Beats One was supposed to be a differentiator for Beats before it was acquired (I worked on it). The point was that it would be unique content you couldn't get from a commodity streaming service, and the hosts would bring an existing fanbase.
My impression is post-acquisiton Apple figured their brand would be sufficient to differentiate them, so they kind of stopped caring about the very high-touch work involved in curated radio. I think at this point it makes sense to view Apple Music as "commodity music streaming but it's apple, so it's preloaded, etc."
- August 2020 - blog post about how to quit your job
So someone with less than a year of full time experience who seemingly hasn't actually built a business is giving me advice on how to successfully quit my job? I guess that's the part they've succeeded at so far.
How to become an entrepreneur (from someone who has actually done it):
- Get income from other people via job
- Learn
- Come up with idea
- Test market in 2 weeks for < $100
- Rinse and repeat until market test gives positive results you can't ignore
- Quit job
- Release version 1 in 2 weeks
- Have income by 4 week mark
- If no income by 4 week mark, u fucked up, get a job
How high should the income be though? A few existing clients of mine were willing and did change to my platform, but how do you know if the business is scalable/will be competitive against other large businesses?
While helpful, I do believe these types of “rules” should not be followed as if they’re set in stone. Adapt them to your own situation.
In my case I had success with a fairly complex big data platform, there would be no way a version could be released in such short a time. This didn’t matter, as I followed a slightly different strategy.
A different way of looking at things is thinking about what can do wrong, and working back on trying to mitigate things. There’s a big, big difference in strategy you need to take if you need, say, a thousand paying clients in order to be “ramen profitable” vs one big client. I work in the latter space, and we managed to find a way for our first customer to partially fund the development of the platform, the money they would get back once the “monthly payments” would otherwise be arriving.
Totally different approach, but it’s one hell of a validation of an idea without taking on too much risk!
Sorry, confused... What do you mean by actively / passively in this context? Actively "find" (work hard) or find customers that actively want to "pay" (who are really fans of your work)?
This question looked interesting, and it's a matter of opinion but IMO none of them started out nearly as simply as we're discussing in this thread. I think they all fail the 4-weeks-to-revenue test (Not seeking to argue, was just curious).
Facebook is probably the simplest: one month initial development time, launching after that month, adding three more colleges the month after. It looks like they had funding within about five months. Maybe worth noting they're the most software-only of the bunch, and that the v1 product was a CRUD app with great market fit (that's a good thing here for velocity, I'm not downplaying their success). And especially when they were founded, revenue wasn't really seen as necessary, so they probably get a pass on the "be profitable in 4 weeks" bit.
Amazon did start out sort of simply, as a bookstore, but it took a year from incorporation to launch and Bezos had a significant investment from parents. Remember luck and survivor bias, they caught the dotcom boom and bust, too.
Apple sort of fits simplicity - you had a couple people who worked together before identifying the potential of a product, founded a company, and get to prototypes and incorporation in a few months. On the other hand I think it's a tough case for simplicity since step 1 is "Invent the Apple I" -- and make sure it's during the beginning of a new tech revolution. Plus, in terms of success we are probably talking about the Apple II, released the year after the I.
Netflix started with funding from a previous successful venture and right out of the gate needed to fund N copies of nearly 1,000 DVDs. Wikipedia suggests they had "only" 30 employees at the beginning. One of the cofounders had prior mail-order experience--which is great, and counts! But the post here concludes with "I'll try a new career in marketing;" I hope it works out for him but notice there's a trend of prior experience or domain knowledge through several of these companies.
Google was the result of a multi-year PhD project and involved coming up with a new ranking approach (or, for the detractors, adjusting and applying an existing mathematical concept to directed graphs) and a somewhat fresh take on search UI. Then later they had to figure out ads to turn a profit.
Adding the M, Microsoft was founded after Gates and Allen had already created a tech company together prior, and they saw a market opportunity. I'm sort of sketchy on the history, but a quick search shows they developed Altair BASIC in around four months, reusing some of the work they'd one prior, had the advantage of using Harvard's infrastructure at least briefly, and IIRC sort of pretended they had a product when they didn't. Paul Allen is said to have written the bootloader they'd need while on the flight to their sales pitch. Probably no wi-fi or laptops on board that flight :)
You could say they all pivoted at some point or didn't hit on what would be their full potential from the outset, so it's important to get going on something. At the same time, it seems they found one solid product and took a risk on it, rather than taking a shotgun approach and seeing what stuck.
Overall I think there's much more planning and medium- or long-term slog involved in these companies to say they started simply. Though for most small businesses I do agree with the sibling posts to get going and test things out ASAP. I think being aggressive about culling ideas that aren't working is ok for SaaS or CRUD businesses, so you don't risk becoming a zombie company.
Although the article highlights that in the last year I started to work full time, I’ve been working as a programmer for 7 years during university. I had mentor which taught me a lot about programming which I’m eternally grateful for. I’ve worked before as a freelance developer and liked it pretty much.
Although I do understand it sounds like an impulsive action I just wanted to share how my thought process was in the last months. I never ask you to do the same or follow my steps, I simply share them.
I hope you do what you love cause in the end that matters the most.
That’s hilarious, I was about to respond in some grumpy fashion about how it’s basically impossible for anyone to get any useful information or advice out of this article. I didn’t even notice this timeline.
Not even year into a career and the author already doesn’t like it.
I mean, it’s entirely possible that your first job just sucks. It’s entirely possible that your first company just sucks. I’d just look for a different job if it was me.
Dropping everything and becoming a particularly vague brand of entrepreneur isn’t going to work. A huge percentage of companies who have really serious complex business plans and even seed capital still fail. And here’s a junior-level person thinking they’re just going to start a successful business in a selection of vague categories (e.g. email marketing - I don’t know if the author has any clue how mature and complex this product segment really is. You can buy some fantastically complex email marketing software for like $20/month).
But I’m trying not to be grumpy. Good luck author. I’m guessing we’ll be seeing you in the cubicle in 6 months.
I'm 28 and virtually every single male I talk to in their 20s has this deep resentment of working for a corporation. It personally used to resonate with me, but it turns out I like money much more than freedom.
"You want to play house, you got to have a job. You want to play very nice house, very sweet house, then you got to have a job you don't like. Great. This is the way ninety-eight-point-nine per cent of the people work things out, so believe me, buddy, you've got nothing to apologize for."
- Revolutionary Road (Richard Yates)
Advice given to a main character who's (spoilers?) smart and thoughtful enough to be deeply bored by and unhappy with anything like a normal career, while also easily doing well at such a job while hardly trying, but who also believes deeply that he's meant for something more artistic and intellectual and adventurous but is both entirely unmotivated to actually make that happen, and also probably not that smart.
Right? It's very hard work being an entrepreneur and if you take time off and that results in your customers going unserviced, then you certainly will feel the consequence of "setting your own schedule".
If you have everything automated and your business is growing and customers are happy and loyal, well then you can take time off because by all indications you've put in a lot of hard work and intelligent design to achieve that.
For me, I actually enjoy the grunt work and the meetings and corporate BS in exchange for a quite stable paycheck and societal approval. It only leaves me with just enough free time for personal projects so that they can forever remain theoretical and unfinished and unfocused, as they deserve to be, because actual implementation into a robust and profitable platform is a quick way to kill personal interest in a subject ;)
My impression is post-acquisiton Apple figured their brand would be sufficient to differentiate them, so they kind of stopped caring about the very high-touch work involved in curated radio. I think at this point it makes sense to view Apple Music as "commodity music streaming but it's apple, so it's preloaded, etc."