31–40 of 70 posts
Unless you're forced to do something to avoid catastrophic personal circumstances for you or your dependents I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or build apps that may become profitable enough to turn into a business. Don't set off to build a business for the sake of building a business, build something for the sake of building it and then see how it goes.
I agree with you. But in a way, isn't that the 37Signals story? Basecamp was a byproduct of their consulting job -- something they just made for dogfooding. They realized they could make money and then released it as a business. Along with the "build a business" mantra, they also build apps, but they are pretty quick at converting them into businesses when they see the opportunity. When they don't see a business oppo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just this. I could have the best job in the world and because I'm not working for myself, I'm not going to be happy.
>I could have the best job in the world and because I'm not working for myself, I'm not going to be happy. This statement is not internally consistent. If it is the "best job in the world," then by definition you would be happy to do it. It reminds me of people who say things like "I like my chips to be TOO salty!" No you don't. It also sounds like a self-imposed rule put in place for reasons of contrarianism, which…
Absolutely build apps for the fun of it, feel free to scratch your own itch, but if you build a useful product, try charging money for it before you give it away for nothing. If nobody wants to pay for it then you can always GPL your code and hope for the best, but releasing software under Free licenses by default robs you of big income opportunities.
Build businesses, not apps. But hey, whatever floats your boat is right.
Or build apps that may become profitable enough to turn into a business. Don't set off to build a business for the sake of building a business, build something for the sake of building it and then see how it goes.
How come?
(I personally don't think there is a right answer here. At different stages/situations, I have done both: set out to build a business and set out to build an app. I am just intrigued by those who believe one is inherently better than the other.)
It's fast It's fun It's the ultimate resume Sure, if you're trying to land a job, the build apps not businesses approach can work (and is possibly better than the opposite approach, cost/benefit-wise). If you're trying to become your own boss, you need to consider the alternative.
Not at all. The article mentions David Heinemeier Hansson but it completely misunderstands DHH's philosophy, if anything DHH in favor of this kind of approach- working on the side along with a stable job until you are reasonably confidant that your app has traction at which point you can jump onto your app and monetize it. There really is no point in trying to "build a business" when you don't even know your idea is…
Exactly. And a large part of the problem is the way people approach this by trying to find a "new idea." Most businesses aren't new ideas, they're either copycats (nothing wrong with that) or fresh approaches to existing ideas.
A social network for dogs is something that you can't know is feasible before you try it. OTOH a timecard app for remote workers almost certainly is feasible and its success depends on your execution.
If you want to start a business, solve a problem a business has in an interesting way. If you want to build an app, build the most amazing thing you can think of and forget about how to make money with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you. But in a way, isn't that the 37Signals story? Basecamp was a byproduct of their consulting job -- something they just made for dogfooding. They realized they could make money and then released it as a business. Along with the "build a business" mantra, they also build apps, but they are pretty quick at converting them into businesses when they see the opportunity. When they don't see a business oppo…
It's exactly what 37signals did. They scratched their own itch by building an app that they wanted to use. It then happened to make a ton of money and eclipsed their consulting revenues. They didn't start off to make all this money, but it was a byproduct of the passion they put into building the app. Many great software success stories are similar to theirs.
Is there even a way to gauge which one is "better" other than personal preference?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just this. I could have the best job in the world and because I'm not working for myself, I'm not going to be happy.
>I could have the best job in the world and because I'm not working for myself, I'm not going to be happy. This statement is not internally consistent. If it is the "best job in the world," then by definition you would be happy to do it. It reminds me of people who say things like "I like my chips to be TOO salty!" No you don't. It also sounds like a self-imposed rule put in place for reasons of contrarianism, which…
No. Somebody could, in a logically consistent way, be unhappy when doing absolutely any job.
DHH doesn't lambast side projects, doing things for fun or even giving things away - Rails is the obvious proof of that. DHH lambasts the weird aversion we software guys have to charging money for things. Absolutely build apps for the fun of it, feel free to scratch your own itch, but if you build a useful product, try charging money for it before you give it away for nothing. If nobody wants to pay for it then you c…
It is easier to get money by selling things and fame by giving away things. If you get sufficiently famous, you can sell some of it for money.
DHH got his money from 37signals, fame from Rails.
PG got his money from Viaweb, fame from his writing.
Zuck got sufficiently famous.
What do you want more first? Fame or money? If you choose fame, be ready to stick it out until you can sell some for money. That's how most big hit startup founders got rich.
True businessmen are rare.
That's why, Bezos is my hero. He set out to build a great business and did just that. Building a great new technology business is far more impressive to me than throwing apps on the wall to see which one sticks.
DHH doesn't lambast side projects, doing things for fun or even giving things away - Rails is the obvious proof of that. DHH lambasts the weird aversion we software guys have to charging money for things. Absolutely build apps for the fun of it, feel free to scratch your own itch, but if you build a useful product, try charging money for it before you give it away for nothing. If nobody wants to pay for it then you c…
You know, I kind of like that we have this aversion. If the Internet is the first true global common space, the open source 'movement' is one of the coolest things we've ever done as humans let alone software developers.
Not to drink the Koolaid too much. Just think about it, is my point.