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

Does “building in public” work?

laike9m.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 225 posts

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#11

Post by DistractionRect »

autocole wrote: post #2

I’m not sure I understood the author’s point. This write up sounds like a collection of thoughts and observations about trends and the now saturated landscape of “build in public”/“indie hackers” I’d like to have heard some perspective from people actively participating in this and how their experiences have been

I think the idea is as a growth hacking strategy, people lost their way. The space is crowded and now it usually means people are posting positive numbers go up charts. What value is in that? Why is my chart more engaging than other people's charts?

It's not interesting, engaging, or educational. So as an growth strategy, it sharply slumps off after the initial launch post, and there's zero value to the reader aside from knowing it exists (again, initial launch post).

So it's a call to arms to reevaluate what you're doing. If you're posting number goes up, it's really no different from building in private, it's likely a wasted effort on your part and unnecessary noise to the community. Or maybe return to the old meaning of building in public. Create value for people, actually have a dialogue, and that'll pay dividends (that's the hope anyways) .

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#12

Post by TechDebtDevin »

pembrook wrote: post #10

Anecdotal, but it seems like all the people who “build in public” end up trapped by their chosen distribution strategy. What I mean by this is, if you’re building in public there’s a 99% chance you’re going to end up building products for other indiehackers who are interested in following people who build in public. This means you’re probably going to end up building yet another micro-Saas dev tool (Saas boilerplate,…

This. I like listening to technical solo founders talk about they built. Its the less technical marketing guys building in public their AI "powered" crud apps or micro SaaS like you describe that really bother me. They remind me a lot of scammy people on Instagram talking about drop shipping or whatever the get rich quick scheme of the week is.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#13

Post by zkirill »

whiterknight wrote: post #7

When it comes to marketing I think we can take a page from the Apple playbook. Never show anything incomplete. Critics and the general public don’t understand the artistic process and will only become uneasy. nobody cares how you did it. Just show results.

As far as I know the first Apple computer was not really a computer but a box of parts that the customer had to assemble themselves. The early days of Apple is probably the best example of "building in public" because so much of it was actually just selling the dream. In any case, the opposite is infinitely worse. Too many people wasted away for years "building in private". If and when they did finally release it was to the sound of crickets. Hacking for pleasure is one thing. If you're trying to build a business then you must be always be selling and marketing.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#14

Post by jcgrillo »

whiterknight wrote: post #7

When it comes to marketing I think we can take a page from the Apple playbook. Never show anything incomplete. Critics and the general public don’t understand the artistic process and will only become uneasy. nobody cares how you did it. Just show results.

At a more microscopic level, the same goes for git commits. Complete, sensible ideas are much easier to interact with and understand than someone's chaotic half thought through work-in-progress. There's value to this approach at all scales of magnification--completeness and polish aids digestibility and helps {colleagues, users, buyers, prospects} understand the value proposition.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#15

Post by sureIy »

patrickhogan1 wrote: post #6

I really dislike that so much of hacker culture is $$ focused now. 1. Being a hacker means walking the world being constantly dissatisfied by all of the inefficiency you see on a daily basis and wanting to fix it. 2. Being a hacker means feeling like most of the software world is fraudulent and you are going to build a solution that actually works. 3. Being a hacker means building something because it is fun or cool.…

You’re saying they’re no true Scotsmen.

They’re entrepreneurs who don’t really care what you call them. Of course people will try to make money, not everyone can afford to (or is willing to) maintain whole side projects for fun. Some people have side projects unrelated to their main line of work.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#16

Post by whiterknight »

zkirill wrote: post #13
whiterknight wrote: post #7

When it comes to marketing I think we can take a page from the Apple playbook. Never show anything incomplete. Critics and the general public don’t understand the artistic process and will only become uneasy. nobody cares how you did it. Just show results.

As far as I know the first Apple computer was not really a computer but a box of parts that the customer had to assemble themselves. The early days of Apple is probably the best example of "building in public" because so much of it was actually just selling the dream. In any case, the opposite is infinitely worse. Too many people wasted away for years "building in private". If and when they did finally release it was…

Yeah and Apple didn’t make any money until after that phase.

> If you're trying to build a business then you must be always be selling and marketing.

Yes. I am only giving marketing advice. Sales is unfortunately embedded in so many other areas of life besides commerce.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#18

Post by harshaxnim »

sokoloff wrote: post #8
patrickhogan1 wrote: post #6

I really dislike that so much of hacker culture is $$ focused now. 1. Being a hacker means walking the world being constantly dissatisfied by all of the inefficiency you see on a daily basis and wanting to fix it. 2. Being a hacker means feeling like most of the software world is fraudulent and you are going to build a solution that actually works. 3. Being a hacker means building something because it is fun or cool.…

If no one will pay for the solution, the problem might not be that important.

While this is true in broad strokes, I think money fails to capture non quantifiable quality of life improvements. Hacker culture being close to the users could solve them, but being driven by money would definitely hinder that development

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#19

Post by VexedVegetable »

sokoloff wrote: post #8
patrickhogan1 wrote: post #6

I really dislike that so much of hacker culture is $$ focused now. 1. Being a hacker means walking the world being constantly dissatisfied by all of the inefficiency you see on a daily basis and wanting to fix it. 2. Being a hacker means feeling like most of the software world is fraudulent and you are going to build a solution that actually works. 3. Being a hacker means building something because it is fun or cool.…

If no one will pay for the solution, the problem might not be that important.

[dead]

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#20

Post by ekianjo »

sokoloff wrote: post #8
patrickhogan1 wrote: post #6

I really dislike that so much of hacker culture is $$ focused now. 1. Being a hacker means walking the world being constantly dissatisfied by all of the inefficiency you see on a daily basis and wanting to fix it. 2. Being a hacker means feeling like most of the software world is fraudulent and you are going to build a solution that actually works. 3. Being a hacker means building something because it is fun or cool.…

If no one will pay for the solution, the problem might not be that important.

volunteers do un paid work all the time that is actually important. not everything needs a price tag to matter.
Post reply on HN