
The Benefits of Thinking Small (2010) - allenleein
http://blog.eladgil.com/2010/10/benefits-of-thinking-small.html
======
a_d
I wonder why so much of the business writing suffers from survivorship bias
type writing - what wrong lessons are we all drawing every day because of
that. The esp dangerous ones are probably the ones that _sound right_ but are
wrong.

I am a big fan of startups, those who build and innovate. I even like the
strategic advice that VCs/ex-founders give about building a business.

However, any writing of the style: "Facebook, Google, Zynga, Twitter did [x]
when they were small -> So you must do [x]" doesn't resonate strongly with me.
It has this underlying promise of 'if you did [x] you will become Facebook' \-
which ignores a vast multitude of other factors that went into making an FB.
It is worth thinking much harder about how much of [x] is actually right on a
strictly case-by-case basis -- depending on what one is trying to build, the
problem one is trying to solve and for who.

Sometimes one has to take a different approach and build several
features/product bundles in order to sell.

One approach probably is to find some overriding _truths_ that are close to
being immutable: such as,

1) make something people want (I haven't seen a counterexample to this yet)

2) nothing happens until somebody sells something (This puts focus sharply on
building what will sell)

3) articulating 'why now' to the best available clarity is important in my
view (even if to explain why a bigger scope may be needed now than in the past
- e.g. if one has to build an HR system today, they would probably need to
build a payroll integration as a feature; this wasn't true before 2013-14)

The problem of course with these that they sound super generic that they cease
to be of value after a point.

~~~
mikekchar
I always say that there's a difference between "because of" and "in spite of".

I remember a hamburger restaurant that opened up. It had very good hamburgers
and was very popular. The staff were always singing. It was a singing
hamburger restaurant. About a year after it opened, I noticed a lot of other
singing hamburger restaurants opening up. They all failed miserably -- mostly
because their hamburgers weren't very good. After about 2 or 3 years the
popular hamburger restaurant folded. They still had really good hamburgers,
but the singing was really annoying and eventually nobody wanted to go there
any more.

Interestingly, around the same time I heard of other singing hamburger
restaurants in other cities. I always wondered if it was some horrible cargo
cult fad, or if it was just a coincidence.

~~~
a_d
Such a great comment. I will use this hamburger example from now on to make
the point I was trying to make! :)

------
TimTheTinker
I for one often miss the focused, relatively small companies that are good
enough to later become something bigger.

Facebook was _really fun_ back when it was all about your profile, your
friends list, and posting on other people’s walls (this was before News Feed).
Communication on it was more personal and not at all about self-broadcasting
or gaining an audience.

------
davidw
I am a fan of the book 'start small, stay small' (
[https://amzn.to/2JcmFnp](https://amzn.to/2JcmFnp) ) , but at this point it's
a bit dated. Has anyone written anything similar that's a bit more relevant in
2018?

For most of us, success is likely to be via something smaller rather than
shooting for the moon with some VC-fueled rocket.

~~~
jerrre
maybe the books from the founders of Basecamp, Jason Fried and David
Heinemeier Hansson? Not sure if they're more recent, and also reeks a bit of
survivorship bias, but what book doesn't.

~~~
davidw
What was so good about start small, stay small is that it's so concrete -
that's also why it's a bit dated. The 37 signals guys tend more towards
handwaviness.

------
8bitsrule
Can't believe they left Apple (well, ok, Woz) out of that 'started small'
list. Not to mention Hewlett and Packard. Or Emile Berliner.

Related: Dave Packard's 11 simple rules. (for human relations) (1958)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20080517004825/http://www.hp.com...](https://web.archive.org/web/20080517004825/http://www.hp.com/retiree/history/founders/packard/11rules.html)

------
renox
I totally disagree that Google's success is due to 'thinking small' their
success is because they understand that to boil a frog you have to increase
the temperature _slowly_ : first build a useful service without ads (which
were really painful with slow modems) then when you have 'killed' all your
competitors start adding a few ads then increase the number of ads..

~~~
neom
[http://archive-
srel.uga.edu/outreach/ecoviews/ecoview021118....](http://archive-
srel.uga.edu/outreach/ecoviews/ecoview021118.htm)

~~~
randop
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APxGubAkOz0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APxGubAkOz0)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRWL8-dn_Uk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRWL8-dn_Uk)

~~~
neom
randop, are you saying we're....both...right...??!

------
overcast
Otherwise known as feature creep. Start with making one thing better than
anyone else has done. You're not going to be another Facebook, they've already
have a ten year head start.

~~~
jpmoyn
This certainly isn't "otherwise known as feature creep", and you don't
necessarily need to do one thing better than anyone else has done. All you
need to do is find an opportunity, and grow from there.

The point he is making is not that you will be the next facebook, but that if
you start with a small, possibly non scalable idea that works, who knows what
it could turn into. And maybe its better to do this than to try to penetrate
the market with big picture bullshit.

~~~
overcast
So basically not building a ton of features, and sticking to something small?
All cleared up!

------
kulu2002
Does this article try to convey that keep your expectations to minimal when
you start with something. Feel content when your product/ service met your
expectations and then gradually build your expectations? Because anything that
hurts most is our own expectations to begin with. Else, everyone else starts
with vision statement of making next Facebook or Google!

------
wslh
The author forgets many counterexamples like Amazon.

~~~
bigtunacan
Amazon is not a clear counter example to this. Originally Amazon was simply an
online bookstore.

~~~
hboon
Jeff Bezos certainly wasn't thinking small. We wouldn't know if he chose to
start with books or if was he only thinking of selling books, but he chose
books because there was a great demand for it worldwide, they were cheap and
there was a great deal of inventory available.

Definitely not small.

~~~
aserafini
He chose books because they exploit the structural advantage of the internet
maximally: infinite shelf space for the entirety of published selection,
something that would be impossible in a physical store.

I think this advice to 'think small' could be refined to include 'find a small
edge, then relentlessly exploit it'.

------
devereaux
TLDR: scratch your own itch

~~~
taneq
Or at least scratch _someone 's_ itch. Preferably an unscratched one. In the
simplest, most convenient possible way.

~~~
dave_sid
Stop scratching my itch

------
zyxzevn
The big ones are mostly state sponsored companies. Facebook and Google became
huge because they got a lot of money from state agencies. Mostly indirect via
front-companies.

With that they could dominate the market with good servers and pay for good
programmers. With that they deliver a very good service "for free", while
others could hardly get any money.

They also get some money for clicks and advertising, and also have started
dominating the advertising market. But the big money is the hidden support
from agencies of the government(s).

~~~
lecarore
I think the money of Facebook mostly comes from ads. I understand that their
knowledge about citizen could be valuable for governments and therefore could
be part of how they make money. Now, can you prove what you are saying, or is
it just a credible but proof-less conspiracy theory?

