Snapchat, bitch!
To start a billion dollar startup, start looking for problems
61–66 of 66 posts
Re: To start a billion dollar startup, start looking for problems
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more complex the solution, the easier it is to lock it in permanently. People don't want to learn a new complex thing. Note that this means the minimal complexity (or close to it). If you implement something that could be simple, and you make it complex, someone else will come along and make it simple and kick your ass at market. Imagine you've got a warehouse automation system (this is not an example of a $25 mi…
You do know that there are thousands of companies in the warehouse automation space, right? And that "pad and paper" (whatever broad brush that is supposed to mean) isn't really used anymore for anything but small warehouses that wouldn't be a profitable target for warehouse automation software? And that there aren't any "market leaders" that own most of the warehouses...you'd have to lock up thousands of the biggest…
It was a hypothetical example. I know nothing about warehouse automation (though I know it is not using pad-and-paper as I assumed any intelligent reader would understand I was making up a hypothetical world where warehouse automation didn't exist yet), but I know it's complex and I know that if a company with a lot of employees trains them in a complex system, the odds of them changing that system are very low.
And, as I said above: It's not a monopoly. But, it is a comfortable place to exist profitably without a lot of risk of losing your customers.
Also, you've wholly missed my point about complexity. Some problems are hard because of external, uncontrollable, unpredictable, complexity. Import/export is that kind of complexity. I'm talking about predictable complexity. Again, to come back to warehouse automation as an example, which you hate, but makes my point. A warehouse has a lot of moving parts (people, machines, inventory, shelves, whatever TF), but it is finite and is a mostly closed system. The inputs and outputs usually match up, and you can predict what's going to happen with ins/outs and all the people and things that make the things move in and out. It is complex because it is large and there are a lot of people involved and many of them would need to be trained to use any new system that automates it. It is not, however, chaotic, and involving many competing factions, like import/export.
Re: To start a billion dollar startup, start looking for problems
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more complex the solution, the easier it is to lock it in permanently. People don't want to learn a new complex thing. Note that this means the minimal complexity (or close to it). If you implement something that could be simple, and you make it complex, someone else will come along and make it simple and kick your ass at market. Imagine you've got a warehouse automation system (this is not an example of a $25 mi…
You do know that there are thousands of companies in the warehouse automation space, right? And that "pad and paper" (whatever broad brush that is supposed to mean) isn't really used anymore for anything but small warehouses that wouldn't be a profitable target for warehouse automation software? And that there aren't any "market leaders" that own most of the warehouses...you'd have to lock up thousands of the biggest…
Within that "fragmented hyperspecialization", might there not be good examples of the psuedo-monopoly ("comfortable lock") of the type SwellJoe describes?
Re: To start a billion dollar startup, start looking for problems
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do know that there are thousands of companies in the warehouse automation space, right? And that "pad and paper" (whatever broad brush that is supposed to mean) isn't really used anymore for anything but small warehouses that wouldn't be a profitable target for warehouse automation software? And that there aren't any "market leaders" that own most of the warehouses...you'd have to lock up thousands of the biggest…
It was a hypothetical example. I know nothing about warehouse automation (though I know it is not using pad-and-paper as I assumed any intelligent reader would understand I was making up a hypothetical world where warehouse automation didn't exist yet), but I know it's complex and I know that if a company with a lot of employees trains them in a complex system, the odds of them changing that system are very low. And,…
Unpacking that a bit, training costs are to do with interface complexity (in the sense of "necessary" complexity) due to integration with other systems, and other information. i.e. it's not 100% automated; you can't just press a button. It's more "amplification", where you must be trained and practised to use it effectively - a tool for skilled labour. If you're super-successful, yours becomes a de facto standard, which others copy (usually, you still command a premium; but for the life-style idea here, we'd want to avoid that).
This might be included as "installation" costs, along with and engineering integration with other information systems, Related is the organizational purchasing process, expensive for larger transactions: determining requirements, evaluating alternative vendors and solutions, sign-off from legal and upper management, and so on. Change itself is disruptive, there'll be teething problems, other systems will have to adapt, and other knock-on effects apart from training itself. These are one-off costs that you'd prefer not to incur again, unless there's a very large benefit (your example of 10x is worth it, but not (11/10)x).
All are switching costs.
Re: To start a billion dollar startup, start looking for problems
#65why is this on the front page? It is devoid of content.
And why do you think so?
Re: To start a billion dollar startup, start looking for problems
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
So build your own things and do it your own way. I find that is what works best for me. Put food on the table through contracting, build my own things around the contracts to provide recurring revenue. Keep going till it's enough. I hated everything about office culture and have never been happier. Right now for me that's about 20-30hrs per week freelance to make a great income, and I spend 20-30hrs per week working…
So, this is something that I would really like to do, mind answering some questions :D? When you say "freelance" are you contracting 'on location', or 'remote'? On location, I can't seem to find anything that isn't basically a 40+ hour gig, negating the benefit of 'freelancing', and remote seems to be highly competitive/lowest common denominator. I'm a decent developer (backend), in a decent tech city and I'm struggl…
all remote.. i scower the web for RFP's and people looking for developers and pitch my services.