That kudos thing is so much fun.
The 2013 Startup
11–20 of 28 posts
Re: The 2013 Startup
#12We have been doing this for years and have bootstrapped all of our B2B startups (SaaS products). We have had VC's contact us and turn them away because it is not a good fit. We haven't fallen within the "ramen sense" profitability in a very long time and are comfortably profitable with employees. We simply keep re-investing profits from successful products into new products and over the years have been able to acquire hundreds of thousands of users. We are at a point where we are able to leverage our current user database for new product launches, feedback and ideas. Bootstrapping forces us to think about profits and launch products that our existing customers and new users will pay for. It gives us no choice. I would like to see more tech startups consider bootstrapping. I think too many read Techcrunch and hear about the very few that make or have been acquired for millions and have VC backing but don't look at the thousands that die off. I have always looked at it as wanting to build and grow a successful business that is around for a long time.
Re: The 2013 Startup
#13For the sake of argument, how is this different from self funding? Ramen profitable isn't profitable, and not taking seed is just preventing you from paying yourself.
As i see it, it is self funding. And the "no" is actually a "not yet". As the author puts it, is a problem to seed investors, because now the founders themselves have the money to their own seed. And nothing has changed to VC capital.
I don't see it as a "2013 trend", it is something that only depends if the founder have a cash reserve or not. I don't think there were many founders seeking seed capital in the past out of absolute need. Not in the past, not now. Maybe these days we have more people saving money with the clear purpose of self-fund for a year or two. Maybe is anedoctal.
Re: The 2013 Startup
#14I'm stoked to read these opening phrases: "...The founding team is very small, often one technical person. In some cases ... hacking something together because she needs this thing to exist ... They are slowly and deliberately building small communities or early customers. Some are even making money. In fact, a few of these startups are profitable (in the ramen sense)." ...because they read exactly like a case-study…
Another "2013 start up" guy here on the march towards a first public release and it really does read like a case-study. He's beautifully articulated the philosophy I've adopted to get from light bulb moment to something real and the resulting experiences over the last year.
Also, congrats on openexchangerates.org ! Idea's great and deliciously simple, the site is lovely and the API looks snappy and clean. By sheer serendipity my project has a major requirement for exchange rate data so I'll be getting my hands dirty with your API now I know you exist :)
Re: The 2013 Startup
#15For the sake of argument, how is this different from self funding? Ramen profitable isn't profitable, and not taking seed is just preventing you from paying yourself.
As i see it, it is self funding. And the "no" is actually a "not yet". As the author puts it, is a problem to seed investors, because now the founders themselves have the money to their own seed. And nothing has changed to VC capital. I don't see it as a "2013 trend", it is something that only depends if the founder have a cash reserve or not. I don't think there were many founders seeking seed capital in the past ou…
Yes, the point is that in most cases, at some point these companies will raise institutional VC. But whereas in the past couple years, I've seen founders blindly take seed capital (in some cases very large amounts) because the market offered it, I see founders now thinking more thoughtfully on sizing and whether to take it at all until they can show real growth. Once they can show that, they can make a better and more educated decision to hop on the VC treadmill or not. Mainly the point is that I'm seeing more mature founders question the funding environment and realize some of the negative implications of overfunding at the seed stage...
Re: The 2013 Startup
#16For the sake of argument, how is this different from self funding? Ramen profitable isn't profitable, and not taking seed is just preventing you from paying yourself.
As i see it, it is self funding. And the "no" is actually a "not yet". As the author puts it, is a problem to seed investors, because now the founders themselves have the money to their own seed. And nothing has changed to VC capital. I don't see it as a "2013 trend", it is something that only depends if the founder have a cash reserve or not. I don't think there were many founders seeking seed capital in the past ou…
[deleted]
Re: The 2013 Startup
#17Anyone else get the sense that this article is, intentionally or not, a huge ringing endorsement of the YC model?
I.e. much more focus on providing super early-stage startups with guidance, emotional support, and the world's best network while providing the bare minimum of capital up front (avg $17,000) to keep founders lean and mean.
My only gripe with YC is that despite how successful they've been and how many copycats they've inspired, there is still a huge drop-off in quality outside of YC, and yet pg and friends seem to have no plans whatsoever for any kind of domestic or international expansion, which is a shame.
Re: The 2013 Startup
#18I'm stoked to read these opening phrases: "...The founding team is very small, often one technical person. In some cases ... hacking something together because she needs this thing to exist ... They are slowly and deliberately building small communities or early customers. Some are even making money. In fact, a few of these startups are profitable (in the ramen sense)." ...because they read exactly like a case-study…
Another "2013 start up" guy here on the march towards a first public release and it really does read like a case-study. He's beautifully articulated the philosophy I've adopted to get from light bulb moment to something real and the resulting experiences over the last year. Also, congrats on openexchangerates.org ! Idea's great and deliciously simple, the site is lovely and the API looks snappy and clean. By sheer se…
That sounds awesome, best of luck with the release. And cheers for the complements, hope you enjoy using it!
Re: The 2013 Startup
#19I'm stoked to read these opening phrases: "...The founding team is very small, often one technical person. In some cases ... hacking something together because she needs this thing to exist ... They are slowly and deliberately building small communities or early customers. Some are even making money. In fact, a few of these startups are profitable (in the ramen sense)." ...because they read exactly like a case-study…
Another "2013 start up" guy here on the march towards a first public release and it really does read like a case-study. He's beautifully articulated the philosophy I've adopted to get from light bulb moment to something real and the resulting experiences over the last year. Also, congrats on openexchangerates.org ! Idea's great and deliciously simple, the site is lovely and the API looks snappy and clean. By sheer se…
raises hand me too. I'm way too honest to call what I'm doing "a startup." But I am spending my own money on it, and I am working on it exclusively.
The article makes the point but it should be re-emphasized: the tools a capable individual has at their disposal now to build software is, for lack of a better way to describe it, completely insane. I'm revisiting AWS's offerings as a solo person now after working for a larger company for a few years and it's mindblowing what's there. And then there's stuff like github, mixpanel, new relic, and so on, all of which offer starting tiers that are free or absurdly cheap. I can buy tools to do design work in the App Store today for tens of dollars which just a few short years ago would have required a sales call and a 4-figure purchase order.
Having done a "real startup" three years ago I look around now and realize a lot of the hard operational stuff I was wrangling with back then has basically been commoditized and can be paid for as a service that scales linearly up with profits. It's nuts.
My focus is this: take advantage of this massive leverage to get as many experiments going as fast as I can. Invest the time to build domain specific components (not devops crap that I can now pay for) so that I can quickly create a series of products/experiments around a similar theme quickly while I try to find something that clicks. Keep costs low and charge for the product, keeping a close eye on operating margins. (People paying for something is the strongest signal that you've found something interesting, after all.)
Re: The 2013 Startup
#20Anyone else get the sense that this article is, intentionally or not, a huge ringing endorsement of the YC model? I.e. much more focus on providing super early-stage startups with guidance, emotional support, and the world's best network while providing the bare minimum of capital up front (avg $17,000) to keep founders lean and mean. My only gripe with YC is that despite how successful they've been and how many copy…
I don't look at it that way. It seems YC is interested in pushing early seed stage companies to raise a big next round and become a "large, venture-backed company" (from our interview rejection earlier this spring).
This "2013 startup" is something different: focus on customers and revenue instead of just raw users, and go from there. At least that's my interpretation of the concept.