Octopart, The Little Startup That Hung In There • Hacker News Board

Re: Octopart, The Little Startup That Hung In There

#51

Post by kongqiu » Thu, May 19, 2011, 9:01 PM UTC

sudonim wrote: post #24

nl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an electronics expert, but I know a fair bit about search implementations. I'd be guessing the partname->vendor price matching thing is non-trivial (because I bet the vendors all use different names and product codes). But it's not that hard. The search itself is something that could be replicated fairly easily by someone who knew what they are doing.

The tech doesn't seem that complex, but successful businesses aren't about ideas, or technology. They are about applying technology to ideas and getting people to use it. The hard part to replicate of what octopart did is the 'putting all the pieces together' part.

This is key. "Putting all the pieces together" is usually less glamourous than coding something new and hoping it gets picked up on TechCrunch, but it's huge.

Re: Octopart, The Little Startup That Hung In There

#52

Post by mb21 » Thu, May 19, 2011, 10:13 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #46

mb21 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes - typo. $1,000/month or 12k/year is not livable in the US. Thanks for pointing this out. I actually did reread the post, but pre-coffee.

$1,000/month is great beer money. How much work goes into day to day operations? One of the things to keep in mind that if something 'only' makes $1,000/month but only takes two or three days out of your time a month its "effectively" paying you $15K - $20K/month because you have those other days to do something else. People who set up linkbait pages (I'm looking at you content farms) which bring in 4x their operatin…

1k/month before taxes :( If you are already doing a full time job in software dev, you are probably paying 30-40% tax already.

Re: Octopart, The Little Startup That Hung In There

#53

Post by nl » Fri, May 20, 2011, 2:20 AM UTC

sudonim wrote: post #24

nl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an electronics expert, but I know a fair bit about search implementations. I'd be guessing the partname->vendor price matching thing is non-trivial (because I bet the vendors all use different names and product codes). But it's not that hard. The search itself is something that could be replicated fairly easily by someone who knew what they are doing.

The tech doesn't seem that complex, but successful businesses aren't about ideas, or technology. They are about applying technology to ideas and getting people to use it. The hard part to replicate of what octopart did is the 'putting all the pieces together' part.

Well yeah.

But "we put the pieces together" isn't a defensible advantage. Once one company has done it others can easily copy it (with less skill) unless they have something that makes it hard to copy.

Here's some common defensible advantages:

1) Technical. Google developed a technically better search algorithm than their competition and stayed better long enough to become dominant in the market. (That market share in turn allowed them to build a massively profitable business).

As discussed, I don't think Octopart have a technical advantage.

2) Network effects. Facebook had better network effects (and more reliable technology) than their competition.

Octopart doesn't seem to use network effects anywhere.

3) Business relationships. Microsoft leveraged its existing business relationships with computer manufactures in operating systems to build market share in web browsers by stopping them installing Netscape

Octopart doesn't have enough market power to do this.

4) Capital. Netflix offered movie studios enough money to make streaming attractive, which other companies had never been able to deliver.

Octopart doesn't have a capital advantage

There are other defensible advantages, too, but I'd be interested in knowing which applied here. What's to stop me hiring a bunch of cheap coders, copying Octopart and then beginning a race-to-the-bottom in terms of profits?

PG has replied to my initial comment and said that they have broader long-term plans. I think that's good, because I stand by my initial comment: I'm surprised this was attractive to investors.

Re: Octopart, The Little Startup That Hung In There

#54

Post by pg » Fri, May 20, 2011, 4:20 AM UTC

kerryfalk wrote: post #45

pg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean as more than a way of making money? It depends on the type of person you are, and what your ambitions are. If you're (a) the right sort of person to start your own company, and (b) your ambitions in life would be best realized in the form of a company, then yes. So e.g. Steve Jobs clearly has (a) and as far as I can tell has (b), so for him starting a company was in itself a good thing to do.

Yes, I did mean as more than a way of making money. You've stated that you did in fact start Viaweb to get rich. I know a few other founders that also started companies as an attempt to get rich (I am among them) and continue to chase more. But if I were to ask those same people, whether their companies earned them wealth or not if starting their company was one of the best things they ever did I doubt that the money…

Because (a) is enough. We're cool funding people who are doing it for the money; the startup doesn't have to be their life's work.

Re: Octopart, The Little Startup That Hung In There

#55

Post by kerryfalk » Fri, May 20, 2011, 1:40 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #54

kerryfalk wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I did mean as more than a way of making money. You've stated that you did in fact start Viaweb to get rich. I know a few other founders that also started companies as an attempt to get rich (I am among them) and continue to chase more. But if I were to ask those same people, whether their companies earned them wealth or not if starting their company was one of the best things they ever did I doubt that the money…

Because (a) is enough. We're cool funding people who are doing it for the money; the startup doesn't have to be their life's work.

That's very interesting, maybe my perspective isn't quite accurate then as your strategy has clearly already been successful. My thought is that to build a large and successful company you need to develop an interest that goes well beyond the desire for money - but I haven't built a large company yet so perhaps I'm naive. Thanks for the reply, pg.