
Warning: Software Startups are Not as Easy as Everyone Says - rwalling
http://www.softwarebyrob.com/2007/11/06/why-starting-a-software-company-is-not-as-easy-as-everyone-tells-you-and-why-facebook-apps-are-crap/
======
tlrobinson
I think the biggest thing is that cheap != easy

Sure, you can write good software with a cheap Pc and entirely free software,
and there may be very little equipment costs compared to other industries. But
that doesnt make it EASY.

------
mrtron
I am going to be a complete fool and say the opposite. Starting up is easier
than everyone says.

Reasons? The cost is really low. You don't have to quit your job. You don't
have to invest a lot into your company. If things start to do well, you can
afford to do both. What really is the cost? The cost is your time, and if it
is something you enjoy, its a win-win situation. Am I defining a hobby? Sure,
but starting up can be exactly that. There are advantages to quitting your job
and investing every penny you can, but that isn't for everyone.

So starting up is really easy. Write some code, release a project. If it
doesn't do well, it was fun. If it does do well, keep the ball rolling.

If you can't get anything started while you are working full time, I would
suggest you will be unsuccessful if you quit your job too.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
You left out the sentence that starts with "I learned on my own startup..."
Why?

~~~
mrtron
Can you rephrase that?

I don't know if you are curious or trying to make some sort of strawman
argument.

If you are curious, I am sorry I can't spill many details. But I have done a
startup and several projects in the past, and am currently involved in a
startup.

If you are implying I don't know anything because I haven't done it
myself...well I guess I answered that.

I also have quite a few friends who have done startups to pull some anecdotal
evidence from.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
A straw man is a proxy, a fake, a stand-in for the real thing. So to make a
straw man argument, I have to distort something you've said so that it becomes
easier to refute. Feel free to explain how I can do this when your post is
reproduced verbatim above mine.

You meant _argumentum ad hominem_ (advanced by a loaded question, even!).
Technically, it's not relevant to startups' degree of ease whether you've been
successful as a founder or not, but it is valid for me to ask you to cite your
evidence.

You claim to be an expert on startups based on evidence you can't reveal.
That's a circular appeal to authority (yourself) established by an appeal to a
higher power (all your friends' top-secret successes).

I don't want to be (too much of) a pompous ass here, but I get jumpy when
people try to convince me of things that are both improbable and highly
desirable.

~~~
mrtron
No, the strawman you were presenting was that I had no idea about this topic
because I had not experienced it myself. That is a fallacy, and it is untrue
in this situation. I did not mean it was a loaded question, I wasn't sure
whether you were being a jerk or not.

Clearly, you were trying to be a pompous ass, and are again with this second
comment. I hardly claim to be an expert, I CLEARLY stated to have some
anecdotal evidence. I was simply giving some comments based on my experiences,
and whether you choose to believe me is your prerogative.

Lastly, how is it improbable that starting a startup is easy? Any software
developer can write their own software in a short period of time, and try to
start a business based on it.

~~~
andreyf
mnemonicsloth, mrtron - are you two dating?

(serious question, you sound like a couple I know)

~~~
mnemonicsloth
This is my first meeting with mrtron, so I don't think we're dating (unless
you mean 'by LiveJournal standards', in which your guess would be as good as
mine).

I'm engaged in the real world. We fight all the time.

------
mattmaroon
Saying something requires luck is not the same as saying it is hard. Few
people seem to understand that.

~~~
kirse
Diligence is the mother of good luck. \- Ben Franklin

------
nikolaj
i get the feeling people are voting up by the title, not the actual article
content.. seriously, this is entirely obvious and of digg caliber.. not what i
expect from news.yc

~~~
Alex3917
Good writing creates value for the reader. This can be done not only by
presenting an original insight, but by adding value to an existing insight.
This can be done by

\- Putting an idea into context

\- Providing relevant facts and statistics

\- Pointing out the implications of an idea

\- Drawing new conclusions from an old idea. etc.

Even though the insight might not be 100% original, the author still managed
to "say something worth saying about something worth saying something about."
At least for me.

It was also exceptionally well-written.

------
brk
Warning: the stove is HOT!

~~~
run4yourlives
Warning: Contents of this cup are HOT!

------
migpwr
Why do you people up vote this stuff? This place is turning into planet of the
obvious... do you really need to read a page of it's not easy?

pfff junk

~~~
caveman82
The article's fault is not that the message itself is overtly obvious, it's
that it neglects the more important question of: Why there will always be a
large number of entrepreneurs in spite of the low success rates of starting a
business and the enormous amount of work, dedication, and "luck" required to
be immensely successful.

But that would be opening up an economic/philosophical can of worms that is
neither here nor there.

~~~
nickb
> Why there will always be a large number of entrepreneurs in spite of the low
> success rates

Visit Las Vegas or lotto ticket booth and chat to people... it will clear up a
lot of things.

~~~
snifty
This isn't a very good comparison.

I applaud the fact that the post is advocating a bit of realism (something
which is in short supply in the entrepreneurial world). I also don't deny that
there is an element of luck in succeeding. But it's _not_ a total crapshoot.
There is a lot more variance and room for planning in a business than there is
sitting at a craps table.

I think on average people who at least try to start a company and work to
build something are not comparable to people sitting on their asses pouring
quarters into slots or lottery tickets.

------
falsestprophet
Successful (software) start-ups are unlikely. They require great aptitude (the
possession of which is uncommon) and rarely fabulous luck. The likelihood of a
start-up succeeding is the product of two unlikely circumstances.

So I suppose it is as easy as being exceptional and lucky.

Don't sell your house.

------
rokhayakebe
The article is great. The only problem is that we hear the same story every
hour or so. What some of us fail to realize is that most startups were not
started as startups. As a matter of fact I would say that the majority of
successful entrepreneurs did not start with the idea of owning/running a
business. Usually engineers/hackers work on a app in their past time out of
curiosity and build a product. The business or startup naturally follows.

~~~
cellis
i don't know what the hell you're talking about. Not started as startups?
Most? Wow! You clearly need to do a bit more research.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Maybe if we skip the insult we can all come to an understanding. I do not
think you deserve an explanation from me, but I will still give one for the
intelligent and respectful others. Most successful companies today were
started by engineers who were working on a product/service as a project. After
realizing that they are sitting on something valuable (and most likely this
happens by accident), they start to look into building a company around the
product. Several people wake up and have the intention to start a business. I
think that most people who want to start a business first then try to find a
problem to tackle are the ones who need this sort of article. And they are
also the ones who are more likely to Fail. I am not being rude it is just a
fact.

~~~
run4yourlives
I think you are wrong, although I don't think you deserved to be down-modded.

------
sabat
I disliked this piece for a different reason: his attitude. No successful
company was ever built by someone thinking as negatively as this guy.

Sure, someone who thinks that if he creates a new facebook widget he'll retire
-- that guy may need to hear this. But wait, does he? He'll figure out the
problem with that soon enough.

The rest of us ... do we need some smug guy telling us that the Plenty of Fish
guy was just really lucky? I've read the Plenty of Fish story, and it sounded
like there was a lot more than luck involved -- and that luck was the smallest
component. Oh, and I've worked at other startups and know people who are quite
rich because of them. It didn't take them five years and only luck. It took
the right idea at the right time, and in some cases, multiple tries.

No, successful, wealth-generating sites aren't born every day.

But it's more possible to create one than this guy seems to think.

~~~
rwalling
Perhaps, but with every media source erring on the other side of the argument,
this article is simply a reality check, and has to err on the side of
negativity to get its point across.

