Live data from Hacker News

Is the Lean Startup Dead?

steveblank.com

241–246 of 246 posts

Re: Is the Lean Startup Dead?

#241
post #171

Overfunding is an existential risk for startups. Scaling a team before finding PMF seems like a blunder in most circumstances. Instead of setting your best engineers to work creating the best product, they're busy recruiting and dealing with company growing pains from the get-go. The mythical man-month and scarcity of great people combine to diminish your returns on this hiring. Furthermore, battleships don't turn on…

Did you read the article? Blank is saying that the lean approach is still highly relevant unless you have a huge amount of risk capital available to essentially throw away on mistakes.

Steve Blank basically spent the whole article destroying Lean startup and dropped in the conclusion that it's still relevant to avoid rubbing Eric Ries the wrong way.

Re: Is the Lean Startup Dead?

#242
post #162

A movement fueled by a book promoter with no notable track record of success for what he is preaching? Yeah, it was a fad. To be fair, Ries stole a lot of nice bits from different schools of thought. There's stuff his books that actually works. But you would have to be soft in the head to think that his book represented wisdom. In fact, wisdom does not come from a book – it comes from reading a lot of books, making a…

Hi, I'm new in this community and startup world, when I read eric ries's books I'm in awe and planning to applying it. But I read about your comment and reconsidering my plan Anyway can you recommend me some alternatives behind eric ries's way to develop a startup? Thank you

Comments like yours make me react because I feel sorry to see people fall for this kind of manipulations.

Don't be deterred from applying advices that have helped thousands of companies because of an unsubstantiated rant by some guy on HN. His comments (assuming poster is male, apologies if I'm mistaken) are light in arguments and sound more like personal attacks directed specifically at Eric Ries, they don't really address the value of the Lean Startup methodology. The language is strong and bullish in an attempt to sound smart and to rally people to some point. What that point is is left to the reader to figure out.

X is not as successful as Y, therefore X cannot give advice to Y. What kind of logic is that? Counter examples abound, Nick Bollettieri never played tennis professionally but is one of the most acclaimed coaches in the sport. Closer to home, Patrick McKenzie had built a bingo card creator (profitable, while admittedly not an earth shattering success if you go by unicorn standards) when he started giving valuable advices to people and companies "orders of magnitude" more successful.

Also, pinning IMVU, a well established company, against other "orders of magnitude" more popular, more affluent, and also well established companies is not only a fallacious metric for success, but it's not even relevant to discredit the book or the methodology, since we're not even talking about startups anymore. IMVU is 14 years old, it has long outgrown the advices in the book. Most founders know that one of the first biggest challenges for a startup is to survive and grow (fast) the first year, then the next 3, then the following 5. Over the course of those objectives you'll make mistakes. Methodologies such as "Lean Startup" are meant to provide you with some tools and guidelines to navigate those shallow waters and to prevent you from knocking yourself out of the game permanently. If you're looking for real metrics to evaluate its worth as a guideline, survival rate or financial loss of startups would be more apt indicators. What's the survival rate of startups following patterns laid out by the Lean Startup (or some derivative adaptation, since there are many now) vs survival rate of startups doing things pre-Lean-Startup style?

"Orders of magnitude" are not indicative of success, objectives are. If your goal is to generate $10k of monthly passive income because you want more lifestyle autonomy, I think reaching those numbers qualifies.

As for your question, I think my main criticism regarding the Lean Startup is that much time is spent telling you to "talk to customers", but very little on teaching you how to actually do it. Therefore, I believe that investing some time to learn a proper approach to leads generation, cold outreach, and sales as it's done in the context of a startup would unlock a major achievement in your pursuit of growth (and success).

Re: Is the Lean Startup Dead?

#243
post #237
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't know what role Christensen played for MBAs back when "Innovator's Dilemma" was published since I was strongly disinterested in business back then. But I don't think the two books and the two authors compare. Having read it and having dealt with a lot of MBAs in "large businesses in areas under disruption pressure"-settings in the last decade I'm not under the impression that it is a book that had much of a…

> [...] the average MBA in big business isn't exactly a reader. I've worked with several MBAs in big business[0]. They didn't seem illiterate. What prompts this comment/impression? [0] FWIW - I prefer them to the average MBA in VC.

Almost a decade working in a large firm where the top 2 to 4 layers of the company (depending on where you are) are almost exclusively people with business degrees. It is no joke. Most don’t keep up.

Re: Is the Lean Startup Dead?

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you define PMF for me please?

PMF is when the startup has i) identified which users are desperate for the product, ii) made a product that customers can’t get enough of (demand feels exponential), and iii) found a business model that works https://a16z.com/2017/02/18/12-things-about-product-market-f...

Thank you.

Re: Is the Lean Startup Dead?

#246
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A) Maybe the most important is time. You need time in a good environment to actually develop something. Which has become a lot more costly. Why do you think that is? I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. >B) Large companies are controlling more areas than ever. People often wary of regulation as a barrier, but as time goes by the market participants creates their own barriers. Many areas are just harder to…

> That one definitely sounds true to me, the complexity of modern software definitely makes it harder to be competitive with big shops. As software professionals, this is a problem of our own making. Nobody is asking for software to be complex. Users don’t want complexity. Development companies don’t want costly complexity. Software developers don’t even want complexity. Who has sat down at the start of a project and…

This! Haha, this is such a good no-bullshit-description of the state of the art of software development. It can be a real a merry-go-round of: Premature problem solving, premature abstractions, and premature optimizations.
Post reply on HN