Live data from Hacker News

Does “building in public” work?

laike9m.com

101–110 of 225 posts

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#101
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ONLY reason I have any interest in someone's output is if it is something they themselves actually care about, what they actually think, etc. I want to know what they have to say. There is absolutely no value in them trying to say what they think I want to hear, worse, what they think most people want to hear. MrBeast's leaked production document is pretty much exactly this: trying to anticipate what people will…

I don't think it's so clear. I watch Mr. Beast from time to time, and it seems to me that it's basically video junk food. Is it really more entertaining, or more thought provoking, or more valuable in any way than how I would have spent that 20 minutes otherwise?

I fully agree with you, it is video junk food. People spend a lot of money on junk food as well. They value it.

Whether this is good or bad for society is a different question. Markets have never been able to solve that problem.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Sounds a bit like a variation on Conway's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

There must be some named law that states that the set of people you listen determine most of your thoughts. But it's something way wider in scope than Conway's Law. There are some proverbs, because it's a very old observation. But there must be named laws too, because it's a very common observation.

> > 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.

> There must be some named law that states that the set of people you listen determine most of your thoughts. But it's something way wider in scope than Conway's Law.

A related term is "audience capture". When you do things based on the approval of your followers, you can end up catering to some weird niches.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#103

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,…

> 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. Sounds a bit like a variation on Conway's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

Product Hunt Law?

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#104
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people won't pay for something they can otherwise get for free, even if the free option is mediocre. This does not mean that journalism isn't valuable enough to some people. It just means that the market for journalism shrank.

It's the diamonds vs water paradox of value. Diamonds are highly valued yet practically useless to most people. Water is extremely low-valued, yet essential to all life on earth. High-quality, investigative journalism is an essential institution for a functioning democracy, yet it's not valued by the people it is most important to: average citizens.

Water is extremely high-valued.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#105
No, it doesn't work. If you actually are solving a problem, then you can do some sort of like beta testing publicly, just how games do play testing, which can be public or not. But other than that, building it in public makes no sense. You might give updates every now and then about what you're building, but that's about it.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#106
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the diamonds vs water paradox of value. Diamonds are highly valued yet practically useless to most people. Water is extremely low-valued, yet essential to all life on earth. High-quality, investigative journalism is an essential institution for a functioning democracy, yet it's not valued by the people it is most important to: average citizens.

Water is extremely high-valued.

[deleted]

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#107
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the diamonds vs water paradox of value. Diamonds are highly valued yet practically useless to most people. Water is extremely low-valued, yet essential to all life on earth. High-quality, investigative journalism is an essential institution for a functioning democracy, yet it's not valued by the people it is most important to: average citizens.

Water is extremely high-valued.

You're in luck! I have water to sell you. Get out that checkbook!

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#108
Another problem is that, as an indie, you probably aren't an experienced marketing person. I've been the one managing "build in the open" with a founder on a popular Kickstarter project and it was awful. If we posted a lot, people complained we weren't spending our time on building the thing. If we slowed down the communications to focus on the project, people said we weren't being transparent or we had taken off with the money. Half of the comments on our posts were from people angry because we hadn't said anything about a super niche feature that only they wanted, or because it didn't do something that even a 100x more expensive product could do.

Entire communities started up around our product. They communicated publicly with us constantly. Their favorite past times were thinking up wild new features that we absolutely must have and trying to devine what was happening internally by over analyzing everything we said. Many of the community members used the size of their community to try to bully us into doing what they wanted. I personally had several emails telling me I was an idiot and a fraud. We were a victim of our own success.

It's the same fate that every open source developer experiences. As soon as you open yourself up to the world, everybody wants something from you and they want it now. If you already have a mature product with a healthy sales funnel and a clear vision, you can market what you have as you wish. If you're in the middle of creating something and you talk about it with others, they will all want a say in what you create and they will be upset if you don't act on their suggestions.

Now that I'm in a large company but working on a new and exciting project, we have hit the same problem internally - everybody who hears about it wants us to build it to suit them and they are disappointed when we instead try to build something that works for everyone. Any other product we made we never talked about into it was largely built and ready to start selling and we never had that kind of bullying behavior.

Something about being on the early phases of development makes people think you want their suggestions and they get rather upset when you don't build what they have in mind. That's why it's better to keep to yourself while you get the foundations in place, then carefully choose who you discuss it with until it's ready for the world to start buying it.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#109
Building in public is not a single, defined activity. Nor people doing it has the same motivation for it.

Some share numbers, some don’t. Some share everything, some goes with outlines. Some… you get the idea.

I do it because it’s boring to build alone, month after month, year after year. I’ve joined the community 2 years ago and couldn’t be happier.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#110
post #60

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.…

There’s a general feeling of pressure for a lot of people to monetise hobbies.

Exactly, it's the opportunity cost.

When I was a young adult and especially a teenager, I spent a lot of time making things out of pure desire to because I didn't have to think too much about my financial situation (present and future). That unfortunately gave way with age, and now ~15 years later whenever I engage with these activities there's a voice in the back of my head nagging, asking how doing those things instead of something that could potentially bring a financial return might negatively impact ability to achieve short term goals, tide over periods of economic uncertainty, have enough money for retirement, etc.

It's probably not the right way to think since personal projects that might seem unprofitable on their face can bring benefits in unexpected ways, but it's a problem nonetheless.

Post reply on HN