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

After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

dylanhuang.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 284 posts

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#271

Post by fsndz »

cj wrote: post #265
fsndz wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the comparison. are you comparing a SaaS that is doing 70% of the job and a shitty streamlit POC that no more than 3 people can use in parallel ??

They’re saying that they would rather pay a consultant because they would have control over fixing things that don’t work the way they want. Compared to the alternative of buying a SaaS product that is “rough around the edges” where you’re not able to directly control whether and how the product is improved over time.

that's a false choice because the SaaS startup will often be willing to modify the product to improve it for customers

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#272

Post by robertlagrant »

meiraleal wrote: post #256
robertlagrant wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the presence of US tech companies mean local tech companies can't compete? What's special about US companies?

> Why should the presence of US tech companies mean local tech companies can't compete? That's not the right question. The correct question is: Why DOES the presence of US tech companies mean local tech companies can't compete? And that's the beginning of the discussion. If there is no money to be made, no market will be developed. Block US companies and in a few years you have a booming ecosystem.

Can you answer why US companies are so good at providing value that customers choose them? Obviously things can survive if there's no competition, but why is that better for the consumer?

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#273

Post by throwaway2037 »

sfjailbird wrote: post #115
mediaman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people even think about selling $10/mo licenses. Just go sell $2-4k/mo SaaS to a medium sized traditional industry that has ancient, crummy software with a target customer employee size of 50 - 1,000 people. Customer problem discovery is easier, you get reputation network effects within the vertical, you gain trust because you learn the industry lingo, you can actually solve peoples' problems b…

There's gotta be a name for this fallacy. "This enterprise software sucks and is extremely expensive, so we will build something that is actually good and become billionaires!" This is the graveyard of engineer driven startups in the enterprise space, who make the mistake of thinking that software quality matters. The fact is it is not a top priority, if it is even a priority at all. In the enterprise space, if you'r…

Hat tip on the Spolsky post: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-...

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#274

Post by lazide »

liontwist wrote: post #269
lazide wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between ‘fundamentally unknowable/unpredictable’ vs ‘random’?

Whether it’s inside your circle of influence (not control) or completely outside.

Huh?

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#275

Post by meiraleal »

robertlagrant wrote: post #272
meiraleal wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should the presence of US tech companies mean local tech companies can't compete? That's not the right question. The correct question is: Why DOES the presence of US tech companies mean local tech companies can't compete? And that's the beginning of the discussion. If there is no money to be made, no market will be developed. Block US companies and in a few years you have a booming ecosystem.

Can you answer why US companies are so good at providing value that customers choose them? Obviously things can survive if there's no competition, but why is that better for the consumer?

> Can you answer why US companies are so good at providing value that customers choose them?

Some greasy words. Using VC money to offer subsidized services while capturing the market and killing competition has no relation with being "so good" at providing value, much the opposite.

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#276

Post by htrp »

giva wrote: post #168
fsndz wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True and what I find funny is that the same companies are often willing to pay a lot of money to consultants that will deliver a shitty streamlit POC. Like they will literally pay consultants the equivalent of 4 years of new SaaS cost to get a POC instead of using a product with rough edges and grow with it. Expectations can be really dumb and confusing.

I'd pay to buy a bad house and then spend money to improve it, rather than paying a full rent for the same bad house and hoping that the landlord uses that money to improve it.

Exactly this!

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#277

Post by BackBlast »

gortok wrote: post #130
Sytten wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say that but as someone trying to actually do that, it is freaking hard to commit to 3-5 years of virtually no salary to maybe get to the same outcome you would have had with a funded business. You need to sell a lot of 10$/month licenses for it to even viable to a 2-3 people startup in a developed country. There is also the cost of opportunity to consider in that.

> it is freaking hard to commit to 3-5 years of virtually no salary to maybe get to the same outcome you would have had with a funded business. I agree and I disagree. It is hard to bootstrap a product. It's even harder to bootstrap a product that folks want to buy. It's even harder to do that when the prevailing wisdom on this (and other tech sites) is to go the VC-funded route. The VC funded route -- for the vast,…

> The 'hard part' isn't the engineering

Depends on the problem. But I don't find a lot of companies that are all marketing and a bare cupboard of an engineering department. They exist, but they are not a universal.Also, most companies that are in this state today have shifted to it from one where product development with the engineering, was actually at least competent.

If you find marketing the hardest part, and most here probably will, you are likely an engineer foremost.

You need a good enough product, and you need it in front of the right buyers. Both aspects can be a significant obstacle to create a business.

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#278

Post by ASalazarMX »

dbetteridge wrote: post #70
tptacek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need funding to cover your monthly nut, you need a plausible path to hyper-growth; the portfolio math doesn't work for investors otherwise. If you set out to build a small-scale sustainable business, and you succeed , you can avoid funding. But if you're pivoting to something entirely new mid-to-late-ways through your company, you've probably burned down most of your reserves.

> monthly nut Strongly recommend checking urban dictionary before using that in Australia :D or you'll get some amused comments

"An individual's fixed monthly expenses, such as rent, utilities, cell phone, Internet access, car payments, car insurance, etc. These are the bills you have to pay regardless of what you do in a particular month. Can also be used more generally to describe one's monthly expenses, regardless of whether they are fixed or variable."

Urban Dictionary is know for shoehorning any word(s) no matter which into a sexual innuendo, but this the most voted definition, by far. Seems like ejaculation is not such a widespread meaning.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=monthly%20nu...

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#279

Post by giva »

fsndz wrote: post #271
cj wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re saying that they would rather pay a consultant because they would have control over fixing things that don’t work the way they want. Compared to the alternative of buying a SaaS product that is “rough around the edges” where you’re not able to directly control whether and how the product is improved over time.

that's a false choice because the SaaS startup will often be willing to modify the product to improve it for customers

It can but it's up to its good will.

To be clear: It usually makes no sense to develop an internal solution when there is an estabilished offering on the market. If there isn't, embracing an rough and incomplete Saas solution from a startup may work, but:

- You have no control on how the solution will evolve

- You don't own the solution (an internal solution can became a product on itself)

- You don't have any competitive advange (the money you pay are used to develop a product that benefit your competitors as well as you).

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#280

Post by popalchemist »

kaoD wrote: post #18
popalchemist wrote: post #14

I remember Konfig. Sorry you couldn't find fit, but great work nonetheless. About the code - would you be willing to add an MIT License? I don't see the code being used without a permissive license.

There's a LICENSE file. MIT in particular. https://github.com/konfig-dev/konfig/blob/main/LICENSE

Ah. It would show up in your repo's metadata if it were in the root directory.
Post reply on HN