out what they want, how to deal with their latest crazy requirements/deadlines, etc. The meetings are a symptom. Not the root cause.
It's the same story with "vanity benchmarks." Good benchmarks reinforce smart business choices (i.e doing business with the right people.) The way you know you're worshiping vanity benchmarks is if they keep generating traffic, leads, etc. that take you ever deeper into the valley of canceled accounts and anti-profits.
this is ridiculously important and deserves an entire manifesto/epic-rant to be written about it.
having just recently switched jobs, the single biggest cause of pain, failure, frustration, and everything else that sucks at the company I left was pursuing the wrong customers.
throwing good money after bad is a losing situation. some customers need to be allowed to quit. they're not worth keeping on.
having just recently switched jobs, the single biggest cause of pain, failure, frustration, and everything else that sucks at the company I left was pursuing the wrong customers.
throwing good money after bad is a losing situation. some customers need to be allowed to quit. they're not worth keeping on.
I think there is a deeper underlying problem why they are focusing on stuff that doesn't matter -- to avoid doing stuff that matters.
Usually the reason is because it is hard or tedious.
I have seen others do it and I've done it myself. Someone doesn't know how code so instead they become very vocal and go to all meetings or tell everyone documentation updating or benchmarking is what is crucial and they'll focus on that.
There is of course nothing wrong with all the other tasks, but I think it is worth looking at why all of the sudden these new priorities are being pushed. Deep down everyone wants to seem important look busy, so people will always find busy work. Sometimes they find something is useful, but often it is just random stuff, just not appear idle. "How are you doing Steve, how is new database backend coming along? - Well I decided we should re-prioritize our customer accounts, and then I worked on updating all the documentation, and a meeting is coming along we should present there..."
The point is employees engage in this avoidance busy works but CxOs, managers and owners do this as well. In their case it is even more damaging because they pull in the whole company after them.
"Stop everyone, I found a cool new JS frameworks it is super reactive, we should rewrite our front end in it".
Usually the reason is because it is hard or tedious.
I have seen others do it and I've done it myself. Someone doesn't know how code so instead they become very vocal and go to all meetings or tell everyone documentation updating or benchmarking is what is crucial and they'll focus on that.
There is of course nothing wrong with all the other tasks, but I think it is worth looking at why all of the sudden these new priorities are being pushed. Deep down everyone wants to seem important look busy, so people will always find busy work. Sometimes they find something is useful, but often it is just random stuff, just not appear idle. "How are you doing Steve, how is new database backend coming along? - Well I decided we should re-prioritize our customer accounts, and then I worked on updating all the documentation, and a meeting is coming along we should present there..."
The point is employees engage in this avoidance busy works but CxOs, managers and owners do this as well. In their case it is even more damaging because they pull in the whole company after them.
"Stop everyone, I found a cool new JS frameworks it is super reactive, we should rewrite our front end in it".
"If you’re bootstrapped and have an email list of 1,000 people and want to grow that list, you don’t need a full-time email marketing manager, a writer, a designer and a junior marketer to execute on a content marketing strategy for you...You need a motivated, scrappy content marketer who can do all of those jobs at once."
I agree about the time-wasting meetings, but not about the above, since I'm directly in that situation. You could hope to find one person to fill any two of those jobs, but all you'll get out of a 'scrappy content marketer' is a vacant position and a series of burnouts. That's hard work, where you have to invest resources to reap rewards.
I agree about the time-wasting meetings, but not about the above, since I'm directly in that situation. You could hope to find one person to fill any two of those jobs, but all you'll get out of a 'scrappy content marketer' is a vacant position and a series of burnouts. That's hard work, where you have to invest resources to reap rewards.
To add to your point: people often make the mistake of trying to replace former team members with people who fit the exact skill profile of the person who left. It's highly improbable you'll find the perfect match.
Instead, identify the bundle of tasks that person did and find people who can take them on separately, and perhaps accomplish other tasks you didn't even realize your team could do.
If you were to identify every task your business needs, then you have the flexibility to direct those tasks to the right people. Further, if you're in a high-growth environment, you can continue to scale by motivating your people to fire themselves from their worst tasks and focus on their best expertise.
If your team continues to evolve in this way while your company keeps sound unit economics, then congratulations! You've solved the scaling problem.
Instead, identify the bundle of tasks that person did and find people who can take them on separately, and perhaps accomplish other tasks you didn't even realize your team could do.
If you were to identify every task your business needs, then you have the flexibility to direct those tasks to the right people. Further, if you're in a high-growth environment, you can continue to scale by motivating your people to fire themselves from their worst tasks and focus on their best expertise.
If your team continues to evolve in this way while your company keeps sound unit economics, then congratulations! You've solved the scaling problem.
>You could hope to find one person to fill any two of those jobs, but all you'll get out of a 'scrappy content marketer' is a vacant position and a series of burnouts.
One person can easily manage all of this and more very affordably with freelancers, tools, and a decent process.
Where you go wrong is when the person managing is "figuring it out on the fly."
Use canva or stencil for design, use textbroker or copypress for content at scale, all that is left is building an editorial calendar, planning content promotion, blogger outreach, all of which can be done with tools, etc...
...if you have clarity about what exactly needs to be done from ideation to promotion, its really not that hard for one person with tools and freelancers to execute on.
One person can easily manage all of this and more very affordably with freelancers, tools, and a decent process.
Where you go wrong is when the person managing is "figuring it out on the fly."
Use canva or stencil for design, use textbroker or copypress for content at scale, all that is left is building an editorial calendar, planning content promotion, blogger outreach, all of which can be done with tools, etc...
...if you have clarity about what exactly needs to be done from ideation to promotion, its really not that hard for one person with tools and freelancers to execute on.
Does that not depend entirely on the size/stage of your business, the size of your customers and your industry?
I don't think it's unusual for an email list to be managed by one dude at an early stage tech startup.
I don't think it's unusual for an email list to be managed by one dude at an early stage tech startup.
A good marketing manager with a few years under her belt should be able to do this without breaking a sweat. Unfortunately, like a non-tech company hiring programmers, non-marketers seem to be pretty bad at recognizing good marketers.
I think the idea is that it's worth "overpaying" for a single exceptional employee in a given area, as opposed to underpaying for several.
(Which seems to be a definite truism in my observation of which businesses and teams succeed and fail).
(Which seems to be a definite truism in my observation of which businesses and teams succeed and fail).
It's hard enough to find a single semi-competent employee by "overpaying". I don't think it's as simple as increasing the salary on the job listing by 20% and watching the super qualified candidates pour in.
I'm not privy to what my employer is advertising for senior DevOps positions, but I can tell you it's not nearly enough: I get resumes where "installed htop" is a prominent bullet point. Literally.
The last two hires have been somewhere between oxygen thief and chair warmer.
TL;DR: If you are getting crappy candidates, you are likely offering too little and could tempt better candidates with a better offer.
The last two hires have been somewhere between oxygen thief and chair warmer.
TL;DR: If you are getting crappy candidates, you are likely offering too little and could tempt better candidates with a better offer.
I've looked into the market for Sr. DevOps positions lately and unfortunately found exactly that to be the case. No one is willing to offer enough to lure me away from my current gig, where I'm reasonably happy. The employers that don't immediately scoff at the proposed salary tend to give me grief about it, which makes it not worth the time.
What do you think is a reasonable salary for Senior DevOps engineers these days?
Use glassdoor my friend, the salaries vary a lot by location and company.
You should checkout what competitors are paying in your location
You should checkout what competitors are paying in your location
When you say "overpaying", what is that number for you? For context, in 2011, Clorox and other established Bay Area companies paid marketing managers with a few years of relevant experience ~$120,000. Visa is starting fresh Economics grads at $70,000 for marketing roles.
If you're not in that neighborhood, good luck. Startups don't seem to value marketing as much as the big companies, and then they wonder why they need 4 people for one job. Offering under $100K for a Director of Marketing (sadly common in startups) is a joke.
If you're not in that neighborhood, good luck. Startups don't seem to value marketing as much as the big companies, and then they wonder why they need 4 people for one job. Offering under $100K for a Director of Marketing (sadly common in startups) is a joke.
Honestly, these salaries seem like a lot as is, from where I come from.
Instead of guessing what's a fair pay wouldn't be better to pay or get paid on results - revenue you bring in. The marketing director or others in the team are close enough (in terms of agency they have on revenue) to revenue generation that this should be possible, no?
Instead of guessing what's a fair pay wouldn't be better to pay or get paid on results - revenue you bring in. The marketing director or others in the team are close enough (in terms of agency they have on revenue) to revenue generation that this should be possible, no?
It's not quite that easy. Some marketing content, like blog posts, has long-term value that can't be easily measured in the same fiscal period it was created in. A huge task of marketing is to increase the awareness and value of a brand, getting better search result rankings and helping more people find and trust the company. These effects absolutely affect the bottom line, but they can be pretty hard to measure.
Marketing also generally has multiple touch points before a sale actually occurs. Maybe you see a Google paid result that you ignore, then a YouTube pre-roll that you tune out, and then you see their logo on a train ad during your commute. None of those result in a sale, but you finally see the company at a conference, grab some swag, talk to one of their salespeople, and become a customer. In this example, their revenue looks like it was generated by the efforts of the sales department, but in reality marketing had a lot to do with it, too.
If your company has all the right tracking in place, you can determine the path your customers took when they ultimately bought your product, provided that they bought it online. That still ignores their prior exposure to the product that helped convince them during the current session. More importantly, if you were to measure marketing performance based solely on those metrics, your marketers would have little incentive to do all of their other important functions.
Marketing also generally has multiple touch points before a sale actually occurs. Maybe you see a Google paid result that you ignore, then a YouTube pre-roll that you tune out, and then you see their logo on a train ad during your commute. None of those result in a sale, but you finally see the company at a conference, grab some swag, talk to one of their salespeople, and become a customer. In this example, their revenue looks like it was generated by the efforts of the sales department, but in reality marketing had a lot to do with it, too.
If your company has all the right tracking in place, you can determine the path your customers took when they ultimately bought your product, provided that they bought it online. That still ignores their prior exposure to the product that helped convince them during the current session. More importantly, if you were to measure marketing performance based solely on those metrics, your marketers would have little incentive to do all of their other important functions.
I'm not in your situation at all, but it does not pass the smell test that you need more than one person, much less four, to work on growing a 1000 person email list without burnout.
From the article: "SalesForce, and even much smaller companies, can comfortably spend $5,000 on a trade show booth because it’s a small part of their larger marketing strategy. It makes sense for them, because they can afford to buy booths at every relevant conference and get consistent face-time with their market over the long-term."
SalesForce spent $250K on a party pre-IPO, back in 2000.[1] Four floors of the Regency and the B-52s. Playing startup was much bigger in the first dot-com boom. This time around, everybody is working very hard. Not necessarily on the right stuff, but working hard.
[1] http://www.sfgirl.com/webtrash.html
SalesForce spent $250K on a party pre-IPO, back in 2000.[1] Four floors of the Regency and the B-52s. Playing startup was much bigger in the first dot-com boom. This time around, everybody is working very hard. Not necessarily on the right stuff, but working hard.
[1] http://www.sfgirl.com/webtrash.html
> SalesForce, and even much smaller companies, can comfortably spend $5,000 on a trade show booth
5000 for a booth is a bargain even for really obscure trade shows, and it makes absolute sense for a B2B entity to be present at trade shows.
5000 for a booth is a bargain even for really obscure trade shows, and it makes absolute sense for a B2B entity to be present at trade shows.
> it makes absolute sense for a B2B entity to be present at trade shows
It may make sense for some B2B entities to be present at trade shows but the article is talking about early-stage companies buying trade show sponsorships. Depending on how you interpret "early-stage", I'd argue that this article is wholly accurate -- there likely is a smarter way to spend that $5,000. However, at some point you cross a line where your product is ready for the next growth stage and that $5,000 is well spent at $X Conference. At that point, $X Conference is part of your larger marketing strategy, also pointed out in the article.
It may make sense for some B2B entities to be present at trade shows but the article is talking about early-stage companies buying trade show sponsorships. Depending on how you interpret "early-stage", I'd argue that this article is wholly accurate -- there likely is a smarter way to spend that $5,000. However, at some point you cross a line where your product is ready for the next growth stage and that $5,000 is well spent at $X Conference. At that point, $X Conference is part of your larger marketing strategy, also pointed out in the article.
The original article is completely wrong on this point.
Maybe some startups sponsor but don't attend? That would be foolish.
Alternatively, spending any money on marketing before you have anything customers can actually buy or use or trial would be foolish.
But if you've got something even a little bit useful that's ready for people to try, and you plan to attend the conference, that $5,000 is a smoking deal!!!
Maybe some startups sponsor but don't attend? That would be foolish.
Alternatively, spending any money on marketing before you have anything customers can actually buy or use or trial would be foolish.
But if you've got something even a little bit useful that's ready for people to try, and you plan to attend the conference, that $5,000 is a smoking deal!!!
It's super easy to discount people who have these habits but I think we should also look at why these habits develop.
Part of what makes a start-up hard is there aren't any processes in place nor a true north for what the company should do nor how they should do it. Coupled with people who might be new to start-ups and lack the ability to optimize which tasks they work on, I'd bet some of these bad habits develop.
Another time when these bad habits may develop is when people are fighting fires all day. They don't always have the time to reasses how and when to fix what's broken to set up the company for future success.
The rule of thumb I try to think about is "what activities have high leverage" and "will talking about or doing this change what we do or how we do it?". These two checks often help me figure out if the activity is worth doing or if it's "bullshit".
Part of what makes a start-up hard is there aren't any processes in place nor a true north for what the company should do nor how they should do it. Coupled with people who might be new to start-ups and lack the ability to optimize which tasks they work on, I'd bet some of these bad habits develop.
Another time when these bad habits may develop is when people are fighting fires all day. They don't always have the time to reasses how and when to fix what's broken to set up the company for future success.
The rule of thumb I try to think about is "what activities have high leverage" and "will talking about or doing this change what we do or how we do it?". These two checks often help me figure out if the activity is worth doing or if it's "bullshit".
Agreed about identifying the real reasons why, habit wise, startup owners do things the way they do. I am talking psychologically, blind spots. Many of us can only introspect effectively when we're afforded sufficient space to think clearly.
I've been through almost all 7 items that Alex Turnbull lists in the article. In the end we had to lay off our single employee (prematurely hired), close office (prematurely leased) and put in storage most of our furniture. We were forced to reconsider all we did through the new lens of this criteria: is there a paying client?
It was a bitter and, memory wise, a cringe-worthy part of my recent history. I'm in my 40s (started our startup when I was 39 - three years ago) and only really had partial experience doing independent consulting. My experience and practical references have only ever been informed from the perspective of an employee and through the paradigm of that working ethic. This, the employee thinking, was the weakest heritage I took into the startup world. As a technical software developer I am sufficiently competent, but only ever lived in an employee (sheltered) worldview. This was a fatal disposition to take into the world of startup.
I learnt a few things in the months after we restarted (circa 2015 Jan):
1. Startup owners run scared 24/7
2. Fear drives most, if not all, decisions
3. The single most import source of fear is the quitting of a secure job
4. Fear affects your technical abilities
5. Hope is the ointment for the fear
6. Subconscious drive to drown out the fear usually means propping up hope, which is usually accomplished by spending, hiring and "growing" - and by spending time with people or groups considered "safe" (out of your field to give you objective feedback!)
7. Rejection feeds fear and affects momentum of progress. So opportunities are avoided because rejection is more likely than success is.
It takes courage and an endocrine balance that favours decisions made without influence of fear. This can only happen when you lose your blind spots.
I've been through almost all 7 items that Alex Turnbull lists in the article. In the end we had to lay off our single employee (prematurely hired), close office (prematurely leased) and put in storage most of our furniture. We were forced to reconsider all we did through the new lens of this criteria: is there a paying client?
It was a bitter and, memory wise, a cringe-worthy part of my recent history. I'm in my 40s (started our startup when I was 39 - three years ago) and only really had partial experience doing independent consulting. My experience and practical references have only ever been informed from the perspective of an employee and through the paradigm of that working ethic. This, the employee thinking, was the weakest heritage I took into the startup world. As a technical software developer I am sufficiently competent, but only ever lived in an employee (sheltered) worldview. This was a fatal disposition to take into the world of startup.
I learnt a few things in the months after we restarted (circa 2015 Jan):
1. Startup owners run scared 24/7
2. Fear drives most, if not all, decisions
3. The single most import source of fear is the quitting of a secure job
4. Fear affects your technical abilities
5. Hope is the ointment for the fear
6. Subconscious drive to drown out the fear usually means propping up hope, which is usually accomplished by spending, hiring and "growing" - and by spending time with people or groups considered "safe" (out of your field to give you objective feedback!)
7. Rejection feeds fear and affects momentum of progress. So opportunities are avoided because rejection is more likely than success is.
It takes courage and an endocrine balance that favours decisions made without influence of fear. This can only happen when you lose your blind spots.
Balance sheets and cash flow statements are, if not the antidote to fear, at least a control measure. I think that cost accounting is the Achilles' heel of most startups, particularly those dealing with client work. The key is to always think about employee loaded costs and client pursuit costs. Every time you add a cost -- office space, furniture, laptops, administrative and sales staff, kegs of craft beer, Slack accounts -- you need to make sure that you're allocating those to the loaded costs of your billing employees (in the same way that the military tracks its "tooth to tail" ratio), in addition to salary, holidays/sick days, and benefit costs. Otherwise it's easy to "lose" expenditures and not realize that your margins are slipping. Likewise with pursuit costs; even if you treat sales salaries as "tail," direct costs and commission can eat away at project value pretty quickly.
Hello, founder of a bootstrapped WordPress theme & plugin development business reporting in. Been running a profitable "startup" for 5-7 years (depending on whether you count my first two years as a solo freelancer).
Can confirm that not all startups are like this!
1) Meetings
We have one per week and sometimes cancel that because we feel it's overkill
2) Hiring tons of people
If anything we don't hire enough because we never spend money we haven't yet earned
3) Vanity benchmarks
One benchmark - cash in the bank (if it's too little, tighten the belt, if it's too much, spend it to grow)
4) Meetups
I'm terrible at networking and should do more of these!
5) Sponsoring conferences
HA!
6) Office, business cards and so on
Don't have either... 100% remote has worked since day one... OK, just got an office (sort of, it's shared) in Bangkok but no one works there!
7) Having more conversations with people outside of your market than people in it
I am totally guilty of that one!
Please don't take any of this as a claim that we are better... I can and have leveled a thousand criticisms at how I run things... just saying, "startups" that exist way, way outside of this mold are definitely out there :)
Can confirm that not all startups are like this!
1) Meetings
We have one per week and sometimes cancel that because we feel it's overkill
2) Hiring tons of people
If anything we don't hire enough because we never spend money we haven't yet earned
3) Vanity benchmarks
One benchmark - cash in the bank (if it's too little, tighten the belt, if it's too much, spend it to grow)
4) Meetups
I'm terrible at networking and should do more of these!
5) Sponsoring conferences
HA!
6) Office, business cards and so on
Don't have either... 100% remote has worked since day one... OK, just got an office (sort of, it's shared) in Bangkok but no one works there!
7) Having more conversations with people outside of your market than people in it
I am totally guilty of that one!
Please don't take any of this as a claim that we are better... I can and have leveled a thousand criticisms at how I run things... just saying, "startups" that exist way, way outside of this mold are definitely out there :)
On the other hand, what you describe doesn't sound like a start up from the high-growth/external investment required point of view.
Sure startup is a sexier way to describe a young, small business but semantics aside, this feels like "traditional" business looking for glamour. Of which I am equally guilty, donnt take this as criticism.
Sure startup is a sexier way to describe a young, small business but semantics aside, this feels like "traditional" business looking for glamour. Of which I am equally guilty, donnt take this as criticism.
You'll find that outside HN and the Bay area the definition of "startup" tends to be broader than simply "high growth, high risk".
It actually feels like there are two conflicting definitions.
In tech you often hear people describe companies like AirBnB, Facebook and even Google described as "startups" although they're no longer "early stage" by any means and often have already peaked their growth and surpassed investment needs (though there may still be additional investments happening).
Outside it often feels like the label applies to any small service or tech company that was recently founded, period. This is certainly what a lot of "startup" events cater to. And of course there are plenty of companies that would be "startups" in the Bay area sense but failed to find investors and instead ended up bootstrapping and becoming profitable.
It actually feels like there are two conflicting definitions.
In tech you often hear people describe companies like AirBnB, Facebook and even Google described as "startups" although they're no longer "early stage" by any means and often have already peaked their growth and surpassed investment needs (though there may still be additional investments happening).
Outside it often feels like the label applies to any small service or tech company that was recently founded, period. This is certainly what a lot of "startup" events cater to. And of course there are plenty of companies that would be "startups" in the Bay area sense but failed to find investors and instead ended up bootstrapping and becoming profitable.
If I was looking for glamour I would have raised money, started the type of business described in the blog post, and probably gone on to make many more of the mistakes it lists.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is if you're an aspiring business owner you don't have to go for this high-growth/external investment model. It encourages lax fiscal discipline which is the cause of these mistakes. I sometimes feel people I know who have gone through this could have learned more and earned more by bootstrapping.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is if you're an aspiring business owner you don't have to go for this high-growth/external investment model. It encourages lax fiscal discipline which is the cause of these mistakes. I sometimes feel people I know who have gone through this could have learned more and earned more by bootstrapping.
But this is a conversation about startups.
Not everyone buys into the redefinition of a startup as a company pursuing massive growth. The word has a broader meaning that encompasses other kinds of strategies for becoming a viable business.
> The word has a broader meaning that encompasses other kinds of strategies
Does it really? I don't actually accept that, but around here at least, this is a common enough definition that you should call it out when you're going to deviate from it:
A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit."
~ http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
Does it really? I don't actually accept that, but around here at least, this is a common enough definition that you should call it out when you're going to deviate from it:
A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit."
~ http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
The word is a regular English word that has a widely accepted meeting outside this message board, and had that meaning for decades before Paul Graham tried to redefine it. [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/start-up]
Litigating what the correct meaning of "startup" is on HN is not productive, but we should recognize that not everyone agrees with Graham's redefinition, and therefore arguments that cite his essay are begging the question.
Litigating what the correct meaning of "startup" is on HN is not productive, but we should recognize that not everyone agrees with Graham's redefinition, and therefore arguments that cite his essay are begging the question.
> Litigating what the correct meaning of "startup" is on HN is not productive
I disagree. It's really really really hard to build a business and make it grow. Any logical tools we can use to cut down on the space of strategies and goals worth pursuing is worth its weight in gold. Coming to more restrictive definitions of "startup" does exactly that.
More prosaically, if we don't do it ourselves, investors are just going to do it for us and leave us in the dark as to what their real criteria for funding is. We want them to be a part of the conversation because bootstrapping everything sucks. Being needlessly inclusive hurts everybody.
I disagree. It's really really really hard to build a business and make it grow. Any logical tools we can use to cut down on the space of strategies and goals worth pursuing is worth its weight in gold. Coming to more restrictive definitions of "startup" does exactly that.
More prosaically, if we don't do it ourselves, investors are just going to do it for us and leave us in the dark as to what their real criteria for funding is. We want them to be a part of the conversation because bootstrapping everything sucks. Being needlessly inclusive hurts everybody.
I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph. Could you explain further what you mean, especially about being 'needlessly inclusive'?
So, let's say you're a would-be entrepreneur looking to start a business and run an enterprise and get rich. How do you know where to begin? If you don't have connections to help, you're stuck with only your own understandings, your own resources, and your success or failure will be mostly attributed to luck.
Cutting down on this luck factor is the problem the startup landscape is trying to solve. We can provide two things to would-be entrepreneurs, information and resources. Information can obviously be free, but resources have to be limited.
It does the industry, the collection of people providing information and resources, the most good if following the information, which they can get for free, leads easily and directly into provisioning of resources. A more transparent process makes it more democratic and a better route for real social change.
So we want to constrain the definition of words like 'startup' so that they better conform to what investors are looking for in ventures to fund. Sure, anybody can use the term any way they want, but for this community, 'everybody starting a venture is a startup' does nothing to help the would-be entrepreneurs to do the right things they need to do to get investment. It's too inclusive, it does not provide a pathway for people that want to join the community to gain real, material help with their venture. It needs to be a useful tool of exclusion.
Cutting down on this luck factor is the problem the startup landscape is trying to solve. We can provide two things to would-be entrepreneurs, information and resources. Information can obviously be free, but resources have to be limited.
It does the industry, the collection of people providing information and resources, the most good if following the information, which they can get for free, leads easily and directly into provisioning of resources. A more transparent process makes it more democratic and a better route for real social change.
So we want to constrain the definition of words like 'startup' so that they better conform to what investors are looking for in ventures to fund. Sure, anybody can use the term any way they want, but for this community, 'everybody starting a venture is a startup' does nothing to help the would-be entrepreneurs to do the right things they need to do to get investment. It's too inclusive, it does not provide a pathway for people that want to join the community to gain real, material help with their venture. It needs to be a useful tool of exclusion.
Even in technology, which is just a slice of all of (say) American enterprise, it's hardly an accepted norm that new business starts must be funded by investors.
What's instead happened is that people who pay attention to message boards like this are afflicted with a kind of snow blindness from all the random businesses that do get funded by third party investors. It is true: if you want to be funded by third parties, you will need to build a certain kind of business, and that business will look a lot like what Paul Graham defines as a startup. There's a lot of debate about whether and why this is, but the math is straightforward: if you want to take a few million dollars of O.P.M. to build a business with, you need to aim at the moon and hit it for those investors to have a viable business model.
What people who don't build businesses on O.P.M. object to is the notion that O.P.M. is the only way to start a viable company.
So: sure. If you want to educate people who plan on building VC-funded companies, you're right. It's a good idea not to delude them into thinking they can take a few $MM and grow organically. They should probably follow most of the Paul Graham playbook.
But more companies should reflect about whether they want to take a few $MM to begin with. Many people would be happier if they didn't. A lot --- most, in fact --- of the companies who do take the money have fooled themselves, and are frittering away the single most valuable resource they have (their time) on companies that have less than a crap-shot chance at success. Craps works extremely well for investors. It's not so great for founders.
What's instead happened is that people who pay attention to message boards like this are afflicted with a kind of snow blindness from all the random businesses that do get funded by third party investors. It is true: if you want to be funded by third parties, you will need to build a certain kind of business, and that business will look a lot like what Paul Graham defines as a startup. There's a lot of debate about whether and why this is, but the math is straightforward: if you want to take a few million dollars of O.P.M. to build a business with, you need to aim at the moon and hit it for those investors to have a viable business model.
What people who don't build businesses on O.P.M. object to is the notion that O.P.M. is the only way to start a viable company.
So: sure. If you want to educate people who plan on building VC-funded companies, you're right. It's a good idea not to delude them into thinking they can take a few $MM and grow organically. They should probably follow most of the Paul Graham playbook.
But more companies should reflect about whether they want to take a few $MM to begin with. Many people would be happier if they didn't. A lot --- most, in fact --- of the companies who do take the money have fooled themselves, and are frittering away the single most valuable resource they have (their time) on companies that have less than a crap-shot chance at success. Craps works extremely well for investors. It's not so great for founders.
You're the only one litigating the meaning of words. Anytime you find yourself providing a link to a dictionary, you should consider that you're being pedantic and have no point. That's certainly what it looks like to me.
I'm not providing a link to a PG essay because it coincidentally agrees with my position -- there's a big orange "Y" at the top of this page, and it's not there arbitrarily. If you're having a conversation on HN about startups, there's an underlying culture which you need to be aware of. Demanding people justify a shared understanding of a term's meaning by challenging whether or not it doesn't mean something else is arrogant -- have you considered that you are ignorant of the basic terms of the discussion, as it occurs on HN?
There are other conversations where your definition might be right. That has nothing to do with this conversation.
I'm not providing a link to a PG essay because it coincidentally agrees with my position -- there's a big orange "Y" at the top of this page, and it's not there arbitrarily. If you're having a conversation on HN about startups, there's an underlying culture which you need to be aware of. Demanding people justify a shared understanding of a term's meaning by challenging whether or not it doesn't mean something else is arrogant -- have you considered that you are ignorant of the basic terms of the discussion, as it occurs on HN?
There are other conversations where your definition might be right. That has nothing to do with this conversation.
I realize that I'm defending vinegar-based sauces on a BBQ discussion board that is committed to tomato-based sauces, and run by a powerful tomato conglomerate.
But I've been here a long time (just like you), and my account predates Paul Graham's fatwa about startups. If he chooses to redefine other words in future essays, I reserve the right to link to the dictionary again.
My goal is not to be obnoxious, but to keep the terms of debate open for people who have a more expansive view of what online businesses can look like, and what values might be important to their founders.
But I've been here a long time (just like you), and my account predates Paul Graham's fatwa about startups. If he chooses to redefine other words in future essays, I reserve the right to link to the dictionary again.
My goal is not to be obnoxious, but to keep the terms of debate open for people who have a more expansive view of what online businesses can look like, and what values might be important to their founders.
What is your definition of a startup? I have a hard time thinking of my local pizzeria as a "startup" even though they are undoubtably a small business.
Ultimately, I think PG's definition defines a useful category of businesses to think about and litigating the label we use for that category doesn't help anyone.
Ultimately, I think PG's definition defines a useful category of businesses to think about and litigating the label we use for that category doesn't help anyone.
Ask someone who's lived for any serious amount of time in Ann Arbor whether a local pizzeria could be a "startup". Domino's started as a single crappy pizza place in Ypsi. It's an 8 billion dollar company today that will almost definitely outlast Twitter and Yahoo.
For reasons I don't quite fathom, discussions about business on HN seem all to be born without the part of their brains that understands business fundamentals. Almost every business can be made to scale (ironically, the more high-status the business, the trickier it is to scale, which is why you'd be better off investing in a crappy pizzeria than in Grant Achatz). You can build a billion dollar plumbing company. You can build a billion dollar accounting firm. Someone out there --- god, I hope it's actually a housecleaner --- is going to build a billion dollar housecleaning company. Do you really need the mechanics of how this works? Do the work. Get good. Hire people to do the work for you. Get good at managing them. Hire people to manage the people you hire to do the work. Repeat.
Nobody disputes whether the category of businesses Paul Graham describes is useful. It clearly is. If you plan on building a business on other people's money, it's vitally important that you understand almost everything he has to say.
What is in dispute is whether that category of business is so important that it should annex the term "startup". Plenty of businesses you would describe as startups don't obey Graham's rules at all, because they scaled up on a different schedule than A16Z wants businesses to, and did it without a single wire transfer from A16Z.
For reasons I don't quite fathom, discussions about business on HN seem all to be born without the part of their brains that understands business fundamentals. Almost every business can be made to scale (ironically, the more high-status the business, the trickier it is to scale, which is why you'd be better off investing in a crappy pizzeria than in Grant Achatz). You can build a billion dollar plumbing company. You can build a billion dollar accounting firm. Someone out there --- god, I hope it's actually a housecleaner --- is going to build a billion dollar housecleaning company. Do you really need the mechanics of how this works? Do the work. Get good. Hire people to do the work for you. Get good at managing them. Hire people to manage the people you hire to do the work. Repeat.
Nobody disputes whether the category of businesses Paul Graham describes is useful. It clearly is. If you plan on building a business on other people's money, it's vitally important that you understand almost everything he has to say.
What is in dispute is whether that category of business is so important that it should annex the term "startup". Plenty of businesses you would describe as startups don't obey Graham's rules at all, because they scaled up on a different schedule than A16Z wants businesses to, and did it without a single wire transfer from A16Z.
I think you're being excessively patronizing, which is insulting because I usually like your comments. I'm well-aware of "business fundamentals."
I'm not saying high-growth startups are better than other kinds of businesses. Heck, I'd very willingly advocate the view that other kinds of small businesses have better business fundamentals than tech startups.
Just because one pizzeria managed to scale doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of small businesses are not built to scale. Most small business owners think about how to grow 10-20% in the next year, not 100-200%. Heck, in my experience a lot of them are terrified of the concept of rapid growth.
Like I said in my comment, I don't really care if we use the term "startup" to refer to high-growth businesses or not. We should just all agree on a consistent set of terms and stick to that.
Otherwise you get unhelpful comments. Like I could talk about how my "startup" has reached profitability and 6 figures of revenue with only a single employee. Except this startup is my consulting business and has no business being lumped in with high-growth VC-funded companies.
I'm not saying high-growth startups are better than other kinds of businesses. Heck, I'd very willingly advocate the view that other kinds of small businesses have better business fundamentals than tech startups.
Just because one pizzeria managed to scale doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of small businesses are not built to scale. Most small business owners think about how to grow 10-20% in the next year, not 100-200%. Heck, in my experience a lot of them are terrified of the concept of rapid growth.
Like I said in my comment, I don't really care if we use the term "startup" to refer to high-growth businesses or not. We should just all agree on a consistent set of terms and stick to that.
Otherwise you get unhelpful comments. Like I could talk about how my "startup" has reached profitability and 6 figures of revenue with only a single employee. Except this startup is my consulting business and has no business being lumped in with high-growth VC-funded companies.
Personally, I think of a startup as a relatively young business pursuing an innovative product or business model.
I agree that "venture-backed startup" is a useful mental category. Pretending that it's the only category is what bugs me.
I agree that "venture-backed startup" is a useful mental category. Pretending that it's the only category is what bugs me.
The very fact that you're having this conversation indicates that not everyone here agrees with your definition of startup. If you want Hacker News to be a Silicon Valley only / Paul Graham acolyte space, I think it's a battle you've lost already.
Relax.
The GP's point is that definitions are important and litigating the definition of the word startup has been tried before and doesn't end up benefiting anyone.
The logic flows as such:
1. People making judgements about startups
2. Not everyone can agree what the definition of a startup is (even if the benevolent dictator has stated their opinion on the matter)
3. Therefore it's incredibly difficult to agree or disagree about judgements of startups because the underlying definition is not clear
You may claim that #3 should be pg's definition "because its HN/YC", but not all HN members agree.
The GP's point is that definitions are important and litigating the definition of the word startup has been tried before and doesn't end up benefiting anyone.
The logic flows as such:
1. People making judgements about startups
2. Not everyone can agree what the definition of a startup is (even if the benevolent dictator has stated their opinion on the matter)
3. Therefore it's incredibly difficult to agree or disagree about judgements of startups because the underlying definition is not clear
You may claim that #3 should be pg's definition "because its HN/YC", but not all HN members agree.
Okay, here's the other thing though -- unless you use the definition I'm providing, the article linked to here about "playing startup" doesn't make any sense. Unless someone genuinely doesn't understand that startup is being used in a narrower sense, there's no reason to raise this objection.
It's like objecting to a discussion about angels (the investors) because the word typically refers to angelic beings, or the baseball team.
It's like objecting to a discussion about angels (the investors) because the word typically refers to angelic beings, or the baseball team.
Starting a business is not the same as a startup. Just like having your own business doesn't make you an entrepreneur. Finally, an idea can be great but that doesn't necessarily make it innovation.
Where's the confusion?
Where's the confusion?
> Just like having your own business doesn't make you an entrepreneur.
...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrepreneur
...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrepreneur
The point zdkl was making was that you're not running what people describe as a startup - that is, a high growth, early stage business. And that if you're not running a startup then it is only logical that you are much less likely to 'play startups'. Do you see what he means?
Also, you talk about raising money like it's a bad thing. Don't forget that plenty of fiscally responsible high growth companies have raised angel & VC rounds. Just because you take on less responsibility doesn't make you more responsible, as a founder & business owner.
Also, you talk about raising money like it's a bad thing. Don't forget that plenty of fiscally responsible high growth companies have raised angel & VC rounds. Just because you take on less responsibility doesn't make you more responsible, as a founder & business owner.
The WordPress lexicon is fond of taking widely accepted terms and redefining them. This is no surprise.
Every dictionary I just checked (Oxford, Mirriam-Webster, Cambridge) defines startup as "A newly established business".
The redefinition (a useful one for many discussions) was by pg to clarify his points in several essays - not by the Wordpress community.
The redefinition (a useful one for many discussions) was by pg to clarify his points in several essays - not by the Wordpress community.
1) Meetings
We have one per week and sometimes cancel that because we feel it's overkill
Needing to have meetings isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you're making things that don't need many decisions to be made, and everyone agrees on the best approach, then meetings are completely pointless, but if everyone agrees then you're probably not pushing any limits. People have differing opinions at the edges, not about the boring well-trodden middle.
We have one per week and sometimes cancel that because we feel it's overkill
Needing to have meetings isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you're making things that don't need many decisions to be made, and everyone agrees on the best approach, then meetings are completely pointless, but if everyone agrees then you're probably not pushing any limits. People have differing opinions at the edges, not about the boring well-trodden middle.
Meetings also serve the purpose of team building. Just seeing everybody casually in a room for a few minutes lowers the barriers of communication.
> OK, just got an office (sort of, it's shared) in Bangkok but no one works there!
I'm a little curious about this, what do you mean? It sounds like you run pretty lean; why get an office if nobody works there?
I'm a little curious about this, what do you mean? It sounds like you run pretty lean; why get an office if nobody works there?
This was actually something we had to do to comply with Thai labor law. Feel free to contact me (website in profile) if you'd like the details.
I'm interested actually as an engineer who do some side gigs and lives in Bangkok currently. Where is this shared office and how much do you pay for it?
No-one claims all startups are like this. That would be absurd.
ok, but the article was about signs that a startup is doing the wrong thing. it didn't for a minute claim that all startups are doing the wrong things. only that some of them are, and that these are typical warning signs.
Are you confusing bootstrapped business with a startup? Would you call a bootstrapped fast food shop a startup since the owner dream of making it up to a McDonald like chain?
> Would you call a bootstrapped fast food shop a startup
People literally do in SF/SV... Remember 'The Melt'
People literally do in SF/SV... Remember 'The Melt'
Thats not a startup. It is a small business.
Wow, this pretty much sums up to a tee a new company that's moved into my coworking space.
They haven't even launched yet, and they have 9 people, and more working remotely. They also all have branded team swag.
The company I work for is mostly bootstrapped, we've been around for about 3 years now and we still don't have swag, and have only 7 employees (most of whom are sales and support, because we're in a market that requires a lot of human interaction for sales).
They haven't even launched yet, and they have 9 people, and more working remotely. They also all have branded team swag.
The company I work for is mostly bootstrapped, we've been around for about 3 years now and we still don't have swag, and have only 7 employees (most of whom are sales and support, because we're in a market that requires a lot of human interaction for sales).
So the other company has (a) funding and (b) a different strategy than you. This tell us nothing about the quality of either business.
[deleted]
Everybody should try going through a bootstrapped business.
We've been coding for a few months now and don't even have a website. Business cards? hahaha.
Product + market fit comes first, everything else next.
We've been coding for a few months now and don't even have a website. Business cards? hahaha.
Product + market fit comes first, everything else next.
> Product + market fit comes first, everything else next.
I've done the bootstrapped startup. I'd change that line, simplify it.
Sales comes first, everything else next.
I've done the bootstrapped startup. I'd change that line, simplify it.
Sales comes first, everything else next.
Breakfast comes first.
Breakfast is for closers!
My boss used to say breakfast/eating/sleep/sports/anything that's not work is for wimps... Ah Silicon Valley.
Sounds like a bad leadership style. A manager should encourage a healthy work-life balance, otherwise they may find very high turnover.
There's a big difference between a manager and a leader ;).
He should have been a foot-soldier in the trenches of WWI - or more likely - just wants to appear as a badass.
It seems like the culprit here is easy money. We've had twelve years now of ample funding for startups, and a whole generation of coders who have not seen lean times in their entire career. In such circumstances, you would expect people to get profligate.
Has it really been 12 years of ample funding? My recollection is that the downturn in 08-09 was really steep, with Sequoia sending out warnings to all their portfolio companies, mass layoffs at most Bay Area tech companies (my roommate when I moved out here went through 4 rounds at EMC, and was doing the work of 3 people by the end of it), dramatic rent decreases, and the almost total extinction of the Web 2.0 startup craze (remember that?). It recovered in late 2010 with the mobile boom - that's when companies like Uber, Instagram, SnapChat, Parse, etc. were founded. And those companies that managed to survive the downturn (DropBox, AirBnB, KickStarter, Whatsapp, Evernote) emerged quite strong, and were ready to take on massive amounts of funding afterwards.
I was out of the US then, so I may well be wrong. My recollection (working remotely as a consultant) was that people panicked for a month or two, and after that working in tech was like a magical oasis from the chaos.
What was other people's experience like?
What was other people's experience like?
Experiences varied wildly. For employees, it was a terrible time. Large companies were laying off left and right, and Sequoia did indeed advise all CEOs to fire their devs if their product was already on the market.
However, since the stock market was doing so badly, it was the beginning of the moment where a _lot_ of money started looking for somewhere else to go. So if you were of the wherewithal to go out and make a startup, it was a great time to be looking for funding.
So it depends a lot on who you ask. I will say, though, that real estate started taking off in ~2011, so it was more than a month of panic, but I would guess that in 2011-2013 or so SF was far and away the strongest local economy in the US.
However, since the stock market was doing so badly, it was the beginning of the moment where a _lot_ of money started looking for somewhere else to go. So if you were of the wherewithal to go out and make a startup, it was a great time to be looking for funding.
So it depends a lot on who you ask. I will say, though, that real estate started taking off in ~2011, so it was more than a month of panic, but I would guess that in 2011-2013 or so SF was far and away the strongest local economy in the US.
In Seattle there were mass layoffs, people lost homes, the economy spent a few years in a form of stasis. Relative to what I saw happen in other parts of the country though, we were minorly scathed.
The weekend before Lehman collapsed, we closed the biggest deal in the history of our company --- with a giant NY investment bank. At the end of the weekend, the deal had vanished.
Other than that, not even a hiccup. At that time, we were in Chicago and NYC, but not in the Bay Area. However, a pretty big chunk of our client base was in SFBA, and I don't remember that part of the business skipping a beat.
Other than that, not even a hiccup. At that time, we were in Chicago and NYC, but not in the Bay Area. However, a pretty big chunk of our client base was in SFBA, and I don't remember that part of the business skipping a beat.
Your "generation of coders " struck me.
After a dozen years in a startup what will most of these Have $$$ wise.
There were no startups in the '80s for an average comp sci grad like me. After a dozen years working at hugeo monopoly I got ~200k (by doing nothing except vest) once departure occurred. Is it more for the current batch of startup workers after 12 years or so?
After a dozen years in a startup what will most of these Have $$$ wise.
There were no startups in the '80s for an average comp sci grad like me. After a dozen years working at hugeo monopoly I got ~200k (by doing nothing except vest) once departure occurred. Is it more for the current batch of startup workers after 12 years or so?
Yup. Too much funding, not enough urgency.
>Soon, you’ll begin spending more time sharing stories with other founders to learn about their journeys than you spend talking to your customers and your prospects to learn about their needs.
Is it even still possible to use the word "journey" in this context without it dripping with snarky ironic reference to "Our Incredible Journey" [1], with the obvious implication that a start-up is doomed to sell out and shut down and screw all their customers? That the actual "journey" being taken is the wild goose chase of the unwitting customers being led down the garden path? [2]
[1] https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com
[2] http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2013/02/27/our-incredible...
Is it even still possible to use the word "journey" in this context without it dripping with snarky ironic reference to "Our Incredible Journey" [1], with the obvious implication that a start-up is doomed to sell out and shut down and screw all their customers? That the actual "journey" being taken is the wild goose chase of the unwitting customers being led down the garden path? [2]
[1] https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com
[2] http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2013/02/27/our-incredible...
I am pretty sure that's how he intended to use it, considering he is giving an example of what the founders (the ones who are "playing startup") are, or will be, doing (talking about their journeys).
Thanks for the confirmation of my suspicions. For some reason, I didn't think he was allegorically referring to the incredible 250 mile journey through the Canadian wilderness of Luath the Labrador Retriever, Bodger the Bull Terrier, and Tao the Siamese cat. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Journey_(film)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Journey_(film)
Another one to add in is "Buzzword Chasing."
I've been a part of a startup where we were growing our core product at a reasonable rate and having success. But some of our customers kept throwing certain buzzwords at us, "Millennials" being the most oft repeated one. As a result, our founder pivoted hard to a new product targeting that buzzword. The consequences have not been ideal. Another buzzword that is currently threatening to derail us again is "bots."
Buzzwords or trends are something big companies can afford to waste thousands or even millions of dollars chasing aimlessly (often for no real return). A startup cannot. Startups need to have a clear vision of a single product and pursue it relentlessly until they are in the black.
When our customers throw buzzwords at us they aren't expressing a need. Reacting to it as such is often self destructive.
I've been a part of a startup where we were growing our core product at a reasonable rate and having success. But some of our customers kept throwing certain buzzwords at us, "Millennials" being the most oft repeated one. As a result, our founder pivoted hard to a new product targeting that buzzword. The consequences have not been ideal. Another buzzword that is currently threatening to derail us again is "bots."
Buzzwords or trends are something big companies can afford to waste thousands or even millions of dollars chasing aimlessly (often for no real return). A startup cannot. Startups need to have a clear vision of a single product and pursue it relentlessly until they are in the black.
When our customers throw buzzwords at us they aren't expressing a need. Reacting to it as such is often self destructive.
8) "We are doing it for passion, creating value, vision, future, entrepreneurship, making clients' lives easier, etc.. and NOT FOR THE MONEY OR POWER AT ALL"
I really cringe on statement like this. Since startups are not non-profit organizations I tend to cringe when I hear all this "making the world a better place" mantra. I understand that many startup founders have values and vision but as soon as funding comes I think it gets more complicated that.
Entrepreneurship is just a goal for the sake of itself, if you're engineer/tech and you are aware you are just a "slave" who does all the work for almost nothing/a little while the so called "entrepreneurs" do almost nothing and get everything, why don't you become a master (i.e. entrepreneur) yourself, and employ another fool to do the real work for you while you grow a fortune doing almost nothing.
Sorry for my English.
Sys-Bit Digital Solutions. Integrating Open Data Spaces. Yeah. Tech-Bit Data Solution Systems. Creating unique cross platform technology. Technologies. Techno-Jeeeesus. OH FUCK! Infatroid. Cloud based disruptive platforms. Disrupting the cloud of ... I said cloud twice, shit. Making the world a better place through cross platform business facing cloud -- SHIT there's that cloud again. Infatrode. Infatrode? What the fuck is infatrode? What is that? It's all just fucking meaningless words! Ok, no no no no no no no. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place. Goodbye. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place...
KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK -- Sir, are you OK in there? He's been in there all night. I should call the sherif.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsr-QfgFRh8
KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK -- Sir, are you OK in there? He's been in there all night. I should call the sherif.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsr-QfgFRh8
"Please just make me rich"
Curious why you make the distinction between for-profit and non-profit organizations. All organizations face the challenge of their vision of "making the world a better place" not necessarily lining up with the vision of the folks for whom they want to make it better. For-profit companies at least have the signal of "someone is willing to pay me for this" as a concrete guide to whether they align with anyone.
Watsi's founder talked a fair bit about this in his Startup School presentation (which is excellent, BTW):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlT3UhC7NwQ#t=490
Watsi's founder talked a fair bit about this in his Startup School presentation (which is excellent, BTW):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlT3UhC7NwQ#t=490
For-profit companies at least have the signal of "someone is willing to pay me for this" as a concrete guide to whether they align with anyone.
and non-profit companies have the signal of "someone is willing to donate money to pay me to do this for someone else"
and non-profit companies have the signal of "someone is willing to donate money to pay me to do this for someone else"
If I can make money by making the world a better place or by not making it better or by actively making it worse ... I'll choose the making it better option.
Fortunately as an engineer in the SF Bay Area I have a lot of choice in the matter. Have fired myself from clients whose biggest client was Monsanto[1] and its ilk. Not my cup of tea.
[1] I oppose their business and patent practices, I'm fine with gmos. In case anyone wanted to reply with something silly and start a flamewar.
Fortunately as an engineer in the SF Bay Area I have a lot of choice in the matter. Have fired myself from clients whose biggest client was Monsanto[1] and its ilk. Not my cup of tea.
[1] I oppose their business and patent practices, I'm fine with gmos. In case anyone wanted to reply with something silly and start a flamewar.
Gosh this hits close to home. I tried to start a business with a friend beginning of the year. Too many meetings... Too much money on business cards and logos... Too much travelling... I definitely learned a hell of a lot, but I did have this nagging feeling the whole while like "wait, why do I have a business card, I don't even know what I am supposed to be selling here".
As some other people wrote as well - everyone should try to work in a start up at least once. You can learn a lot, especially how not to do things. It will be useful when the day comes of having your own start up :)
Good article. One quibble: $5k for a conference sponsorship is pretty cheap; try finding any space at CES in that price range!
If the conference audience is a perfect fit, and you feel your company/product is far enough along to leverage the exposure, it could make total sense to pay for a booth/sponsorship.
If you don't have $5k to spend on marketing, or it's too early for it to be effective, that's a different story.
But if you do, then compare spending the same amount on AdWords (or other marketing/lead-gen channel X) and see if the math works out.
If the conference audience is a perfect fit, and you feel your company/product is far enough along to leverage the exposure, it could make total sense to pay for a booth/sponsorship.
If you don't have $5k to spend on marketing, or it's too early for it to be effective, that's a different story.
But if you do, then compare spending the same amount on AdWords (or other marketing/lead-gen channel X) and see if the math works out.
I generally love Alex's writing and have learned a ton. This example, and one or two others, stuck out as a little flawed here. If conference sponsorships are a traction channel that proves to be successful for you relative to other channels, then more power to you. To your final point, do what works for your company. This isn't going to come from blog posts – although you may get ideas there. It's going to come from the hard work of developing hypotheses, running experiments, and using benchmarks to start the process anew.
The problem is when a startup treats a conference as a branding exercise ("we got our name out there... success!"), rather than as a means to acquire highly qualified leads so they can close deals and profit from the experience ("we got a 1000% ROI by closing $50K worth of deals... success!").
Why, cosplay is much more easier and pleasant than the actual thing, especially in the age of social media and role governed behavior - the age of cosplay.
You wouldn't believe how many idiots are cosplaying scientists, leave alone all these hipsters cosplaying intelligence..
In general, it boils down to the social advantage of displaying "success" and "competence" - socially constructed markers.
But there is a beautiful principle in biology - the "signals" must be honest and costly, impossible to cheat - one cannot cosplay parasite resistance, superior foraging ability, or good genes in general. One cannot cosplay youth and health. All these celebrities are ridiculous.
Hipsterism is cheap cosplay of intelligence. Founders cosplay special talents and abilities they does not possess. Nothing to see here.
You wouldn't believe how many idiots are cosplaying scientists, leave alone all these hipsters cosplaying intelligence..
In general, it boils down to the social advantage of displaying "success" and "competence" - socially constructed markers.
But there is a beautiful principle in biology - the "signals" must be honest and costly, impossible to cheat - one cannot cosplay parasite resistance, superior foraging ability, or good genes in general. One cannot cosplay youth and health. All these celebrities are ridiculous.
Hipsterism is cheap cosplay of intelligence. Founders cosplay special talents and abilities they does not possess. Nothing to see here.
You'd be surprised, but enterprises like to play the startup game nowadays too! There're whole divisions spinning off as startups all the time... :)
Please! Stop! It's like you're kicking me in the teeth!
I'm with an international corporation. This week alone, I'm averaging about 2 hours of meetings per day. I was expected to attend an "optional" networking event last week. Since it was "optional", I didn't go. If and when that negatively affects me, I'll know it's time to go job hunting. I can see from one end of this floor to the other, because open office floor plan is best office floor plan.
I'm with an international corporation. This week alone, I'm averaging about 2 hours of meetings per day. I was expected to attend an "optional" networking event last week. Since it was "optional", I didn't go. If and when that negatively affects me, I'll know it's time to go job hunting. I can see from one end of this floor to the other, because open office floor plan is best office floor plan.
Yes, it started around the time when Google put the tag "beta" on all of their products.
Along with the 'open office work like a startup looks like' disease.
I guess there is also anxiety involved: if you actually start to build something, there's a big chance you will run into at least some problems. "Playing startup" is a good way to avoid those problems.
> More often than not, meetings are a waste of time, leaned on by people who don’t want to make a difficult decision and would rather punt it to a group.
I have a different experience. Meetings aren't the problem. Getting 2+ people together is important. The problem is how the interaction happens and the costs and benefits involved. No one said that leadership or communication is easy. Building collective will is both an art and a science.
I say this: don't blame meetings. They are necessary. Learn to run better meetings.
I have a different experience. Meetings aren't the problem. Getting 2+ people together is important. The problem is how the interaction happens and the costs and benefits involved. No one said that leadership or communication is easy. Building collective will is both an art and a science.
I say this: don't blame meetings. They are necessary. Learn to run better meetings.
A meeting that does not result in 1) a decision 2) action items or 3) information distribution is a waste of time. As a team, meetings are necessary to get "on the same page". It is true, sometimes in a meeting we think, "This could have been done with email". And other times when there is an email thread with 20+ responses, we think "A meeting would have solved this faster" It is not always easy to plumb the depths of a topic to decide beforehand.
I don't get the meetings bulletpoint. There is no way a startup can compare to the meetings load of a "Big Boy" company. I have always marked the transition from "Start-up" to "Enterprise" by how much time the company spends in meetings. Smaller companies make more decisions by force of persona, and larger ones have endless meetings to make sure no one feels left out of a minute decision.
We have even codified it into a named activity in the software development process, bike shedding
We have even codified it into a named activity in the software development process, bike shedding
Another way to look at it is that the activity being done in the big company is usually going to be much larger scale and affect many more people than the activity being done at the startup- those small groups of startup people pushing through ideas by force of personality/lack of resistance can easily be engaging in just as much bikeshedding, it's just that in a smaller org there's fewer people and lower stakes. Smaller orgs are by definition going to be more agile than larger orgs, but that doesn't grant them more wisdom, just the ability to execute bad decisions more quickly. The only way to avoid bad organizations is to stay out of them, regardless of size IME.
Dear founders:
1: identify/invent __problem__
2: create! solution
3: sell! solution
4: save __profits__
5: goto 1This is great advice. YC hammers home hard the point about not "playing" startup. You should be spending most of your time building your product, talking to users, and selling (or some variation thereof depending on your market). If you're not doing one of those three things, you're probably wasting your time.
[deleted]
You can know easily know if a startup will fail: try to make them easily state how they expect to make money.
Most self named startup that are as much a startup the new baker around the corner feel self entitled to be fuzzy about earning money.
A baker is like a startup, it requires freaking investment, it requires innovation, it requires to adapt to a market where distributions bake frozen «high value» (frozen) bread at 50% of the costs.
But a baker will always know how he/she makes money, how much investments are needed, that they must have a plan to reimburse debts, a point of equilibrium, a knowledge of operational costs and a clear position on the market in front of competition.
That is why I am trying to get hired by the baker around the corner, I feel more entrepreneurship in this guy than most MBA in suits and tie that plays with others money and lives without a real sense of responsibility or professionalism.
Most self named startup that are as much a startup the new baker around the corner feel self entitled to be fuzzy about earning money.
A baker is like a startup, it requires freaking investment, it requires innovation, it requires to adapt to a market where distributions bake frozen «high value» (frozen) bread at 50% of the costs.
But a baker will always know how he/she makes money, how much investments are needed, that they must have a plan to reimburse debts, a point of equilibrium, a knowledge of operational costs and a clear position on the market in front of competition.
That is why I am trying to get hired by the baker around the corner, I feel more entrepreneurship in this guy than most MBA in suits and tie that plays with others money and lives without a real sense of responsibility or professionalism.
Completely agree with the premise here. I think some of the causes of this are worth exploring/understanding. I believe part of it is just about getting laid. Startups are cool right now, they are like the modern band. You can create a sense of "...maybe this guy is the next Zuck?" with girls fairly easily. Another part of it is that there are a lot of people in the startup community that prey on others and/or have no clue. I wasted a shameful amount of time on what I've heard YC folks refers to as "playing house" because that's what people in my community were encouraging, and I didn't know any better. Only when I stopped going to meetups and searching for validation elsewhere was I able to truly begin building a business by focusing exclusively on solving problems for clients.
[deleted]
> "the unimaginably high likelihood of failure"
What? I can imagine the rate might be as high as 100%. That's hardly "unimaginable".
I am not trying to be merely annoying or pedantic here. I simply want authors to tighten up their writing and exaggerate less. With an exaggeration like that, I stop reading.
What? I can imagine the rate might be as high as 100%. That's hardly "unimaginable".
I am not trying to be merely annoying or pedantic here. I simply want authors to tighten up their writing and exaggerate less. With an exaggeration like that, I stop reading.
Thanks for this comment.
I think you just saved me time reading the article and further HN comments. In fact, I feel so much time was saved, I used some of it to write this.
I'm serious.
I think you just saved me time reading the article and further HN comments. In fact, I feel so much time was saved, I used some of it to write this.
I'm serious.
I really just have one measure of whether a startup is on-track or not -- can they verbalize to you what core business transaction is going to take place wherein a customer will give them money in exchange for a product/service? If not, there is no business there.
"Doesn't matter" is perhaps too bold. 'Misprioritized' better describes what I've seen. Sometimes partners have trouble seeing what's more important than something else, either because of communication issues with people below them, or because they get an idea they just can't shake.
The sign that I saw most prominently was operational instability. The application would have performance and sometimes uptime issues; these issues were predictable but time and effort was spent on things other than beefing up infrastructure to make that happen.
When moving off of GMail takes higher precedence than creating an Highly Available web server setup, you know that's a sign that things aren't prioritized well.
The sign that I saw most prominently was operational instability. The application would have performance and sometimes uptime issues; these issues were predictable but time and effort was spent on things other than beefing up infrastructure to make that happen.
When moving off of GMail takes higher precedence than creating an Highly Available web server setup, you know that's a sign that things aren't prioritized well.
I'm probably drawing from a limited sample, and might not be articulating it well, but I would add:
Developing a business plan that depends on a web-based product to succeed, then, instead of focusing on developing the product, hiring a bunch of assistants and reps to do the product's job by hand. You hear the words "concierge," "curated," and - worse - "bespoke" thrown around a lot when this is going on.
The actual product development ends up getting bogged down in a lot of the things that article discusses. My impression is also that there's often an overly-ambitious tech stack for what amounts to a CRUD app with a few feature tweaks.
Developing a business plan that depends on a web-based product to succeed, then, instead of focusing on developing the product, hiring a bunch of assistants and reps to do the product's job by hand. You hear the words "concierge," "curated," and - worse - "bespoke" thrown around a lot when this is going on.
The actual product development ends up getting bogged down in a lot of the things that article discusses. My impression is also that there's often an overly-ambitious tech stack for what amounts to a CRUD app with a few feature tweaks.
Doing something manually is a great way to test an idea. It shouldn't interfere with building the automated product though.
I think that's what I'm getting at, it does in this scenario. A crude but working MVP could be knocked out in a month or two using any of a number of frameworks. Instead, a year or two later, the app is still half-built and most of the client base is coming from the manual work done by assistants, who prop up the illusion that the tech part of the company is on track.
are you meeting demand of an underserved market
people have nervous breakdowns and worse from running startups so make sure you're in a good spot financially to even do it
everything u do creates value. that sexy button your designer just spent two days on cost the company $2600 hope it was worth it.
that bug you left unfixed for a few releases now takes a whole weekend to fix and now one of your developer burns out and quits uh oh costs you $50000.
everything has very very exact price tag. add up all the missteps and the successes and get the final outcome
people have nervous breakdowns and worse from running startups so make sure you're in a good spot financially to even do it
everything u do creates value. that sexy button your designer just spent two days on cost the company $2600 hope it was worth it.
that bug you left unfixed for a few releases now takes a whole weekend to fix and now one of your developer burns out and quits uh oh costs you $50000.
everything has very very exact price tag. add up all the missteps and the successes and get the final outcome
Glad vanity metrics is being given a name. I've worked for one which obsessed about user signups long before we even had a product ready. It was ridiculous
I was under the impression that user sign ups is a real metric?
Another dangerous thing is that you get a sort of false validation from the startup bubble. You mingle with other startup founders and "everyone" is talking about your idea. You get the feeling you're onto something big but in reality the hype never spreads outside the bubble and the idea may not even have a market fit at all.
I have two products I want to build (one more than the other) but I'm raising the capital (which is pretty small, mostly it's time I need) needed to do the initial development by running a small dev-shop with my business partner, client work pays the bills and leaves enough free time to work on the product, it'll take longer to build and there is a slight risk of someone building something similar (though I've not seen anything remotely like it yet which means a) good idea b) it's a terrible idea).
I've no interest in the "startup" model, We work out of a very cheap office in a council (local gov) building and we run cheap!, total business costs (inc rent, internet and phone) run around £450 a month for both businesses (the dev shop and business partners design business), We have a local startup hub that would cost that for a couple of hotdesks, it's crazy.
I've no interest in the "startup" model, We work out of a very cheap office in a council (local gov) building and we run cheap!, total business costs (inc rent, internet and phone) run around £450 a month for both businesses (the dev shop and business partners design business), We have a local startup hub that would cost that for a couple of hotdesks, it's crazy.
Startups aren't very appealing to rationalists, but at some point, you have to ask yourself "Someone is going to let me spend 2 million of their dollars on building something cool, do I really want to let that opportunity go?" Especially when you consider the kind of clowns that get funding out in California.
Not everyone is in a position to accept such a proposition, but with a reasonable amount of perspective and emotional distance, it can be a really good thing for some people.
Not everyone is in a position to accept such a proposition, but with a reasonable amount of perspective and emotional distance, it can be a really good thing for some people.
I can see the logic if you need to scale fast to win but for many things I think that isn't necessary, frankly I like the 'lifestyle' business approach more even though a lot of people seem to sneer at it.
I'd be happy with something that makes a comfortable living and crucially genuinely helps people, I'd consider that a success and its better than playing the unicorn lottery, plus in the UK the SV attitude of throwing money at everything simply doesn't exist anyway.
I'd be happy with something that makes a comfortable living and crucially genuinely helps people, I'd consider that a success and its better than playing the unicorn lottery, plus in the UK the SV attitude of throwing money at everything simply doesn't exist anyway.
> We work out of a very cheap office in a council
How did you arrange that?
How did you arrange that?
That should have been council owned building, typing on a phone is still painful.
Lots of councils here in the UK own office buildings and rent them out, We get two big rooms as a single office for ~340 a month which includes 24/7 access everything but phone/internet basically.
You can see the size of my side http://imgur.com/a/H7fxb in the bottom image, that desk is 8ft long, the other side is even bigger (maybe 60% bigger) but I didn't want it because it's too bright.
Lots of councils here in the UK own office buildings and rent them out, We get two big rooms as a single office for ~340 a month which includes 24/7 access everything but phone/internet basically.
You can see the size of my side http://imgur.com/a/H7fxb in the bottom image, that desk is 8ft long, the other side is even bigger (maybe 60% bigger) but I didn't want it because it's too bright.
Very nice! I'm not sure whether I'm surprised that the council has offices that are so much cheaper than privately available.
Would you mind saying which council this is?
Would you mind saying which council this is?
Not at all, Hull City Council.
They are managed by the NPS group one of those, privatise the public sector deals.
Though out building lease was just taken over by a non-profit setup to help younger people get started in business, so far they've been amazing at getting an old building up to spec :).
Hull is a bit of a basket case economically but its on the up and would be a good place to run a startup if you want cheap good offices and insane broadband, I have 250Mbps at home!
They are managed by the NPS group one of those, privatise the public sector deals.
Though out building lease was just taken over by a non-profit setup to help younger people get started in business, so far they've been amazing at getting an old building up to spec :).
Hull is a bit of a basket case economically but its on the up and would be a good place to run a startup if you want cheap good offices and insane broadband, I have 250Mbps at home!
The company I working for is more then 6 years old but we are still calling ourself a startup.
Sometimes I think it's because of marketing reasons or as an alibi for certain decisions because "that is how they do it in startups". Although we only do the meetings stuff, the benefits we don't have.
So when exactly is a company not a startup anymore ?
Sometimes I think it's because of marketing reasons or as an alibi for certain decisions because "that is how they do it in startups". Although we only do the meetings stuff, the benefits we don't have.
So when exactly is a company not a startup anymore ?
I thought that startups are there to try out new business models? So by that definition at some point you're either a business (proven) or a failure (disproven). OR you're sitting on a big bag of other people's money (startup forever, yay).
I think the worst offender is writing blog posts about startups rather than running them.
Most of these points are "too much of X" on things that are not necessarily obvious. Don't have "too many" meetings, or buy "too much" schwag. There's an arbitrary value in there where apparently you've passed the invisible marker, and you're not a real business anymore to this guy. It really reeks of someone looking in retrospect and saying "oh, you spent too much time in meetings maybe?"
Why can't this just be real businesses who are making mistakes, which could or could not be fatal?
Why can't this just be real businesses who are making mistakes, which could or could not be fatal?
It could be, but I've seen the problem as well.
One obvious reason it's different is the number of people who now have the explicit goal of doing a startup. They don't know what they want to do, but gosh golly they're sure they want to be startup founders.
This is different than, say, 2003. Or 1995. Then, basically nobody wanted to "do a startup". Starting a company was not generally seen positively. It was hard to do, it took many years to get anywhere, it was likely to fail, and you could end up broke. So the people doing it really wanted to launch a particular product, solve a particular problem. They were people with a specific burning vision that they wanted to make real.
But now you'll talk to people who see it as just another career choice. They're going to go to grad school or do a startup. They'll join an investment bank or do a startup. Their idea, their burning passion? They don't have one. But they want to be a founder! Maybe!
What that means, of course, is they want to appear a founder. It's basically like playing dress-up. Except at $1m+ per year of other people's money. That's why the failure mode involves things that look like business but are anathema to serious founders: lots of meetings (where, yay, everybody listens to you because you're the founder), lots of headcount (because that's what grown-up businesses have), vanity metrics, fancy office space, etc, etc.
To people really in business, "too many" has a pretty clear baseline: the absolute minimum you need to get shit done, to make and sell your product. That's why HP started in a garage. Every dollar you spend on vanity is a dollar you you aren't spending on something that matters to your customers.
One obvious reason it's different is the number of people who now have the explicit goal of doing a startup. They don't know what they want to do, but gosh golly they're sure they want to be startup founders.
This is different than, say, 2003. Or 1995. Then, basically nobody wanted to "do a startup". Starting a company was not generally seen positively. It was hard to do, it took many years to get anywhere, it was likely to fail, and you could end up broke. So the people doing it really wanted to launch a particular product, solve a particular problem. They were people with a specific burning vision that they wanted to make real.
But now you'll talk to people who see it as just another career choice. They're going to go to grad school or do a startup. They'll join an investment bank or do a startup. Their idea, their burning passion? They don't have one. But they want to be a founder! Maybe!
What that means, of course, is they want to appear a founder. It's basically like playing dress-up. Except at $1m+ per year of other people's money. That's why the failure mode involves things that look like business but are anathema to serious founders: lots of meetings (where, yay, everybody listens to you because you're the founder), lots of headcount (because that's what grown-up businesses have), vanity metrics, fancy office space, etc, etc.
To people really in business, "too many" has a pretty clear baseline: the absolute minimum you need to get shit done, to make and sell your product. That's why HP started in a garage. Every dollar you spend on vanity is a dollar you you aren't spending on something that matters to your customers.
"...and he’s a sought-after advisor for young companies looking to break through the noise."
That article and these comments were written by a bot. It's all spam.
That article and these comments were written by a bot. It's all spam.
How is "utilizing time contributing to comments on a post like this on HN instead of working on your product" not on the list? :)
Sounds like the folks at 18F are a poster child for this sort of mis-behavior.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/02/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/02/...
given the current pace of insights, by 2025 the tech scene will slowly realize how to actually run a profitable business rather than a "startup".
books will be written, talks will be held.
and anyone outside tech will continue to look in bewilderment as to what the fuck is going on here.
books will be written, talks will be held.
and anyone outside tech will continue to look in bewilderment as to what the fuck is going on here.
Everything in this listicle (except #4) applies to product teams in general, ranging from a startup to an enterprise company.
I don't really think attending meetups are an issue, tbh. Are there startups that force employees to repeatedly go?
I don't really think attending meetups are an issue, tbh. Are there startups that force employees to repeatedly go?
I'd say reading Hacker news and watching startup videos in YouTube is what I feel guilty about but I don't know of a better way to learn about building companies
The meetup advice is highly contextual. If the people at the meetups/events are your target customers, it can be very valuable time (both in terms of getting feedback and closing actual customers).
Vanity is the key here. If you are spending on anything that doesn't directly improve your startups potential but makes you feel good then you should rethink your strategy.
They all seem to sum up to: Too much money, not enough urgency.
I admit I was guilty of this. After failing in my first startup I realized that I was playing the startup game rather than creating true value.
The one thing that solves all problems and is cheap, is lots of customer conversations.
I would add planning the 3rd relaunch of your website to the list.
8) Writing blog posts.
There’s a good chance that one or more of these resonated with you.
And that’s okay; it doesn’t mean that you’re going to fail in business
Yes it does, and you deserve it so that someone more capable can come along. </rant>
And that’s okay; it doesn’t mean that you’re going to fail in business
Yes it does, and you deserve it so that someone more capable can come along. </rant>
this describes graduate school quite well
Why was the title changed from the original one? Bad decision IMO.
The HN guidelines call for changing linkbait titles (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Titles that use superlatives and evoke indignation are on the baity side, so we changed it to the subtitle, with "you" replaced by the more neutral "a startup".
Titles that use superlatives and evoke indignation are on the baity side, so we changed it to the subtitle, with "you" replaced by the more neutral "a startup".
completely OT: I like that HN has strong and heavy moderation for titles, the more definite - the better.
On topic - IMHO articles like these should be more frequent. I dislike 'startup culture'. They should build a business first (or at least have monetization strategy) and party later.
On topic - IMHO articles like these should be more frequent. I dislike 'startup culture'. They should build a business first (or at least have monetization strategy) and party later.
"Look, I get that it’s nice to have stuff with your company’s name on it…" - Donald J Trump
Please stop posting such off-topic comments or we'll ban the account.
#1. Meetings. Don't even get me started.
You can tell a startup is focusing on the wrong thing when: They're using the 'newest', most obscure, programming language or frameworks available because it's the 'best' for some unscientific reason.
Instantly I hear the argument "Yah, but if we need to scale, we don't want to re-write." Ok, you're going to rewrite anyway. Right now your problem is producing quality code that additional people can onboard themselves with. Chances are you can produce something very practical using plain GET/POST operations and gradually add more interactivity on the client side if you prove your product out.
The stem of my rant is this: Recently I was thinking about picking up some side work for extra $. The company I was interviewing with described their front end team as struggling to keep pace and needed some temporary help. The product is under NDA, so let's just say it's a shared calendar. Their stack was insane: 18 different javascript frameworks, required a certain version of Node.js to "compile" to ES6, then another to run it in your browser, and the stylesheets were written in some other obscure language. In the second interview, I told the product manager I think he's been had: the reason your front end team is struggling is because they're not being practical, they're busy with shiny toys. He said he had a feeling, but given his situation he didn't have much of a choice but to continue. He thanked me for being honest and said he understood if I wasn't interested anymore.
Anyway, there's a lot of really "cool" stuff to get distracted by as developers. I think a lot of us need to sober up and really meditate on the phrase "do the simplest thing that could possibly work".