Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Startup Playbook

playbook.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 243 posts

Re: Startup Playbook

#61

Post by vonmoltke »

ska wrote: post #52
vdaniuk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small business is fundamentally different from lifestyle tech business or a bootstrap. There could be hundreds and thousands of small businesses, say in a certain FMCG market in different local ares. A tech market with hundreds or thousands product businesses catering to a same target audience, probably, doesn't exist at all. Product companies tend to either grow or whither. Centralization is the norm. Building a l…

I was reacting to the definition of "lifestyle business" not the label. I don't think passive income is needed at all, I think "lifestyle business" is a useful definition for making tradeoffs in your business decisions in favor of your lifestyle. e.g. setting up a consulting business in a small coastal town because you like to surf every morning, even though it costs you potential business. To my mind, that's certain…

> I was reacting to the definition of "lifestyle business" not the label.

I don't know about you, but personally I get annoyed when people create a false dichotomy between a startup and a "lifestyle business". Not everyone who declines to play the VC game is a "lifestyle business". It should also not be a dirty word, which is the way it comes across to me sometimes.

Re: Startup Playbook

#62

Post by tertius »

jMyles wrote: post #21

> Startups are the point in your life when tricks stop working. Awesome thesis, hidden in the middle of the text. In some ways, this is a great single sentence answer to the question, "What is a startup, really?"

That's great. This has been my life, finding the easy wins, and when they stop working, moving on to the next. This is one of the points that characterize me as soft.

Re: Startup Playbook

#64

Post by mrdrozdov »

sama wrote: post #4

(This got published a little early because it got indexed. I'm still going through and fixing some typos and will maybe add a few other things.)

Ah, this maybe explains why there are no anchor tags yet.

Re: Startup Playbook

#65

Post by pathelectronica »

m_fayer wrote: post #36

I wish there was a similar level and quality of resources for what I think are called lifestyle businesses. By that, I mean product-based businesses with at most a few million in revenue, a 5ish person team, a solid sustainable market position, and no desire to revolutionize any unicorns. I know a lot of people attempting this and they mostly seem to be flying under the radar, or at least have nowhere near the cachet…

In the past this has also gone by the labels "shareware" and "microISV". Try searching about these should turn up some pretty good information.

Re: Startup Playbook

#66

Post by 6stringmerc »

Okay, I've been researching and reaching out to various entities for, well, going on a couple years now regarding my "start-up" concept of a company that creates some inventions, brings to market, and licenses technology as another revenue stream. Yes, it's not a software-oriented business, but it's a viable entity with multiple prospects. Thus, the following line doesn't really ring true to me:

>One important counterintuitive reason for this is that it’s easier to do something new and hard than something derivative and easy. People will want to help you and join you if it’s the former; they will not if it’s the latter.

In every single instance where I actually get a response, there's a consistent chorus of "this doesn't fit the model of what we support" and, basically, I chalk it up to an investment environment that actually, truly targets the derivative and easy moreso than the unique and difficult.

That's why I'm still slogging along in the self-directed patent process. Nobody is interested in helping (beyond some constructive comments I've received here from community members - thank you!), and certainly not in contributing financial backing. It is what it is...but that claim? I don't really buy it.

Re: Startup Playbook

#67

Post by sharemywin »

libertymcateer wrote: post #39
sharemywin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

look at Microsoft and apple both of their real winners were after the fact. Office and the ipod/iphone. Also, I think anything that makes money is a win. Not just unicorns. If YC wants export to the rest of the country it needs to shoot for more base hits. I think in SV people have already self selected to follow cray ideas. but the rest of the country if you want to get the best candidate show them something with th…

Office was not the first word processor, Mac OS was inspired almost wholesale from Xerox Parc, the iPod was absolutely not the first mp3 player, and the iPhone was absolutely not the first --iPhone-- edit: smartphone (what a freudian slip!). These are all perfect examples of my point: these were all examples of these products that due to their incrementally better and thoughtful design, which included ease of integra…

for office I think it was bundling word processor, spreadhseet etc. and selling it large businesses. why buy one when I can buy 4 for the price of 2. But neither of these companies started out where they ended up.

Re: Startup Playbook

#69

Post by vijayr »

m_fayer wrote: post #36

I wish there was a similar level and quality of resources for what I think are called lifestyle businesses. By that, I mean product-based businesses with at most a few million in revenue, a 5ish person team, a solid sustainable market position, and no desire to revolutionize any unicorns. I know a lot of people attempting this and they mostly seem to be flying under the radar, or at least have nowhere near the cachet…

Along similar lines, it would also be nice to have resources for one (or max two) person businesses, with 100-300K revenue per year (clicky was two man team making 500K/year). That is more than enough to live well and spend some time pursuing interests (not for money).

Re: Startup Playbook

#70

Post by ThomPete »

6stringmerc wrote: post #66

Okay, I've been researching and reaching out to various entities for, well, going on a couple years now regarding my "start-up" concept of a company that creates some inventions, brings to market, and licenses technology as another revenue stream. Yes, it's not a software-oriented business, but it's a viable entity with multiple prospects. Thus, the following line doesn't really ring true to me: > One important count…

I think the point is that if the problem is interesting you can get people onboard helping you as ex. tech founders.

But if your problem is trivial (build a en ecommerce website) then they want you to pay them hard cash.

I agree though that some problems might be hard to articulate and so you end up with having a problem getting people to believe in your project.

I personally was trying to convince developers to join me on a venture I wanted to do and had no luck. Then I decided to just pay someone to do a small fraction of what I wanted to do and which I knew I could pay for and now that developer I paid to do my first project is now partnering with me in my next project.

Sometimes you have to look at your idea and see if you can create a much smaller product from what you want so you can get started on someting at least. Then if it's successful you will have people wanting to join you.

Post reply on HN