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

Why Toys?

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 211 posts

Re: Why Toys?

#61

Post by nikanj »

loorinm wrote: post #39

Cute title but this is actually just an extension of “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer”. Facebook had TIME to be a toy because Mark Zuckerberg had a rich family, and plenty of skills to get a job if it didn’t work out. “Making a toy” is only possible with the resources of money and time. People who need to make money need to focus earlier on making money, which stunts growth in the long run. This is true…

Remember being kids and going to the amusement park with your friends? They had those booths where you could win a cool price, if you successfully hit the bullseye.

The middle-class kids had the pocket money to try a few times, usually in the games which seemed the best match for their skills. The rich kids went around and picked the booth with the coolest prices, then simply tried again until they won the price they wanted, or got bored. The poor kids were manning the booths, helping their parents sell popcorn and keep the show running.

Things haven't changed much as we've grown up. If you come from a wealthy background, you can keep on trying seed ideas until you find traction. With a more middle-class background, you can put in a small number of attempts, spread between long stretches of saving more money. If you're poor, you'll never have the ability to even try.

Re: Why Toys?

#62

Post by fiatjaf »

jpwagner wrote: post #20

The best dichotomy I've heard for this is: Are you building [Ice Skates] or are you building [Ear muffs]? Ice skates allow you to do something new that you didn't even know you had a demand for. Ear muffs solve a problem that you were already solving poorly (with your hands). [Business vs toy] is an insanely counterproductive mental framework which will create a false sense of security in founders who are actually bu…

Good point.

I believe you can only do that distinction (business vs toy) after the fact. So it offers no guidance at all.

Was Dropbox a toy in the beggining? You can argue. Was Google a toy in the beggining? You can argue. Was Uber a toy in the beggining? You can argue. Was Airbnb a toy in the beggining? You can argue.

Unless, of course, you're talking about the famous SOCIAL NETWORKS. In which case they were -- and continue to be -- toys.

Re: Why Toys?

#63

Post by durandal1 »

"The third thing that goes wrong when you take your toy too seriously is that you immediately start optimizing on the things that you believe serious businesses should – profit and margins."

This is of course only true if you're playing the Silicon Valley VC game, a lot of healthy businesses has been built by focusing hard on turning profit early. For an example from recent news, look at IKEA.

Re: Why Toys?

#64

Post by jamiegreen »

diminish wrote: post #45
ujeezy wrote: post #5

One of my favorite pg ideas: "When something is described as a toy, that means it has everything an idea needs except being important. It's cool; users love it; it just doesn't matter. But if you're living in the future and you build something cool that users love, it may matter more than outsiders think." http://www.paulgraham.com/startupideas.html

while working on our startup [1] this is one of the top pg quotes I like. However while talking to our customers we regularly face the "toy" critic as opposed to "feature rich". however approaching it as a toy keeps it simple , though for saas it appears as too simplistic sometimes. [1] we offer games and puzzles as a service to serious marketing clients.

Do you have a site you can share? Sounds cool!

Re: Why Toys?

#65

Post by jamiegreen »

diminish wrote: post #45
ujeezy wrote: post #5

One of my favorite pg ideas: "When something is described as a toy, that means it has everything an idea needs except being important. It's cool; users love it; it just doesn't matter. But if you're living in the future and you build something cool that users love, it may matter more than outsiders think." http://www.paulgraham.com/startupideas.html

while working on our startup [1] this is one of the top pg quotes I like. However while talking to our customers we regularly face the "toy" critic as opposed to "feature rich". however approaching it as a toy keeps it simple , though for saas it appears as too simplistic sometimes. [1] we offer games and puzzles as a service to serious marketing clients.

Additional question - what is the value prop for clients? Why do they buy your service?

Re: Why Toys?

#66

Post by nikanj »

zerostar07 wrote: post #42
schnevets wrote: post #23

I am constantly thinking about the question: What is the future tech entrepreneur's lemonade stand? It would have to be something typical and low-skill so a young entrepreneur can build it and learn the hard lessons about running a business, but it needs some special defense to avoid being out-innovated by an Amazon or Google. The Facebook example as a toy is perfect - the platform was able to thrive by being hyper-l…

has a lemonade stand ever evolved into serious business? I am of the impression they get abandoned

No, but the lemonade stand _operator_ has evolved into a serious entrepreneur. OP was trying to identify business ideas that take very little when it comes to skill and capital.

Re: Why Toys?

#67

Post by afarrell »

brucephillips wrote: post #52
loeber wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is plainly wrong. Rockefeller started dealing in oil because the unit economics were excellent, and because he recognized that no dominant players had emerged in the market yet, opening it up to vertical & horizontal integration (both of which he executed flawlessly). Furthermore, asserting that indoor lighting was a toy -- in an age where other light sources were dim, prohibitively expensive, or excessively smo…

I don't see how desirable unit economics refutes GP's claim that the initial market was lamp oil.

It doesn't, but the lack of other good sources of indoor lighting refutes the claim that the lamp oil market is a toy.

Re: Why Toys?

#68

Post by loorinm »

fiatjaf wrote: post #58
loorinm wrote: post #39

Cute title but this is actually just an extension of “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer”. Facebook had TIME to be a toy because Mark Zuckerberg had a rich family, and plenty of skills to get a job if it didn’t work out. “Making a toy” is only possible with the resources of money and time. People who need to make money need to focus earlier on making money, which stunts growth in the long run. This is true…

What you're saying is partly true, but what do you think YC should do?

To solve inequality?? I don’t think that’s the business YC is in.

But we can do a lot. We can drastically reduce the potential financial rewards for extracting value from millions of people.

We can set a max income of $300k per person and the rest goes to elevating the poor.

It would pretty much destroy the VC industry though.

Re: Why Toys?

#70

Post by loorinm »

nikanj wrote: post #61
loorinm wrote: post #39

Cute title but this is actually just an extension of “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer”. Facebook had TIME to be a toy because Mark Zuckerberg had a rich family, and plenty of skills to get a job if it didn’t work out. “Making a toy” is only possible with the resources of money and time. People who need to make money need to focus earlier on making money, which stunts growth in the long run. This is true…

Remember being kids and going to the amusement park with your friends? They had those booths where you could win a cool price, if you successfully hit the bullseye. The middle-class kids had the pocket money to try a few times, usually in the games which seemed the best match for their skills. The rich kids went around and picked the booth with the coolest prices, then simply tried again until they won the price they…

Yes. And clubs like YC reward those who have had extra chances for their whole lives. While the lower-class kids help their parents, the better-off kids are getting tutoring, music classes, and expensive toys to grow their skills and do better later on.
Post reply on HN