"The reason we built these apps was, in retrospect, incredibly shallow, and I thank my ex-boss for helping me realise this. We built them because we thought they were going to be popular, following the typical web 2.0 path to riches:
1. Make popular app.
2. ???
3. Profit!!1
"Looking back, I think to myself, is trying to make a popular app enough anymore? If you just attempt to make a popular app, how are you any different from the next web startup. The only thing that separates you is ability, and ability can be hired or learned - so the question becomes who has deeper pockets or more free time. Thusly any idiot with time or money can build a web app these days and these were crowded markets we were attempting to break into - productivity and mobile blogging. What then, separates the wheat from the chaff in this case? For me, I think the big one is emotional investment."
It wasn't even a startup at all. They were lying to themselves that it was. In effect they were employees of an investment firm in some sort of ill-defined incubation weirdness. Everyone involved was pretty clueless about what was going on and what to expect. The investment firm was rolling the dice and these guys were enjoying the learning experience and break from consulting.
A bunch of quotes in this article stuck out at me, but this one in particular:
"How can you possibly have the emotional investment necessary to see things through to profitability, through highs, lows and everything in between, if you haven't fought tooth and nail to get there?"
Is this really true, when you take into account startups that fight tooth and nail and still don't succeed? Is it better to start with the confidence, money, and connections of other people and then ride the wave of their support, or is it better to start with nothing other than your own belief in yourself and then fight tooth and nail until you get the confidence, money, and connections of others?
My boss is trying to convince me that I should at least have an offer of cash in hand from an angel investor before leaving my day job, even if I choose not to take it. While this is quite self-serving (he doesn't want me to leave), it also sounds pretty rational. I mean, right now I have fairly little validation other than my cofounder's confidence, my desire to use our own product, and my belief that I have the technical chops to get to the point where we can.
The article suggests that it's probably better not to have that external validation, and definitely better not to take the money. Is that character-building, or foolhardy?
> The article suggests that it's probably better not to have that external validation, and definitely better not to take the money. Is that character-building, or foolhardy?
The article is wrong. Start-up failure is rarely due to lack of emotional investment, it is almost always due to lack of capital. It is better to start with the confidence, money, and connections of other people. The key is to educate yourself about startup finance issues so you don't screw yourself. Luckily there are sites like news.ycombinator and venture hacks which give you a pretty good idea of good and bad funding models.
The question is a strange one. If you need to have fought tooth and nail to get emotional investment, how do you get the emotional investment to fight tooth and nail in first place? Or put another way: by that line of reasoning, won't you have the required emotional investment after the first couple "highs and lows"?
It's true that we're prone to attach emotionally to stuff that we've suffered to get, and you may use that to your advantage. Most of the time, though, you'll have to fight against that instinct. Otherwise, you'll be unable to see bad early ideas for what they are, and you'll resist rolling them back even when it's the rational thing to do. All because you have invested too much of your time, effort, and ego in them.
Did the author's motivation on Open Source Food come from having fought tooth and nail to start it up? He took a week to build OSF. One week is nothing to fight tooth and nail over. His motivation comes from building something he'd want to use.
Now, he never got told what to build in first place, so he could have made Open Source Food instead of 8apps and Pikki, and have the emotional investment and the money.
I don't think his initial setup was a good one, but the reason is not that their beginnings were too easy.
I think you know what you want to do. You've mentioned your boss in a few posts and it sounds like he's a selfish prick, who doesn't genuinely care about what's good for you. Maybe you should stop talking to him...
If you're successful you will say "Wow. I almost listened to him" like you dodged a bullet. if you fail, you'll have a much better chance of success next attempt.
"You've mentioned your boss in a few posts and it sounds like he's a selfish prick, who doesn't genuinely care about what's good for you."
I actually don't think that - I think he's generally a decent guy who cares about his employees, but cares about his company more. He's even said something to that effect: part of his advice to me was to make sure I can setup a corporate structure that'll survive the departure of founders or key employees, because things do go wrong, and the company is his dream. Perhaps there's a lesson in there: don't let your identity get so wrapped-up in your company that it becomes only your company, one where other people don't feel like they have a chance to make a difference in it. Come to think of it, I've heard similar things from other (failed) entrepreneurs.
You're right though: I guess I just need to go with my gut. Eh, I'm young, I've got plenty of time for failures before success.
Interesting comments from everyone. A couple I would like to address.
"god damn, that guy has a lot of pictures of himself in that article"
Yes, yes I do. Read my blog and you'll discover that I'm a total narcissist. It's all part of the blog theme.
"Is this really true, when you take into account startups that fight tooth and nail and still don't succeed? Is it better to start with the confidence, money, and connections of other people and then ride the wave of their support, or is it better to start with nothing other than your own belief in yourself and then fight tooth and nail until you get the confidence, money, and connections of others?"
Good point. My point then is that you need all of the above. If you have connections, capital and a good idea - then sorry, you're a carbon copy of thousands of other tech entrepreneurs. What separates you from them? Anyone can always get more capital if you poke around a bit. Anyone can get more connections if you spend more time schmoozing. What you can't simply "get" is an emotional attachment to whatever you are doing. That's something that has to be there from the beginning, I think. That is what I learned from this experience.
"Problem 1: trying to build 3 apps while doing consulting work (no focus)"
Definitely. I absolutely agree. However, we were in no position to argue (much) and as I said in the post, the relationship we had with the supposed investor was flawed.
"Problem 2: the author was a dick to his only employee (wtf? why?)"
Ken wasn't an employee. He was being paid the same as me and provided similar functions, although I naturally took on more of a leadership role, being the more experienced. I'm a dick anyway, but yes, I was hard on Ken because I expected him to help me as much as possible not to fuck up the opportunity I thought we had. But when you are ready to launch and you find that there are lots of basic errors in the HTML or front end code because advice you've given over and over hasn't been taken in, it's hard to remain cool and collected, especially if it's with a mate.
If anything, being in that situation taught me that I am not fit to be a boss and not fit to team lead. I am much better working alone, and my individual work speaks for itself. That is why I am now leaning towards solo consulting as the focus of my career.
It seems like the biggest problem is that entered the financing company without a clear relationship defined, and that lack of definition seems like it created an abysmal working environment. I have to admit I am confused how the two developers are maintaining control over the web applications they developed for the company. Something seems a bit off there (they got paid for developing stuff, and then left taking the stuff with them?).
Bonus: The name of their company is "Paper-Rock-Scissors" in Japanese.
"It's going to sound cliched and cheesy, but your apps should be an extension of YOU as a person. You should have an emotional connection to the app that transcends thinking about the mercedes it might fucking earn you one day, so that it will keep you interested and give you the motivation to love, care for and improve it."
I think there's a PG essay about this somewhere. OTOH I'm bother by the amount of pictures this guy has on his webpage. But I love the way he designs the UI's of his web apps.
"The reason we built these apps was, in retrospect, incredibly shallow, and I thank my ex-boss for helping me realise this. We built them because we thought they were going to be popular, following the typical web 2.0 path to riches:
"Looking back, I think to myself, is trying to make a popular app enough anymore? If you just attempt to make a popular app, how are you any different from the next web startup. The only thing that separates you is ability, and ability can be hired or learned - so the question becomes who has deeper pockets or more free time. Thusly any idiot with time or money can build a web app these days and these were crowded markets we were attempting to break into - productivity and mobile blogging. What then, separates the wheat from the chaff in this case? For me, I think the big one is emotional investment."