Is the Google example oversimplified, or is my history wrong? It's reduced here to a "simple database search" but I thought some of Google's novel search technology was there from the get-go, so who cares how the index was persisted?
Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball
21–30 of 86 posts
Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball
#22I don't agree that the only way to make a company is to build something small and iterate. It's just one way, not better nor worse than other ways. Some companies have succeeded doing this, other have not. Which means that the point of the blog post is basically wrong. Don't "build something small and iterate", build the product that you have in mind that you think people will want - that might be big and need lots o…
I think it goes without saying this is not the only way you can build a sucessfull company.
There are so many existence proof examples of companies that are precisely the opposite of little snowballs.
Hootsuite, Salesforce, Microsoft, etc.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but the implicit understanding is that this post is aimed at the lone wolf or small teams with no funding.
Sure, you can be a lone wolf or small team and try to build a large complex project. I actually know quite a few folks who've done that. Most failed. Some were sucessfull - https://www.centraldesktop.com - comes to mind.
But, the main point is, it is simply easier on most business vectors to tackle a do-one-thing-well rather than build a big-complex-product.
Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball
#23This is somewhat interesting, but relies on the all too common tautological device of "hustle," a quasi-magical activity whose details are usually elided over. Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company. What makes a successful company? "Hustle." What is "hustle"? Why, it just means "working hard at doing all the things that make a company successf…
> Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company. And, also, survivor bias. Lots of companies hustled and hustled and died. Elon Musk is a really good example. At one point he couldn't meet cashflow--and then the government contract for SpaceX finally came in. 3 months of delay on that contract and Musk is a goat instead of a hero.
You make a good point.
This blog post is a common line of messaging in the "how to succeed in startups" - "see what (hugely successful company X) did? That's what you should do, that's how you succeed!"
Truth is that success comes from a somewhat magical mixture of timing, luck, spotting of opportunity, knowing how to build it, having the resources to build it, meeting just the right people at the right time who will play a role in that success, somehow making the product "slightly more right" instead of "slightly more wrong" and sometimes seeing some incredible new way of viewing the world that others don't. Like a magic spell it's a bit of all these ingredients put together in a recipe that, well, works.
Then the bloggers and venture capitalists come along, timeline what you did and say "ha! there is the recipe for success!".
Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball
#24This is somewhat interesting, but relies on the all too common tautological device of "hustle," a quasi-magical activity whose details are usually elided over. Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company. What makes a successful company? "Hustle." What is "hustle"? Why, it just means "working hard at doing all the things that make a company successf…
> Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company. And, also, survivor bias. Lots of companies hustled and hustled and died. Elon Musk is a really good example. At one point he couldn't meet cashflow--and then the government contract for SpaceX finally came in. 3 months of delay on that contract and Musk is a goat instead of a hero.
Haven't heard "goat" used in that context before. In my circles, goat/GOAT would be read as "Greatest Of All Time".
Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company. And, also, survivor bias. Lots of companies hustled and hustled and died. Elon Musk is a really good example. At one point he couldn't meet cashflow--and then the government contract for SpaceX finally came in. 3 months of delay on that contract and Musk is a goat instead of a hero.
Haven't heard "goat" used in that context before. In my circles, goat/GOAT would be read as "Greatest Of All Time".
[deleted]
Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company. And, also, survivor bias. Lots of companies hustled and hustled and died. Elon Musk is a really good example. At one point he couldn't meet cashflow--and then the government contract for SpaceX finally came in. 3 months of delay on that contract and Musk is a goat instead of a hero.
Haven't heard "goat" used in that context before. In my circles, goat/GOAT would be read as "Greatest Of All Time".
Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball
#27Is the Google example oversimplified, or is my history wrong? It's reduced here to a "simple database search" but I thought some of Google's novel search technology was there from the get-go, so who cares how the index was persisted?
have the same memory
they solved the hard part but had troubles with the "normal" portal site media-like work - thus the "simple website"
Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
The project I'm working on has evolved over the years into something I can no longer feasibly accomplish alone. I truly believe the idea is solid, but that's worthless without being able to go from zero to one. The best I can do is hack together tiny glimpses of the final vision. As a solo founder with no track record, pitching a concept for a product that has high funding requirements with no hope of revenue until l…
That's very interesting. Thanks so much for the answer. From all the work you've done on it, if you really think outside the box, is there some single facet that could potentially be turned into do-one-thing-well?
The product is ultimately n-facet, with each facet relying upon the same underlying core technology and principles.
There's three conceptualized facets. Two of them are relatively easy to implement from a technical perspective, but are otherwise rendered very difficult by non-technical considerations. The facet I believe to have the widest appeal is paradoxically far harder to implement than the others in all respects.
I think I'll take your advice and either try simplify an existing facet with laser-focus, or perhaps think far outside of the box and hopefully come up with something that's both stupid-simple yet feasible to implement. Something that gains traction while acting as a proof of concept at the same time.
Thanks for your help, much appreciated.
Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball
#29This is somewhat interesting, but relies on the all too common tautological device of "hustle," a quasi-magical activity whose details are usually elided over. Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company. What makes a successful company? "Hustle." What is "hustle"? Why, it just means "working hard at doing all the things that make a company successf…
> Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company. And, also, survivor bias. Lots of companies hustled and hustled and died. Elon Musk is a really good example. At one point he couldn't meet cashflow--and then the government contract for SpaceX finally came in. 3 months of delay on that contract and Musk is a goat instead of a hero.
I agree. Not just lots of companies. Most companies die. ("Hustle" or no.)
However I think that's actually a point in favor of starting small: If you're going to fail? At least fail fast. While you have time to "pivot", or wind down, or whatever makes sense to try instead.
If you're onto something, you can usually tell at a small scale. Sure, sometimes there are network effects and exponential growth. But not hockey sticks. (Source: My own opinion and anecdata.)
Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball
#30I don't agree that the only way to make a company is to build something small and iterate. It's just one way, not better nor worse than other ways. Some companies have succeeded doing this, other have not. Which means that the point of the blog post is basically wrong. Don't "build something small and iterate", build the product that you have in mind that you think people will want - that might be big and need lots o…
I think it goes without saying this is not the only way you can build a sucessfull company. There are so many existence proof examples of companies that are precisely the opposite of little snowballs. Hootsuite, Salesforce, Microsoft, etc. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but the implicit understanding is that this post is aimed at the lone wolf or small teams with no funding. Sure, you can be a lone wolf or…
Hootsuite was absolutely a little snowball. Invoke Labs was an agency in Vancouver that build Ow.ly (a link shortener that's still around). They then continued to build an early ver of Hootsuite to manage their clients' social media campaigns. Then they realized that other people might want it and offered a free version. I had dinner with the founder the night before they turned on their paid plans, and he was unsure what the reception would be since they gave so much to so many people for free.
The reception was somewhat positive but they continued to grow and sell the crap out of Hootsuite and now it's on track to go public. But they started SUPER small.