A Postmortem of a Startup • Hacker News Board

Re: A Postmortem of a Startup

#71

Post by nradov » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:32 PM UTC

ph4evers wrote: post #42

madmask wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decent 3d CAD and multiphysics FEM (cheap comsol) would be a good start

Yes but the industry is so rooted and vendor locked that it is extremely hard. People pay for Autodesk, Ansys, comsol etc. because it is proven and engineers are trained to use it. I would not be eager to use something new if I’m a constructor or car manufacturer.

Sure, a new startup will never get any market share in large, stable businesses like those. They would have to sell to other startups. New auto parts manufacturers pop up all the time.

Re: A Postmortem of a Startup

#72

Post by Etheryte » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:32 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #30

Etheryte wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the last paragraph is correct, many unicorns don't generate profit, yet are hugely successful by any other metric. In many cases, generating profit is actually undesirable for tax reasons.

Generating profit is highly desirable for any business. For tax purpose you need to differentiate between "profit" and "taxable profit". You can try to lower your taxable profit to minimise tax, e.g. by re-investing your profits, but ultimately it is better to turn a profit and to have to pay some tax on it that to have an unprofitable business.

Not necessarily, this is a classic misunderstanding. As a famous example, Uber did not make a profit for 14 years, all the way up to 2023. For taxable profit it's even more severe, they've built up a considerable backlog of losses, so they'll pay very little in taxes for the foreseeable future, even though they're now profitable.

Re: A Postmortem of a Startup

#73

Post by Zambyte » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:46 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #51

razakel wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People constantly moan about their jobs, stupid processes, broken software and tools... listen to them and build something better.

The problem is that usually the moaners are not the loaners - they're not the ones making the purchase decisions. That's why you either get in via very small business (where the owner is the buyer and user) or guerrilla (like Slack et al).

The people moaning are the ones building things that can be built better, not the ones that you should try to sell to.

Re: A Postmortem of a Startup

#74

Post by abanana » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:48 PM UTC

margorczynski wrote: post #25

I think the problem with startups (from a business perspective) is that they're ego-driven and instead of looking at the business reality in an objective fashion they mostly try to "revolutionize" and "make a difference". It isn't as sexy as doing the next Facebook or disrupting global healthcare but just copying an existing archaic & expensive product and doing it better can yield a great and stable business. There'…

> the problem with startups is that they're ego-driven

100% agree. This looks like another case of nothing more than arrogance - another case of somebody thinking they know it all, can revolutionise an industry, even though their experience within that industry is basically zero. Some of the choices of wording in there, e.g. "potential for venture-backed disruption", say it all.

It's not far from being that typical problem where someone, without domain knowledge, has that common simplistic thought: "why don't they just..." because it's always so obvious from the outside! In this case, why don't they just buy our software? Turns out it wasn't so obvious after all.

It feels like I've seen several stories on HN from people seduced by the idea of being called an entrepreneur. (Or more accurately, wanting to call themselves an entrepreneur.) Sometimes they keep failing, and just try a different industry instead of taking stock and changing their approach to one that starts with some real learning. Their blog posts make it clear that creating a startup is/was their goal. No understanding that to be successful, your business is supposed to be a means to an end, not the end in itself - do enough research first to create a viable solution to an actual problem. Though it seems in venture capital funding, businesses tend to get funding regardless... it's another world.

Re: A Postmortem of a Startup

#75

Post by matt-p » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 3:05 PM UTC

4ndrewl wrote: post #26

"address Britain’s housing crisis" It's a feature, not a bug.

up to a certain point, yes, asset holders do benefit from workers spending 50% of post tax income on housing. It is now restricting GDP growth, however - so long term it's not in many peoples interest.

Re: A Postmortem of a Startup

#76

Post by mytailorisrich » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 3:06 PM UTC

Etheryte wrote: post #72

mytailorisrich wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generating profit is highly desirable for any business. For tax purpose you need to differentiate between "profit" and "taxable profit". You can try to lower your taxable profit to minimise tax, e.g. by re-investing your profits, but ultimately it is better to turn a profit and to have to pay some tax on it that to have an unprofitable business.

Not necessarily, this is a classic misunderstanding. As a famous example, Uber did not make a profit for 14 years, all the way up to 2023. For taxable profit it's even more severe, they've built up a considerable backlog of losses, so they'll pay very little in taxes for the foreseeable future, even though they're now profitable.

Uber, like Amazon before, had the strategy to forego profit in the short term to focus on growth. Ultimately the goal is to be profitable because that's the point of a business.

I think the misunderstanding is to confuse this for "profit isn't desirable".

Sure you may try to minimise your taxable profit for tax purposes but that means you are turning a profit, and that may be impossible if you intend to pay dividends.

Re: A Postmortem of a Startup

#77

Post by Urahandystar » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 3:28 PM UTC

drdrek wrote: post #45

dzonga wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to those who cry about 'BS' like diversity etc ask yourself if people without the same backgrounds, looks would have been able to raise the same amount without a business model.

The financial world is not equitable, its about results. People from privileged backgrounds are more likely to raise funds because their privilege makes them more likely to succeed. If Being raised in a trailer park raised the odds of a successful exit, you can be sure VC interns would be having business meetings over deep fried Oreos way more often.

Is that so or is it more likely to succeed because they can raise funds? The way modern VC works is just a packaging industry anyway. A VC will give money to a founder if he thinks that he can raise more money in the future. They'll get back what they put in from someone else before it fails.

Re: A Postmortem of a Startup

#78

Post by duped » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 3:40 PM UTC

margorczynski wrote: post #25

I think the problem with startups (from a business perspective) is that they're ego-driven and instead of looking at the business reality in an objective fashion they mostly try to "revolutionize" and "make a difference". It isn't as sexy as doing the next Facebook or disrupting global healthcare but just copying an existing archaic & expensive product and doing it better can yield a great and stable business. There'…

> I don't want to make a little money every day, I want to make a fuckton of money all at once

- Russ Hanneman

The thing that distinguishes a startup from a small business is that the goal is growth - not being "great and stable." That said, I've worked at startups for years and I would not agree that good startups are "ego driven." They may seem that way on the outside if you take LinkedIn posts at face value or only read blog posts by people trying to hack it through publicity. They often have more understanding of the business reality of the markets they're trying to enter (or create) than anyone else, the value they add is by saying "fuck that" to a particular set of assumptions everyone else in the market might live by.

Sometimes that set of assumptions can't be discarded, but if it can and the startup is right, the backers stand to make a fuckton of money all at once.

Re: A Postmortem of a Startup

#79

Post by shalmanese » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 3:53 PM UTC

tiffanyh wrote: post #56

A lot of time & effort went into that write-up. I realize what I'm about to say will get backlash ... but I can't help but think is the time to write this postmortem indicative of how the business was run. Meaning, who benefits from the output of this postmortem? Seems like mostly strangers (who might not even live in UK). What other time/effort/resources was spent on things that weren't directly engaging with their…

> Meaning, who benefits from the output of this postmortem? Seems like mostly strangers (who might not even live in UK).

Seems to be a piece of content marketing intended to help the two founders land a new role in the US so, in that sense, it does seem pretty strategic and well targeted.

Re: A Postmortem of a Startup

#80

Post by FloorEgg » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

duped wrote: post #78

margorczynski wrote: post #25

I think the problem with startups (from a business perspective) is that they're ego-driven and instead of looking at the business reality in an objective fashion they mostly try to "revolutionize" and "make a difference". It isn't as sexy as doing the next Facebook or disrupting global healthcare but just copying an existing archaic & expensive product and doing it better can yield a great and stable business. There'…

> I don't want to make a little money every day, I want to make a fuckton of money all at once - Russ Hanneman The thing that distinguishes a startup from a small business is that the goal is growth - not being "great and stable." That said, I've worked at startups for years and I would not agree that good startups are "ego driven." They may seem that way on the outside if you take LinkedIn posts at face value or onl…

Most startups fail, and most startups are run by founders driven by ego and vision rather than by disciplined market research or curiosity or understanding of the market.

The successful ones will either have gotten very lucky, or know lots about the market as you say. In fact the first main success hurdle is to understand the market well enough to know it's actually a market, and that it can be monetized.

All that to say, I agree with both you and OP.