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

Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball

blog.nugget.one

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 86 posts

Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball

#11

Post by bsder »

pjlegato wrote: post #4

This is somewhat interesting, but relies on the all too common tautological device of "hustle," a quasi-magical activity whose details are usually elided over. Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company. What makes a successful company? "Hustle." What is "hustle"? Why, it just means "working hard at doing all the things that make a company successf…

> Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company.

And, also, survivor bias. Lots of companies hustled and hustled and died.

Elon Musk is a really good example. At one point he couldn't meet cashflow--and then the government contract for SpaceX finally came in.

3 months of delay on that contract and Musk is a goat instead of a hero.

Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball

#12

Post by jv22222 »

rl3 wrote: post #6

As much as I hate to admit it, the author isn't wrong. Ideas too big to feasibly execute in typical startup fashion (i.e. incremental funding rounds tied to key metrics) have a snowball's chance in hell of actually succeeding. It doesn't matter if it's the best idea in the world; the ability to adapt to and survive within the existing funding eco system ultimately has more utility because it moves the company forward…

Thanks!

Just curious, why do you hate to admit it? :)

Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball

#17

Post by rl3 »

jv22222 wrote: post #12
rl3 wrote: post #6

As much as I hate to admit it, the author isn't wrong. Ideas too big to feasibly execute in typical startup fashion (i.e. incremental funding rounds tied to key metrics) have a snowball's chance in hell of actually succeeding. It doesn't matter if it's the best idea in the world; the ability to adapt to and survive within the existing funding eco system ultimately has more utility because it moves the company forward…

Thanks! Just curious, why do you hate to admit it? :)

The project I'm working on has evolved over the years into something I can no longer feasibly accomplish alone. I truly believe the idea is solid, but that's worthless without being able to go from zero to one.

The best I can do is hack together tiny glimpses of the final vision. As a solo founder with no track record, pitching a concept for a product that has high funding requirements with no hope of revenue until late-stage is virtually impossible.

Years ago I reasoned the only way I'd get off the ground is to launch something and get organic traction. Despite my best efforts to delude myself into believing the contrary, that seems to have proven correct.

If anything, thinking too big for your own good is tantamount to a mental prison of sorts. You just become obsessed with an idea that has a significantly lower chance of being realized. Hence why your snowball advice is on point. :)

Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball

#18

Post by jv22222 »

rl3 wrote: post #17
jv22222 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! Just curious, why do you hate to admit it? :)

The project I'm working on has evolved over the years into something I can no longer feasibly accomplish alone. I truly believe the idea is solid, but that's worthless without being able to go from zero to one. The best I can do is hack together tiny glimpses of the final vision. As a solo founder with no track record, pitching a concept for a product that has high funding requirements with no hope of revenue until l…

That's very interesting. Thanks so much for the answer.

From all the work you've done on it, if you really think outside the box, is there some single facet that could potentially be turned into do-one-thing-well?

Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball

#19

Post by pg_is_a_butt »

jv22222 wrote: post #7
pjlegato wrote: post #4

This is somewhat interesting, but relies on the all too common tautological device of "hustle," a quasi-magical activity whose details are usually elided over. Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company. What makes a successful company? "Hustle." What is "hustle"? Why, it just means "working hard at doing all the things that make a company successf…

OP here. That is an excellent point and now you have essentially named the title one of one of my new blog posts: "What is Hustle?" It especially rings true because something we've tried hard to do over the years on TechZing is unpack miracle functions exactly like this.

if it rings ESPECIALLY true, and you've been trying for YEARS to do things EXACTLY LIKE THIS, then it seems that TechZing does not hustle, does not know how to hustle, and thus doesn't have hustle required to unpack what it means to hustle.

Re: Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball

#20

Post by hoodoof »

I don't agree that the only way to make a company is to build something small and iterate. It's just one way, not better nor worse than other ways. Some companies have succeeded doing this, other have not. Which means that the point of the blog post is basically wrong. Don't "build something small and iterate", build the product that you have in mind that you think people will want - that might be big and need lots of functionality or it might be small with minimal functionality.

Just because plenty of companies have done this does not mean it isn't equally valid to build something with a broad set of functionality.

Survivor bias.

It's also painfully true that uncountable companies have built something small that got no bigger. Maybe they would have been better to build out their idea into something more full featured.

Post reply on HN