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

Why Toys?

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 211 posts

Re: Why Toys?

#141

Post by tzhenghao »

Depending on the definition of the word startup, most (if not all) successful open source communities started off as a toy. The Ethereum foundation is a recent example of this.

I also personally think that "toys" are great for building and sharpening one's skills, much like Lego in the real world. This can be everything from you trying to "sell" your toy so other kids will come play with it, all the way up to learning how to glue software components together and make it work. Some technical toy projects have steep learning curves, and as an engineer myself, I see it as an opportunity to learn things I otherwise wouldn't working on a "serious project".

Re: Why Toys?

#142

Post by morgante »

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #83
zerostar07 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

has a lemonade stand ever evolved into serious business? I am of the impression they get abandoned

Actual lemonade stands (run by children)? They're usually shutdown by the police, at least in the U.S. [Tho my sources severely skew my sample so as to entirely neglect counterexamples.] Metaphorical lemonade stands are almost always abandoned too. But that seems obviously fine anyways.

> Actual lemonade stands (run by children)? They're usually shutdown by the police, at least in the U.S.

I can't tell if you're joking or just completely distorted by media coverage. I ran lemonade stands throughout my childhood and consistently see them run by children today.

Re: Why Toys?

#143

Post by marcosdumay »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #107
ryandrake wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

Interesting. I wanted to suggest an exact opposite. I'd love to have seen those products of yours. In the alternate universe I live in, almost all the SaaS products I see are toys, never progressing beyond MVP phase.

SaaS can not interoperate. Thus feature-poor SaaS are useless.

Re: Why Toys?

#144

Post by andrew_wc_brown »

I have been trying to spin up projects for years since my early teens and the best project I've have had traction on so far is my open source Tetris Attack-like clone.

I think it has come the farthest then any of my previous projects because I didn't take it seriously which made the barrier to entry for contributors easy since I set my standards very low.

I'd normally try to build something to scale with a monetization plan from day one, and I was so burned out on failed projects I thought I'd just work on something I wanted to do, without care of generating money. I figured if I got one of my serious for cash projects going it would free up time for such a project but I got tired waiting.

The seriousness has scaled with the project. Some team members stick around, some sunset, but this is fine because my project keeps attracting people who are suited for the current stage.

Will my project go from toy to business? I don't care. I'll just ride the project for as long as I can, and its possible I will sunset from my project where people better than me will take it somewhere I can't.

https://github.com/omenking/swap-n-pop

Re: Why Toys?

#145

Post by philipkglass »

rhizome wrote: post #49
siong1987 wrote: post #9

This is a really good post but it is disappointing that nowhere in the post it mentions Chris Dixon's post on this: http://cdixon.org/2010/01/03/the-next-big-thing-will-start-o...

Eight years on and I'm not sure that essay, while confident, has been borne out by time.

How about battery powered quadcopters with camera feeds and remote control? The Parrot AR.Drone was introduced in 2010, the first (AFAICT) consumer-priced drone to offer this kind of functionality. It was just a toy. Today similar low cost drones are used in film and TV production, wind turbine blade inspection, mapping, surveying... Consumer drones have even been weaponized by ISIS with small droppable grenades. Not that the latter is exactly a positive development, but it's not a toy use either.

Re: Why Toys?

#146

Post by [deleted] »

gaustin wrote: post #92
brucephillips wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call lamp oil a toy. The defining feature of a toy is that people use it just for the joy of using it, rather than to solve a problem.

Having an abundance of light at night was a novelty and a luxury in the past. Definitely toy territory in my book.

[deleted]

Re: Why Toys?

#147

Post by guyzero »

kbenson wrote: post #123
jpwagner wrote: post #20

The best dichotomy I've heard for this is: Are you building [Ice Skates] or are you building [Ear muffs]? Ice skates allow you to do something new that you didn't even know you had a demand for. Ear muffs solve a problem that you were already solving poorly (with your hands). [Business vs toy] is an insanely counterproductive mental framework which will create a false sense of security in founders who are actually bu…

Why do I suspect that the global market for ice skates, which now includes ice skating rinks in many areas that don't get ice, and supports multiple sports, such as Hockey, Curling (not to mention the Olympic level sports), is actually (much) more than ear muffs. I mean, I was honestly trying to figure out which way you were going with that analogy while reading is, because it seemed to cut against your point. Perhap…

You don't wear skates while curling? I'm not sure where your analogy is going

Re: Why Toys?

#149

Post by k__ »

marcosdumay wrote: post #143
TeMPOraL wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I wanted to suggest an exact opposite. I'd love to have seen those products of yours. In the alternate universe I live in, almost all the SaaS products I see are toys, never progressing beyond MVP phase.

SaaS can not interoperate. Thus feature-poor SaaS are useless.

Could you please elaborate?

Re: Why Toys?

#150

Post by taneq »

Isamu wrote: post #98
Patient0 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious: why only American adults? (I am Australian)

Australians don't read, they wrestle crocodiles while drinking beer. Americans don't read either, though, they are too busy eating sufficient quantities to double their body fat. (I am American)

Don't stop now! The English are too busy with tea and crumpets, the Irish with folk dancing, the Finns with sliding cars around on slippery roads, and the Norwegians with jumping off mountains in squirrel suits.
Post reply on HN