Bitcoin is a good example of a toy. It didn't really solve an immediate problem at the time.
Why Toys?
131–140 of 211 posts
Re: Why Toys?
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point. I believe you can only do that distinction (business vs toy) after the fact. So it offers no guidance at all. Was Dropbox a toy in the beggining? You can argue. Was Google a toy in the beggining? You can argue. Was Uber a toy in the beggining? You can argue. Was Airbnb a toy in the beggining? You can argue. Unless, of course, you're talking about the famous SOCIAL NETWORKS. In which case they were -- and…
The marginal cases can be debated, but it's still a useful framework. Ex. Facebook obviously felt like a toy at the beginning whereas Salesforce has never been a toy.
Was Facebook a toy? It wasn't the first social network, and it was built to solve a problem on campuses for students.
Re: Why Toys?
#133Bitcoin is a good example of a toy. It didn't really solve an immediate problem at the time.
It still doesn't. But I'll grant it's turning out to be tech's single best attempt at hastening the climate change and cooking us all on this planet.
Re: Why Toys?
#134Standard Oil actually did start out as a toy. They provided oil to burn in lamps. At the time most people thought that was a somewhat silly gimmick and a fad that would quickly pass. Oil in general was seen as something neat but not essential for years. But just like facebook, many people soon came around to the idea and it took over the world. Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. covers this all in incredible…
As a point of interest, I seem to recall from a documentary I once saw that Rockefeller was the person who invented the pipeline, because he was sick of paying railroads to move his oil around.
Re: Why Toys?
#135Toy analogy mostly makes sense for online media where attention is valuable. If a “toy” is loved/used by tons of people, then it has their attention, and this attention can be monetized. Most likely through the usual advertising surface that it presents.
Also the usual startup lifecycle: shinier toy -> faster user acqusition -> your chances of getting acquihired increase.
Re: Why Toys?
#136Re: Why Toys?
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
while working on our startup [1] this is one of the top pg quotes I like. However while talking to our customers we regularly face the "toy" critic as opposed to "feature rich". however approaching it as a toy keeps it simple , though for saas it appears as too simplistic sometimes. [1] we offer games and puzzles as a service to serious marketing clients.
I think it’s about time we turn “feature rich” around and start considering it a criticism rather than a compliment. So many products I’ve loved as a consumer and worked on as a developer were eventually ruined by relentless feature cram and their never being declared “done”.
[deleted]
Re: Why Toys?
#138Cute title but this is actually just an extension of “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer”. Facebook had TIME to be a toy because Mark Zuckerberg had a rich family, and plenty of skills to get a job if it didn’t work out. “Making a toy” is only possible with the resources of money and time. People who need to make money need to focus earlier on making money, which stunts growth in the long run. This is true…
Sure, some people have the opportunity/time/money to run an unprofitable startup for awhile and some people don't. Wealthy people can try again when their first idea doesn't take off. They also generally don't have to sell as much equity (especially in the early stages) as a middle-class person would.
Still, starting businesses is something that people (who have at least some amount of free time and spare money) do, and it's usually desirable for those involved that they succeed rather than fail. Talking about startup strategy is a useful endeavor for anyone interested in such things, and that isn't exclusively wealthy people. Plenty of rich people try to start businesses that fail, and many don't have any interest in running a startup.
I wish there were more opportunities for people who aren't from at least middle-class backgrounds to succeed in these kinds of things, but unfortunately that's not how society is currently structured. I think wider access to healthcare, education, food, and affordable housing would help.
Re: Why Toys?
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how desirable unit economics refutes GP's claim that the initial market was lamp oil.
It doesn't, but the lack of other good sources of indoor lighting refutes the claim that the lamp oil market is a toy.
> refutes the claim that the lamp oil market is a toy.
GP never made that claim. The point is that lamp oil was perceived as a toy before people realized the (blindingly obvious in hindsight) utility for indoor lighting.
Re: Why Toys?
#140Standard Oil actually did start out as a toy. They provided oil to burn in lamps. At the time most people thought that was a somewhat silly gimmick and a fad that would quickly pass. Oil in general was seen as something neat but not essential for years. But just like facebook, many people soon came around to the idea and it took over the world. Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. covers this all in incredible…
I don't know about oil, but I thought airplanes were rich people's silly toys at first? And then WW1 happened.