61–70 of 192 posts
I think the bigger hurdle for most people is getting from $0 a day to $1 a day. Replicating success isn't as hard as finding success.
There's a third option not mentioned in the article. That's creating a $1/day project, then working to make it a $2/day, then $3/day. Either through improving the thing you're selling, or by finding better ways to sell it. Take, for example, Patrick@bingocardcreator.com . He seems do have done pretty well following that method. I don't know if that's any more or less work than building 400 projects, each selling for…
And being followed on twitter will help you a big deal in growing.
I think if you try to create 400 projects, most will make 0/day and a couple will make 10/day. Then you optimize those. Slowly you end up with a small number of projects generating a half decent amount money. This is actually a great way to prevent yourself from choosing a local maximum in the product space. You climb a bunch of hills a little bit. (edited)
Over diversification is dangerous too. Jack of all apps, master of none? I like the idea, but the problem with this product space search is that is dead slow. You might want to search like this for a bit and see what takes off, then put more energy into the ones that are doing well.
However, if the projects are designed to be all up front effort and no ongoing time costs, you can just leave them to languish. I have had things take off in a minor way, long after abandoning them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I should have said sounds like a "strategy." It dislike the strategy because it's not why I program. I don't program a million things to make a million dollars. I program because it's a passion, and unless I misinterpreted the meaning of the post, this strategy is...heartless. I take into account that "in-crowd" has it easy and "normal" doesn't. I could image myself writing a similar article; however, instead…
One of the reasons I write now is to grow my popularity, so that one day I will have enough reach to be able to build something big and grand and people will actually notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aggregation has always had value (the Bible, Familiar Quotes, Readers Digest, The Big Picture, etc.).
Thoughtful aggregation does add value, to me it sounded like the idea was to grab the first X videos on youtube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to make $1 a day, go search for a keyword. Like Owls. Then find a bunch of videos of owls in YouTube, put them on the site and call the site OwlVideo.com. In a week you will be making $1 a day. Or if you prefer to program for the desktop - go wrap ffmpeg and make an AVI to MP4 converter. Def make $30 in sales in a month. Or if you prefer to program for the web, make something that parses Apples XML of new…
So these might be great ways to make a little bit of money, but they don't really create value (except for the theme). Creating a successful startup should be more about creating value then making money, if you create value the money will come. When you think about success do you define it as money or building something people use and love (and also makes you money). If you want to make a cheap buck there are plenty…
I really think that by iterating really quickly you will become good faster than if you try to make the perfect thing right away. So don't be paralyzed by trying to achieve perfection; go out and create, and then create some more.
How on earth are you supposed to create and maintain 400 "projects" at once?
"Could you run 10,000km?"
".. erm no"
"ok, how about can you run 1km?"
"sure!"
"Great! so all you need to do, is do that 10,000 times! easy eh!?"
I have trouble paying more than 1 or 2 projects real attention. And without attention, things die.
How on earth are you supposed to create and maintain 400 "projects" at once?
It all depends on what you put behind the word 'project' (and there's no judgment in my sentence). For most programmers, a project is something that has already a decent size, is complex to get out and test on the field. If you think this way, a "side-project" can only be rare. On the other hand: a friend of mine started exactly the way Max describes a long while back, and currently runs way more than 400 sites/proje…
How on earth are you supposed to create and maintain 400 "projects" at once?
It all depends on what you put behind the word 'project' (and there's no judgment in my sentence). For most programmers, a project is something that has already a decent size, is complex to get out and test on the field. If you think this way, a "side-project" can only be rare. On the other hand: a friend of mine started exactly the way Max describes a long while back, and currently runs way more than 400 sites/proje…
The major pain point for me is payment processing.