Live data from Hacker News

Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

paulgraham.com

61–70 of 204 posts

Re: Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

#61

Totally unrelated: Clicked through to Bountii, and then onto their API TOS, and found this: "[you agree not to] use the Bountii API to operate nuclear facilities, life support, or other mission critical application where human life or property may be at stake. You understand that the Bountii API is not designed for such purposes and that their failure in such cases could lead to death, personal injury, or severe prop…

Maybe they use Java, which has long had such restrictions in its license, or another platform with those TOS.

(I did once use Java for offline processing of data at a nuclear reactor research facility, but human life was obviously not at stake.)

Re: Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

#62

Totally unrelated: Clicked through to Bountii, and then onto their API TOS, and found this: "[you agree not to] use the Bountii API to operate nuclear facilities, life support, or other mission critical application where human life or property may be at stake. You understand that the Bountii API is not designed for such purposes and that their failure in such cases could lead to death, personal injury, or severe prop…

Sorry for the oversight; we just added "unmanned aircraft" to that list.

Re: Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

#63
My suggestion is to be sure to advertise and push your project especially hard when your competitors are dropping like flies. If you mearly hang on you will come out the other end with a whole new slate of competitors that will be funded so you need to be in a strong position to take them on.

Re: Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

#64
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grow-users-before-revenue strategy has several spectacular success stories: Google, YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, MySpace, etc. etc. That's not to say it's the only valid strategy, but it's certainly a valid strategy. In fact, it probably has the highest payoff, albeit with the highest variance.

From my pov those are anomalies, rather than the norm. For every Google, Youtube and Facebook, there are thousands of startups with similar strategies that fail. I think it is safer to go the long route and start small, working your way to the top, charging a price right from the beginning. If your application is useful, users will pay for it.

I exactly agree that they're anomalies...but they're by far the most profitable anomalies. Almost all the top websites grew users before revenue! High variance, high payoff. It is certainly safer to start small and grow revenue first; it's also likely not to produce the next Google (or Yahoo, or Facebook, or YouTube, etc.)

Re: Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

#65
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grow-users-before-revenue strategy has several spectacular success stories: Google, YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, MySpace, etc. etc. That's not to say it's the only valid strategy, but it's certainly a valid strategy. In fact, it probably has the highest payoff, albeit with the highest variance.

-Google, obviously. Anomaly. -Youtube might have been fucked if it didn't get acquired. It was hemorrhaging cash like Pac Man Jones & Robert Downey Jr. trapped in a strip club. -Flickr was _priced_ like a talent acquisition. -Like most acquisitions, the Myspace acquisition has largely failed according to Google, their primary advertiser. Additionally, Myspace's contribution to News Corp's earnings have been piss poor…

Google and Yahoo are both obvious successes. Amazon is another. One Google outweighs hundreds or thousands of failures. You can't dismiss them as merely "anomolous" - among the biggest internet companies most of them followed this strategy.

MySpace's acquisition hasn't failed: it's a profitable enterprise for NewsCorp and still growing. It paid back the purchase price in the first year! So that's a success, not a failure.

The jury is still out on YouTube, Facebook, and Flickr as to whether they will be long term businesses, so they are not yet data points one way or another. They are clear success stories for the founders though.

Re: Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

#66
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listen, I understand that this is the kind of thing you might expect to read in a 1998 edition of Wired and does not fit with the 'getting real' mantra, but (at the very least) eyeballs are monetizable trough advertisement. It's a time tested strategy that has worked just fine in other mediums. Sites like youtube and myspace did not need to worry about the monetizing part as they got acquired quickly, had they not, m…

Ugh that getting real shit makes me barf. Applying blanket statements like "you shouldn't need to take VC money" only demonstrates the tunnel vision of working on one business for so long. Much of their advice is very good, but there's too many absolutes for my liking.. Anyway, all I'm saying is too many people are applying the blanket statement "worry about monetization later" when not all of them should be. In my o…

>In My opinion, it can be easier for businesses to reach the tipping point of paying customers (i.e. break even) vs. the tipping point of users (???, profitability?, acquisition?). I think MM touched on this.

Completely agree, but the possible payoff in the latter case tends to be quite higher.

>Myspace hasn't show itself to be a real business yet and either has Youtube. I still can't think of user based acquisitions that have quantifiably proved themselves to be a wise decision, though I think Youtube will.

I think that's hard to say. Take hotmail for example, while it might have not generated a $100 mil in revenues yet (or maybe it has?), I would doubt that the purchase was a strategic decision they regret over at Redmond. I think the same could be said for Youtube. If NewsCorp has regrets over the MySpace purchase, they are quite likely much more due to FB´s growth than to MySpace's current revenue.

If all these companies decided to grow users before revenue when they where a startup, it makes little sense to try to squeeze revenues quickly out of them, at the expense of user growth, once they've been acquired by a company with much larger pockets. I think the logical thing to do, in those cases, would be to continue the same growth strategy for a few years while calmly exploring ways to monetize them.

Startups that don´t get acquired are obviously more pressed to find a way to monetize quickly.

Re: Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

#67
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-Google, obviously. Anomaly. -Youtube might have been fucked if it didn't get acquired. It was hemorrhaging cash like Pac Man Jones & Robert Downey Jr. trapped in a strip club. -Flickr was _priced_ like a talent acquisition. -Like most acquisitions, the Myspace acquisition has largely failed according to Google, their primary advertiser. Additionally, Myspace's contribution to News Corp's earnings have been piss poor…

Google and Yahoo are both obvious successes. Amazon is another. One Google outweighs hundreds or thousands of failures. You can't dismiss them as merely "anomolous" - among the biggest internet companies most of them followed this strategy. MySpace's acquisition hasn't failed: it's a profitable enterprise for NewsCorp and still growing. It paid back the purchase price in the first year! So that's a success, not a fai…

Amazon had a business model from day 1. I don't think they really apply to this conversation. They weren't profitably early on, but that's way different from not having business model.

"Among the biggest internet companies, most of them followed this strategy."

You could be right, but I honestly have no idea. What sources are you using? How are you measuring this?

"It paid back the purchase price in the first year!"

Wait, what? Revenue or profit? Revenue > Acquisition Cost != success.

"They are clear success stories for the founders though."

Definitely, which is probably the most important thing of all.

Re: Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

#68
I agree. Startups that start now and are able to come out strong after the recession would have proved their mettle and hence will be successful. Also, this is the right time to form a strong team, coz most of the good hackers are looking for something interesting to work on (less competition).

Re: Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

#69
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh that getting real shit makes me barf. Applying blanket statements like "you shouldn't need to take VC money" only demonstrates the tunnel vision of working on one business for so long. Much of their advice is very good, but there's too many absolutes for my liking.. Anyway, all I'm saying is too many people are applying the blanket statement "worry about monetization later" when not all of them should be. In my o…

>In My opinion, it can be easier for businesses to reach the tipping point of paying customers (i.e. break even) vs. the tipping point of users (???, profitability?, acquisition?). I think MM touched on this. Completely agree, but the possible payoff in the latter case tends to be quite higher. >Myspace hasn't show itself to be a real business yet and either has Youtube. I still can't think of user based acquisitions…

" Take hotmail for example, while it might have not generated a $100 mil in revenues yet"

I'd bet it's way more than that due to volume, brand recognition and since it directly circulates hotmail users to microsoft properties. But similar to you, I don't know either. However, I think that's a great example of a user acquisition that has worked so far - thank you - I was having problems thinking of examples.

Not to sounds too 37signally, but what about the freemium model?

Re: Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy

#70
> The economic situation is apparently so grim that some experts fear we may be in for a stretch as bad as the mid seventies.

Eh? Every expert I've heard lately is fearful we're headed towards a repeat of the great depression. The one during the 1930s... not the 1970s.

Post reply on HN