Live data from Hacker News

The Pivot

dilbert.com

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: The Pivot

#111
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the "throw it up there and see what happens" movement comes from young engineers who literally lack the life experience to know what problems to solve. Given that scenario, and the intense pressure that comes from SV for young people to succeed, the approach makes sense, but there is a longer term, more considered approach to things. Especially for B2B startups, the best way to come up with an idea is to wor…

Most people here mention "larger businesses". But aren't exactly those much more likely to buy their solutions from established software houses, for regulatory reasons, or higher guarantee of continuity? I don't see how a bank, pharma producer, shipping company or publishing house would buy software from an ISV...

Just because you learn from certain businesses doesn't mean you need to start off selling to them. Many businesses start by meeting the needs of smaller businesses and work up to larger ones.

Re: The Pivot

#113

What really bothers me about this type of thinking is the assumption that every team is equally talented & motivated. I might go as far as saying the talent/intelligence landscape is somewhat homogenous but having been around early stage startups for years now there is definitely a power law distribution of motivation & organization. It's a lot easier to say you will do anything to succeed and act the part and strugg…

A slight spin on that assumption that I've seen in some lean startup materials is to assume that "software delivery is constant and guaranteed" - which is used to help move the identification of risk away from technology and towards the business viability.

In that case, I think it is somewhat useful, but speaking as a software developer - it is very rarely the case that a software project goes as smoothly and reliably as a fancy pitch deck makes it out to be. It is easy to say things like "small iterations", "continuous delivery", "move fast", etc but much harder to, you know, do them. Any old team thrown together off the street is not going to have that skillset to achieve that.

I don't think it entirely discounts the ideas or concepts, but I certainly gives me pause.

Re: The Pivot

#114

> Every entrepreneur is now a psychologist by trade. The ONLY thing that matters to success in our anything-is-buildable Internet world is psychology. How does the customer perceive this product? What causes someone to share? What makes virality happen? What makes something sticky? That sounds like marketing, not psychology. Of course, marketing is heavily relying on psychology, but still.

Marketing is psychology, for all intents and purposes. Nothing is purchased without a decision at some point filtering through a human brain. Marketing is simply the business/economic side of psychology.

Re: The Pivot

#115
post #7

Software can now provide just about any user experience quite easily, so the software industry is now all about figuring out what experiences people want. Is that all he's saying?

It's an important point, and it's not just the software industry. If two companies X and Y provide exactly the same or similar service, but company X's user experience is superior, it will probably win out. Consider that Dominos just released the ability to order pizza via a voice operated app. Their pizza is not going to be any better than it was the day before, but by giving people a (supposedly) better way to order, they may be able to take market share away from Round Table or whoever.

Re: The Pivot

#116
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the fundamental problems in American society is the failure to recognize that hard work is a necessary but not sufficient condition for big success. Yes, you do need to work hard, and do a hundred other things right, but even then, it still may not be enough to really make that big break. So yes, you need to analyze your customer data, have a great idea, smart people, and so on, but it may still not be enough,…

> hard work is a necessary [...] condition for big success I think this is not always true, therefore wrong. If you allow me to extend the notion of success to old writers, I can give the example of La Fontaine, whose poems are still read and learnt by kids and grown-ups 300 years after he wrote them. He is often considered as a lazy guy. So hard working is certainly not sufficient, and not even always necessary for…

Jean de La Fontaine was a lawyer from an affluent family who married a woman from another affluent family very young. While we cannot deny his work I don't know if using someone who was born into a family that allowed him to not both seek a law degree and not actually have to work as a model in comparison to starting a sustainable business.

Sure, he was lucky. But being born into a wealthy family was his luck, not just writing a few lines out of the blue and being thought of as the first poet to understand the nuance of French.

Re: The Pivot

#117

What really bothers me about this type of thinking is the assumption that every team is equally talented & motivated. I might go as far as saying the talent/intelligence landscape is somewhat homogenous but having been around early stage startups for years now there is definitely a power law distribution of motivation & organization. It's a lot easier to say you will do anything to succeed and act the part and strugg…

Just to add to your first point: it's hard for people to recognize that there can be a huge difference in ability between the best and the 20th best team. They can both be great, but the 20th best team is much less great than the best one.

This goes against most of our intuition (at least, mine), because there's essentially no difference between the 10,000th and 10,020th most talented teams. But it becomes obvious when teams are put in repeated direct competition with each other. e.g.: how many people expect the US (ranked, I think, 13th in the world) to beat Germany (ranked 2nd) in the world cup?

Re: The Pivot

#118
From my experience, pivoting does not motivate people who work for a start-up on a salary basis. Once you've made something, which you start liking, your bosses (start-up founders) tell you that they are going to pivot to a different direction. That simply drives away any sense of satisfaction by the work you've done.

Re: The Pivot

#119

What really bothers me about this type of thinking is the assumption that every team is equally talented & motivated. I might go as far as saying the talent/intelligence landscape is somewhat homogenous but having been around early stage startups for years now there is definitely a power law distribution of motivation & organization. It's a lot easier to say you will do anything to succeed and act the part and strugg…

  It's a lot easier to say you will do anything to 
  succeed, and act the part and struggle, and listen 
  to your investors like they're bosses, and let your 
  startup die out, while going through the motions, 
  than it is to be relentlessly resourceful.
Well said. The rest reads like the ten (well, maybe four) commandments of Please Fuck Off And Die with your bullshit-as-a-service, viral social mobile app.

  - platitudes about there being lots of talented teams

  - a founder or two, not that dedicated but there because 
    he/she isn't sure what else to be doing

  - startup vanity projects
  
  - lack of modesty to actually sell
To that last one, I'd also append "a peacock's hubris that their shit is so hot it doesn't need a pathetic and grovelling or disingenuous sales pitch."

That's a double edged sword, though. Everyone knows that a shitty deal is always preceeded by a hard sell, or cold call, even though not all hard-sell sales pitches/cold calls necessarily package dog shit.

This is the MBA shit list though. There's also a version for developers which invloves being an aloof, detached, aimless, defensive coder constructing an opaque fortress of code out of a want for job security, or over-engineering out of a cryptic brand of obstinate vanity or morbid curiosity.

And then there's the ivory tower developer that sows the seeds of confusion into every meeting, phone call and conversation because more often than not, the developer possesses a keen awareness of the total technical ineptitude of the stakeholders, who may in fact suffer actual intellectual disabilities, or might just be completely out of their depth in a field far more complicated than they bargained for.

Coming up against evil developers is like fighting a lich king commanding a pack of tarrasques. You will be bled dry by them, and transmogrified into a ghoul.

Consider it a situation not unlike being brought to a police station for questioning without a lawyer. Retain an expert, who is assuredly on your side and knows the law. Even if you are a lawyer, don't default to the idea of representing yourself (especially considering security concerns and crypto). A second pair of eyes, formal QA and testing, and sometimes an entire community is required to professionalize the fruits of many technical disciplines.

Re: The Pivot

#120
post #68

> And then they find out that success in the start-up realm is mostly luck. They discover this by trying great ideas coupled with great execution and failing. While I believe this (the luck part), I'm not sure most startup folks do. Or, there is at least some severe cognitive dissonance going on when they begin to discover it. Even "the pivot" itself was made popular by The Lean Startup–the book that many take as the…

> Of course, when a 9-figure exit happens to someone who can't code as good as you and didn't go to as good a school as you–then it was most definitely luck. Or maybe s/he had a better idea than you had? Doesn't look like luck to me.

I think he/she was saying that as an example of a way that "most people" rationalize things. It follows this sentence:

"When you combine all those things and still fail, most people will blame something besides just luck. [...]"

Post reply on HN