21–30 of 75 posts
Mr. Swan misses the point here. The success of the new bourbon was not because random restrictions were applied (e.g. Open a pizza place with NO CHAIRS), but because a high standard was enforced.
Mr. Swan misses the point here. The success of the new bourbon was not because random restrictions were applied (e.g. Open a pizza place with NO CHAIRS), but because a high standard was enforced.
I don't know....a "makers mark single barrel" would have had pretty high standards and a really "me too" feel. I'll stick by my argument that self-imposed restrictions can really help people get innovative and avoid the me-too traps of entrepreneurship.
Restrictions can and do lead to restrictions. Think of all the limited resources in a computer 20 years ago and all the tricks played with memory and registers and bit-shifting and such to push the limits of what the hardware could do.
Though that was for school, where the point is often to create things that are neither novel nor profitable.
I took the tour at Makers Mark distillery a few months ago (highly recommended), and they told a mostly similar story about Makers 46 (named after the number of attempts it took to get it right), but spun it as Bill Samuels, Jr. desire to "leave his mark." Although it is fun to find business lessons in everything (especially bourbon), I came away with a slightly more concrete example in brand loyalty after being intr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. While the "fail-fast/fail-often" method does work, that doesn't mean the older model of carefully planning and considering your market is bad or ineffective. I mean look at Apple. Every product they've got right now has had years of very careful thought given to industrial design, user-interface, and marketing. Apple doesn't release a product unless they're at least 90% certain it can capture the market.
Apple also isn't looking to get bought out by Google for $60M. They're in it for the long haul, and they're looking to be big players. Most of the small startups I see these days, unfortunately including YC startups, seem to be launching with the idea of doing one cool thing, having no idea how to make money in so doing, and hoping to get bought out in a talent acquisition by Google or Facebook before they run out of…
From http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
"Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast."
It's a motivation for a startup. Solve the "money problem" early in life, and do more important things later.
I guess the analogy with mobile Apple products is obvious (which I presume is why this post is on HN at all), but in hindsight I just realized that I have been following a similar strategy in my personal life all along (never let myself play video games or really watch TV except movies).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. While the "fail-fast/fail-often" method does work, that doesn't mean the older model of carefully planning and considering your market is bad or ineffective. I mean look at Apple. Every product they've got right now has had years of very careful thought given to industrial design, user-interface, and marketing. Apple doesn't release a product unless they're at least 90% certain it can capture the market.
Apple also isn't looking to get bought out by Google for $60M. They're in it for the long haul, and they're looking to be big players. Most of the small startups I see these days, unfortunately including YC startups, seem to be launching with the idea of doing one cool thing, having no idea how to make money in so doing, and hoping to get bought out in a talent acquisition by Google or Facebook before they run out of…