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

Stop Looking for a Cofounder

dontscale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 159 posts

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#131

Post by nitrogen »

afarrell wrote: post #70
rcarrigan87 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is truly a place for VCs and yes some businesses definitely need that kind of funding. But right now it seems VC is so available things are getting funded that will never be able to hit that 10x mark. So businesses that could have been great bootstrap businesses will grow too fast with too high a burn rate and flame out at a series A or B crunch. Meanwhile, if the business could have taken it slower they could…

This is a way that fixing income inequality would help certain entrepreneurs. If more money can come from customers (poor/middle class/small business) rather than investors, then early revenue will be more attainable than early fundraising. Decentralizing economic power would shift our economy away from capital-intensive moonshots and toward consumer products though.

Decentralizing economic power would shift our economy away from capital-intensive moonshots and toward consumer products though.

This was originally solved by selling stock in a venture to the public.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#132

Post by cha-cho »

I feel that this line should be in bold: "It doesn’t really matter what your friends think of your ideas or you in regards to starting a business–the votes that count come in the form of paying customers."

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#133

Post by ianstallings »

pcmaffey wrote: post #13
api wrote: post #2

"If you’re unable to convince friends to start a business with you, PG says it’s a vote of no confidence. But, what if you’re like me and you don’t have a lot of entrepreneurial friends? Or, maybe you do, but they don’t want to work on your ideas? It doesn’t really matter what your friends think of your ideas or you in regards to starting a business–the votes that count come in the form of paying customers. Since it’…

PG wrote that in 2006. Market forces and opportunities around startups have changed astronomically in the past 9 years. It was probably harder for 2 people to start a "growth" business in 2006 than it is for 1 person today.

It was. I did it with a partner in 2003 and we had to take time out and physically go to a lawyer, an accountant, etc. And the info on how to do it all was not as prevalent. A lot of it was new to us and we had to really dig to find it.

These days I can do everything online, have a company rolling (incorporation pending approval of course), get payroll up, start advertising, and easily find others I can reach out to for help, in a single day.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#134

Post by amarghose »

danieltillett wrote: post #90

I am going on a rant, but can we stop using the term lifestyle business for non-VC startups? Almost anything would be better - I came up with the term founder focused as an alternative [1], but almost anything would be better than the term lifestyle. A serious business is a serious business no matter the funding source. 1. http://www.tillett.info/2014/11/24/lets-kill-the-term-lifest...

Are you saying lifestyle businesses aren't a real thing or that they're being defined way too generally on this board?

I agree about "serious" business but there are different types of businesses and terms like these help

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#135

Post by reitzensteinm »

CPLX wrote: post #116
beambot wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$10/hr workers cost ~$30k fully-loaded per year. That's $1.5M for 50 employees. If we assume 30% margins, then materials costs are $3.3M and "profit" is $1.6M. Subtract off employee salaries, and he's netting $100k/hr. And that's not even accounting for taxes or other fixed costs (eg. realestate). Given the strong competition in the electric motor market... he's living on a razor's edge. If he can eek out higher marg…

Making a million dollars a year on average is, in fact, great, by nearly any non-delusional standard.

Please don't label those that disagree with you delusional.

The guy probably has personally guaranteed loans, and running a low margin business where things can swing against you hard is no fun at all. We are incredibly lucky in the software world.

I'd take a steady 200k over the picture painted by op, and given the skills required to build such a business and the time investment, I'd agree that's not great.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#136

Post by lazyjones »

dopeboy wrote: post #123
SneakerXZ wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also heavily depends on your personality. My guess would be the survivalist were extroverts and it was also the main reason why they went into this show. But most programmers are introverts and lone wolfs and they don't necessarily need others to share their experience with.

I respectfully disagree. Being introverted != no need to share their experiences. Every human craves to share their experience with someone and be validated (see social media). Some do it more than others and through other means. Also, at some point that lone wolf programmer is going to need to stop building and start selling. Overcoming 100 compiler errors is much easier and faster than getting 100 nos and 1 yes. Tr…

> Also, at some point that lone wolf programmer is going to need to stop building and start selling

Selling doesn't require a co-founder, just sales people.

> Try going through a brutal sales cycle like that and tell me whether that introvert would last without someone to ride the roller coaster with.

I did for 15 years (till a comfortable exit recently). I'm not sure you really understand introverts. I was in hospital recently and left early because they could only offer 2-bed rooms for additional treatment, which felt like torture to me. No, no everyone is desperate to chat with others.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#137

Post by danieltillett »

amarghose wrote: post #134
danieltillett wrote: post #90

I am going on a rant, but can we stop using the term lifestyle business for non-VC startups? Almost anything would be better - I came up with the term founder focused as an alternative [1], but almost anything would be better than the term lifestyle. A serious business is a serious business no matter the funding source. 1. http://www.tillett.info/2014/11/24/lets-kill-the-term-lifest...

Are you saying lifestyle businesses aren't a real thing or that they're being defined way too generally on this board? I agree about "serious" business but there are different types of businesses and terms like these help

There are real lifestyle business, the problem is we don't have a good term for serious startup businesses that don't need external funding. A business going after a midsized market that will make it only be worth $50 million is of no interest to the unicorn hunters, but to everyone else it is a major business.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#138

Post by Douceur »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #82
rcarrigan87 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is truly a place for VCs and yes some businesses definitely need that kind of funding. But right now it seems VC is so available things are getting funded that will never be able to hit that 10x mark. So businesses that could have been great bootstrap businesses will grow too fast with too high a burn rate and flame out at a series A or B crunch. Meanwhile, if the business could have taken it slower they could…

> So businesses that could have been great bootstrap businesses will grow too fast with too high a burn rate and flame out at a series A or B crunch. Smart, patient entrepreneurs can take advantage of this. Let angel and VC-backed companies validate markets, and pursue the markets they vacate after the broader crunch occurs.

That's based on the assumption that the crunch will happen though, and even if those companies flop, I think it's quite important to analyse exactly where they went wrong rather than put them down as just another startup that couldn't scale properly. If you're a bootstrapping startup hoping to enter the same market, this is crucial as you can at least try and avoid those mistakes - who's to say that you won't crash and burn too?

(This is more like advice to myself actually as I'm currently in a dilemma between that "wait" that you've just described and the intense worry of not getting first-mover advantage through that waiting)

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#139

Post by ilamont »

danieltillett wrote: post #90

I am going on a rant, but can we stop using the term lifestyle business for non-VC startups? Almost anything would be better - I came up with the term founder focused as an alternative [1], but almost anything would be better than the term lifestyle. A serious business is a serious business no matter the funding source. 1. http://www.tillett.info/2014/11/24/lets-kill-the-term-lifest...

The other side of this coin in the tech world is the term indoctrinates successive waves of potential entrepreneurs into the belief that the only businesses worth starting are the investor-backed companies that can generate a 10x return. It leads to “startup theater” and an unending stream of pitch deck promises that can never be realized.

What a colossal waste of time, considering many of the people getting involved in “startups” could start real businesses that generate real revenue and real profits ... without turning to VCs.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#140

Post by danieltillett »

ilamont wrote: post #139
danieltillett wrote: post #90

I am going on a rant, but can we stop using the term lifestyle business for non-VC startups? Almost anything would be better - I came up with the term founder focused as an alternative [1], but almost anything would be better than the term lifestyle. A serious business is a serious business no matter the funding source. 1. http://www.tillett.info/2014/11/24/lets-kill-the-term-lifest...

The other side of this coin in the tech world is the term indoctrinates successive waves of potential entrepreneurs into the belief that the only businesses worth starting are the investor-backed companies that can generate a 10x return. It leads to “startup theater” and an unending stream of pitch deck promises that can never be realized. What a colossal waste of time, considering many of the people getting involved…

I agree with you. To be generous the good VCs recognise this too. VC funding is just one way to go and we really need all options visible to entrepreneurs so that they choose the best option for them.

I think the aim should always be to support people building real businesses, not just those building unicorns. It is a real accomplishment (and one that should be celebrated) to build a business that makes a useful product that customer love even if it is only for a smallish market. Lets avoid using terms that disparage this effort.

Post reply on HN