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

Why is 37Signals always the counter-example?

ambershah.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: Why is 37Signals always the counter-example?

#21

Post by InclinedPlane »

axod wrote: post #19
JanezStupar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a problem? Handful of guys doing what they like. Earning enough to pay for a modest lifestyle and I bet they get to put something away for old age. Why does earning a living have to be an unpleasant and stressful experience? By writing and talking about how awesome cool their careers are, they get to boost their sales. Hell, I think I might start writing about how awesome my life is.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. There are millions of small businesses doing exactly that. There always have been. Most of them just quietly get on with it and make profit. For me, 37signals don't say anything new or very interesting. They just say it really loudly, and try to make out that they're doing something radically different - when in fact they're not.

Yes, but...

37signals is not doing anything new. Tons of small-businesses have been operating on the same principles for eons. However, there is so much hype and misinformation in the e-business arena that this sort of otherwise brain-dead obvious business advice is in the minority, and stands out all the more. There isn't one single way for businesses to find success, online or off, but if web entrepreneurs followed 37signals advice more often than they do today they would probably be better off. For that reason I think they're loudness if fully justified.

Re: Why is 37Signals always the counter-example?

#22

Post by _delirium »

Among a wider tech audience (i.e. outside HN), I actually hear Craigslist as the counterexample more often, when it comes to successful tech companies that are run as normal businesses rather than startups (no interest in IPOs or exits, not much interest in rapid growth, suspicion of investors, etc.).

Re: Why is 37Signals always the counter-example?

#23

Post by axod »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #21
axod wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. There are millions of small businesses doing exactly that. There always have been. Most of them just quietly get on with it and make profit. For me, 37signals don't say anything new or very interesting. They just say it really loudly, and try to make out that they're doing something radically different - when in fact they're not.

Yes, but... 37signals is not doing anything new. Tons of small-businesses have been operating on the same principles for eons. However, there is so much hype and misinformation in the e-business arena that this sort of otherwise brain-dead obvious business advice is in the minority, and stands out all the more. There isn't one single way for businesses to find success, online or off, but if web entrepreneurs followed…

I don't think that's actually true though. Sure, maybe if you only hang out in SF and don't know anything about business and just believe what you hear about startups, then you might have issues.

It's better to just think about it for a while, read a lot of different success stories, advice, etc and come to your own conclusions. But come on. Business isn't rocket science. You make something useful, work out a monetization strategy, and grow from there. That's easy enough for my kids to understand.

The disservice 37signals does is that they firstly only believe that a certain business model is viable (eg selling stuff directly), and secondly they suggest that it's simple for the reader to emulate 37signals, when they know full well that to do that the reader would need to create ruby on rails, build up a big readership/following, etc etc.

Any extremist view is dangerous when taken literally and in isolation.

Re: Why is 37Signals always the counter-example?

#24

Post by axod »

jbarham wrote: post #17
JanezStupar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a problem? Handful of guys doing what they like. Earning enough to pay for a modest lifestyle and I bet they get to put something away for old age. Why does earning a living have to be an unpleasant and stressful experience? By writing and talking about how awesome cool their careers are, they get to boost their sales. Hell, I think I might start writing about how awesome my life is.

Unless your definition of a "modest lifestyle" includes driving a Lamborghini ( http://www.google.com/search?q=dhh+lamborghini ), I'd say 37signals is doing very well financially. And that's probably because they're intentionally staying small, not in spite of it.

They could probably just shut down making web products and live off the life coaching business.

Re: Why is 37Signals always the counter-example?

#25

Post by axod »

ergo98 wrote: post #12
kristiandupont wrote: post #8

So, "charging from day 1", and "entering a saturated market" are rebellious 37s-isms? Seems like those are the conventional business principles.

In the internet world it is hugely rebellious.

That's just not true. At all. Look at websites for sale on sitepoint, ebay, etc. There are millions of websites, making very decent profits. You just don't hear about them much.

For every startup like twitter that doesn't really seem to care too much about monetization, there's probably 1000 websites making $1m+ a year in profit. Guess which gets all the press though?

Re: Why is 37Signals always the counter-example?

#26

Post by tortilla »

galois wrote: post #15

I annoys me that people never seem to realize that 37Signals is a company that has "won the lottery", as David likes to say when pejoratively describing the success of companies that have chosen a different route, in a major way with Ruby on Rails. The popularity of Rails is a huge contributing factor to the success of 37Signals. And without Rails, nobody would ever have picked up any of their books. 37Signals is a p…

I would guess a greater percentage of their customers have never heard of Rails.

Re: Why is 37Signals always the counter-example?

#27

Post by jamesbritt »

mattmaroon wrote: post #10

Google serves this role a lot for the opposite model. How many times have you heard "don't worry about your business model, just get big and you'll figure it out. It worked for Google." I've heard that from so many respectable Silicon Valley investors, and it's made me cringe each time. The real question is "why do people who give advice always do so in such black and white terms?"

  The real question is "why do people who give advice
  always do so in such black and white terms?"
My guess is that many people want to hear their personal hopes and biases confirmed. Hate to go to meetings? Sweet; I just read that meetings are toxic! These guys are brilliant!

Never mind the lack of context or backing evidence for various aphoristic claims. The folks who read what they want into such things don't care.

When you hear what seems to be simplistic black-and-white advice, try flipping it around to the opposite, and see how hard it would be to rationalize a belief in that point of view. TDD is good - TDD is bad, OOP is epic - OOP is toxic; Stay small. Grow large.

It gets to a point where such proclamations are little more than grammatically correct sentences, and all meaning is provided by the reader.

Re: Why is 37Signals always the counter-example?

#29

Post by ergo98 »

axod wrote: post #25
ergo98 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the internet world it is hugely rebellious.

That's just not true. At all. Look at websites for sale on sitepoint, ebay, etc. There are millions of websites, making very decent profits. You just don't hear about them much. For every startup like twitter that doesn't really seem to care too much about monetization, there's probably 1000 websites making $1m+ a year in profit. Guess which gets all the press though?

>There are millions of websites, making very decent profits

Millions?

I highly doubt it.

Those that make a profit do it largely on the backs of ads, which isn't what is being discussed. We're talking about actually charging for a web property which remains shockingly rare.

Re: Why is 37Signals always the counter-example?

#30

Post by axod »

ergo98 wrote: post #29
axod wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just not true. At all. Look at websites for sale on sitepoint, ebay, etc. There are millions of websites, making very decent profits. You just don't hear about them much. For every startup like twitter that doesn't really seem to care too much about monetization, there's probably 1000 websites making $1m+ a year in profit. Guess which gets all the press though?

>There are millions of websites, making very decent profits Millions? I highly doubt it. Those that make a profit do it largely on the backs of ads, which isn't what is being discussed. We're talking about actually charging for a web property which remains shockingly rare.

Yeah. Because earning money from advertising isn't real money is it. It's imaginary money you can't actually use for anything. You're absolutely right. How silly of me.
Post reply on HN