Live data from Hacker News

The creators of no-longer-with-us products explain what went wrong

37signals.com

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: The creators of no-longer-with-us products explain what went wrong

#21
post #4

Did Storytlr even bother asking people to pay for the service? Seems kind of strange that with 10,000 users you can't at least cover $500 in hosting. At $5 a month, that's only .1% signup required.

You would be surprised at how few people would pay $5 a month...

That's the truth. I think it's better to replace any arbitrary small monetary value with 'Will Actually Open Wallet'. Once you've got the perceived value of someone willing to open their wallet then other things can start to fall into place.

Re: The creators of no-longer-with-us products explain what went wrong

#22
post #10
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the rate of change in OS and GUI environments, support libraries, and other APIs, most desktop apps don't work very well for long these days either. Of course unlike SaS you can always continue to use an old version indefinitely in a VM if it really matters. But I find the longevity of the vendor is still critical for supporting new environments and API requirements, and in practice I don't end up discounting t…

I should say here that I too have the 'old version' problem: The software to send samples to my Akai hardware sampler only runs on Windows 98. I have a Windows 98 PC just for this!

But you can still run it, ultimately proving zandorg's point.

Re: The creators of no-longer-with-us products explain what went wrong

#23
post #12

"Vitamin not a pain-killer" is a great metaphor.

No, it's a terrible metaphor. The vitamin business is hugely successful! I did the research once and vitamins and supplements actually outsell pain relievers. [ Edit: supporting research I did, which I've now cited twice in comments on Hacker News. I should probably write a blog post. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=499929 ]

I think the point wasn't so much in how successful both industries are, then he could've taken any two industries. The point was that one is very much needed, and the other is nice to have. It's hard to get people to pay for 'nice to have'.

Re: The creators of no-longer-with-us products explain what went wrong

#25
post #8

The good thing about desktop software is if the vendor goes away, the software still works. Not too keen (as a customer) on putting my time and effort into a SAAS hobby project that doesn't scale.

Maybe we need a web framework or platform that focuses on creating portable, trivially deployable applications. So that if the original site goes down, as long as it's open source, someone else can rehost it immediately (or you can just run it yourself from the start, if you know you will be depending on it) without having to spend time reconfiguring it. Server-side installs that are as easy as on the desktop.

Re: The creators of no-longer-with-us products explain what went wrong

#26
post #18
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also doing a data visualization startup (link in profile). What's yours? Email me if you care to chat.

You have some solid competition in this space: http://www.tableausoftware.com/

If prettygraph.com is based in India his main advantage would be that there's less chance of him immediately caving to U.S. government censorship like tableau just did.

Re: The creators of no-longer-with-us products explain what went wrong

#27

Did Storytlr even bother asking people to pay for the service? Seems kind of strange that with 10,000 users you can't at least cover $500 in hosting. At $5 a month, that's only .1% signup required.

I've seen the if only we get (tiny percentage) of (huge number) to pay (seemingly small amount), we'll be rich! arguement framed about a thousand different ways. I actually cautioned an entrepreneur I was talking to last night about this. Sales start from 0, and they continue from there. Until you have sold it a few times, who knows if .1% is incredibly easy or impossible. Sometimes any number >0 just isn't going to…

How hard could it be to get 1%?

I mean if only ask for $1, and get that dollar from only 1% of China, I'd be a millionaire!

Re: The creators of no-longer-with-us products explain what went wrong

#28
post #8

The good thing about desktop software is if the vendor goes away, the software still works. Not too keen (as a customer) on putting my time and effort into a SAAS hobby project that doesn't scale.

Maybe we need a web framework or platform that focuses on creating portable, trivially deployable applications. So that if the original site goes down, as long as it's open source, someone else can rehost it immediately (or you can just run it yourself from the start, if you know you will be depending on it) without having to spend time reconfiguring it. Server-side installs that are as easy as on the desktop.

The key point is "as long as it's open source", unfortunately most hosted services are not open sourced. If they were, we wouldn't need any special platform.

Re: The creators of no-longer-with-us products explain what went wrong

#29
post #6
post #2

I always find post-mortems like these a bit strange. These founders are all able to develop some pretty convincing reasons why they failed (albeit in hindsight), yet show no signs of acting on it. I understand the feeling of burnout, I have a handful of abandoned projects myself. I've never been able to look back and say that is precisely why I didn't succeed though. Lessons learned is one thing, identifying the one…

While I agree with you I find the same to be true of successful companies. When you ask a successful founder why (s)he succeeded you'l most often get an answer aided by hindsight. It appears to me that nobody truly knows what makes or breaks a company. There are some prerequistes (hard work, focus on customers, etc.) that you have to have, but these aren't enough. My guess is that it's like the weather and financial…

Not exactly. I can't find the citation just this second, but there was an article floating about showing that successful founders tend to be much more successful on subsequent projects than the baseline.

I don't think it's chaos or luck. I've argued it before, but there are traits that make successful founders successful. The one that always stands out to me is an absolute laser focus on analytics. These founders are 'obsessively analytical' which allows them to make decisions much faster than others.

Starting a company is a race. Your trying to reach profitability (or at least viability) before your current funding dries up. For boot-strapped companies that can be a matter of weeks. For VC companies that can be years. In each of the cases in the article they lost that race.

So starting a company is largely about managing that runway. Some people get lucky and just get it right. For the rest of us tracking everything and truly being obsessed with that data allows you to see patterns, opportunities, and problems much faster. I suppose that you could say that data-obsession allows you to achieve hindsight much faster.

I have one failed startup (out of three goes). In that one I failed to keep an eye on my data. In particular, I didn't realize just how slowly our development was progressing relative to the amount of runway we had. In the end we released a product that never found a market fit and simply didn't have an opportunity to pivot. We ran out of money, and with it the business went belly-up.

My most recent venture is about 3.5 years old. In that time we've had one massive pivot (think entirely new business that utilized about 20% of the code we developed). We managed that by keeping close tabs on our development schedule and releasing as early as possible. It became clear that our initial idea would work, but the cost of acquiring customers was far too high. We felt like we couldn't optimize that cost down to something reasonable in the time-frame that we had left. We did, however, find a new business model along the way and we've aggressively pursued that all the way to profitability.

Now we're looking at different data. Conversion rates, traffic, and ad-spend rule my world now. We track everything we can think of. We've found patterns for our business that have allowed us to optimize our spend while increasing traffic. We've moved our conversion rates significantly. We still have a long ways to go, but at this point we have a nice war-chest in the bank and are at the point that we can aggressively scale. Along the way we've pivoted, just less drastically. The product has changed significantly as we've come to understand our market. We're pursuing a couple of opportunities that we never even thought about during initial development.

I feel really good about our business. I think we're going to make it. We've done that not through chaos or luck, but measurement and optimization.

Re: The creators of no-longer-with-us products explain what went wrong

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we need a web framework or platform that focuses on creating portable, trivially deployable applications. So that if the original site goes down, as long as it's open source, someone else can rehost it immediately (or you can just run it yourself from the start, if you know you will be depending on it) without having to spend time reconfiguring it. Server-side installs that are as easy as on the desktop.

The key point is "as long as it's open source", unfortunately most hosted services are not open sourced. If they were, we wouldn't need any special platform.

Yes but I think it's still a significant issue for open sourced web applications -- there's still room for improvement. It's usually a lot of extra work to make deployment on new systems completely automated, so developers don't bother. For my last Django project, I have a Fabric script that will deploy an update to the server with one command -- that was worthwhile overhead to invest time into, since it will continue to save me time. But I had little incentive to spend time on automating the initial deployment, since it's something I'll probably only do once, so doing it piecemeal by hand wasn't much of a problem.

I've seen projects where this kind of environmental coupling led to the developer not even bothering to open source their work, since they knew it would take too much for others to use the code.

Post reply on HN