21–30 of 43 posts
When will you startups learn? Single founder companies can't succeed. badness=true
Troll. YC funds single founders all the time. There were several in our batch.
Congrats. May want to invest in some web design though, your site layout is pretty obviously copied from 37Signals' Basecamp... http://www.basecamphq.com/
Ya, the site could be designed better. Is it a Basecamp copy simply because he intelligently uses "above the fold" and then answers a few question in a two-column format below the fold? How many other sites do that? Many! Certainly those that want a modicum of success, and are aware of the home page "design patterns" that are in use today, do.
I plan on using the exact same design pattern for my projects.
I can't even say that 37Signals pioneered the pattern but they might be responsible for popularizing it. It works.
If anything Peldi deserves a little credit for utilizing a well known pattern to get his site up and saving his time for developing his app.
Congrats. May want to invest in some web design though, your site layout is pretty obviously copied from 37Signals' Basecamp... http://www.basecamphq.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author of this site, Paul Graham (pg), is an essayist who listed single founders as number one on his startup mistakes list. It's not an opinion I share, so yes, sarcasm intended. :-) Agreed 100% about sarcasm being hard to see in text. While an extra person can be an advantage, I think he overestimates the advantages and underestimates the disadvantages. Nice work on the site and app! Congrats! http://www.paulgr…
It's merely a difference of approach. Balsamiq seems to be a very nice business...but it's not a startup according to pg's definition. The goal does not seem to be "get acquired or have an IPO". Building a lifestyle business as a solo founder is entirely feasible...if a little exhausting after a while (I ran a solo founder business for seven years before starting my current business).
I worked at a software company which has 5 buildings it owns outright, employs thousands of people, and has 300 million+ in annual revenue. In the 70's it was started by one person. I'd have called it a "startup" at the time. It is still private.
The difference perhaps revolves around "startup appropriate for Y Combinator" vs "startup."
Congrats! I think it's looking good!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's merely a difference of approach. Balsamiq seems to be a very nice business...but it's not a startup according to pg's definition. The goal does not seem to be "get acquired or have an IPO". Building a lifestyle business as a solo founder is entirely feasible...if a little exhausting after a while (I ran a solo founder business for seven years before starting my current business).
I guess, to me, maybe that's a part of the issue. I define a third route for a startup. Make money. So I have trouble with that lesser definition. I'd have called 37 Signals a startup (still might, when does being a startup end--I don't know how to draw the line). I worked at a software company which has 5 buildings it owns outright, employs thousands of people, and has 300 million+ in annual revenue. In the 70's it…
Actually, it would be "startup appropriate for any investor". If there is no exit planned, then it's not something an investor wants to be involved in.
It's purely semantics, which is why I specifically said, "according to pg's definition". Your definition may be different...but if you're talking about pg's rules of thumb for "startups", you have to accept his definition of "startup" for the purpose of context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess, to me, maybe that's a part of the issue. I define a third route for a startup. Make money. So I have trouble with that lesser definition. I'd have called 37 Signals a startup (still might, when does being a startup end--I don't know how to draw the line). I worked at a software company which has 5 buildings it owns outright, employs thousands of people, and has 300 million+ in annual revenue. In the 70's it…
The difference perhaps revolves around "startup appropriate for Y Combinator" vs "startup." Actually, it would be "startup appropriate for any investor". If there is no exit planned, then it's not something an investor wants to be involved in. It's purely semantics, which is why I specifically said, "according to pg's definition". Your definition may be different...but if you're talking about pg's rules of thumb for…
There are all sorts of investment that don't fit the Silicon Valley VC short-term mold, so appropriate for "any investor" might be over-stating things, even for startups. Investing in cash-cow businesses is not a bad strategy--I wish I could have invested in the private company I mentioned above in the 70's. Jeff Bezos thought 37 signals was interesting enough to invest in. Warren Buffett seems to like cash cow businesses as well.
Thanks for posting news about Balsamiq here on HN ph0rque. I am quite excited by the RWW review, it's incredible to read about my own company on the #1 blog I read every morning...I still can't quite believe it.
How did you do the marketing for Balsamiq? Or is that covered in one of your blog posts?
I must also note that while I am very glad you have succeded in your milestone and its obvious benefits from a marketing standpoint, I find the whole area of self promotion on such an early scale somewhat of a recipe of disaster. My own startup (Travel social networking / Commerce site) is in private until september time yet from friends, family and testers our turnover and profit in the last 4 weeks dwarfs this figure. I could easily push these figures for marketing purposes but until i have sustained traction in reaching our targets they add no real benefit to us.
Nonetheless good job, but go get some extra help with that money!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks for your detailed blogging about the whole process of going from idea to quitting your job to launch. i spent about 30min going through all your blog posts. very encouraging and real. a great resource for others who are in the same boat.
+3.14