
Startup Common Sense - waratuman
http://42floors.com/blog/when-your-own-common-sense-leads-you-astray/
======
startupstella
I love this post because everyone in this community takes the Lean Startup
truths to be self evident, however, the rest of the 99% still ascribe to
truths that are unbelievably archaic. I see this all the time in bschool
(luckily bschool entrepreneurship curriculums are teaching Lean methods now)
as well as on matchist, where the #1 question entrepreneurs ask me when they
submit a project is: "How do I make sure developers don't steal my idea?"

Generally, I know by this question that this person will not make it past that
phone call/email because if they are so worried about a developer stealing
their idea, there is likely nothing there/they haven't done their
research/they are not serious.

~~~
AsymetricCom
According to recent YC posts, we should be more worried about venture
capitalists stealing ideas.

~~~
3327
Great post, to us here some things are evident but there is another world out
there perhaps 4.2 lightyears away or perhaps closer. But in this world things
accepted as norms, like logical argument, validating, hard data are not the
norm, and its common-sense or "what i know is right" is the norm. Its baffling
and this post was a great eye opener, as we are stuck in the four walls that
we have built around ourselves sometimes and forget to peer outside...

------
dd36
I do not understand the current open book orthodoxy. I have friends that have
launched very successful startups that were extremely secretive prior to
launch. I do not see why it should be a generalized statement.

If you know how to do due diligence and come from a background in business,
why do you need to be open with everyone about what you're working on? Yes, if
you're a young kid and green behind the ears, you should probably not be too
secretive. But you can talk to a handful of trusted, knowledgeable people
without needing to be completely open with everybody you meet.

Does 42 Floors write blog posts about all of their ideas and everything that
they are developing? Maybe they do, I don't know. As soon as they have real
competitors, they will stop - or maybe they will not and I think that decision
will be a function of market position. If 42 Floors has an unshakeable market
position, they will be as open as can be. If there is a threat and they've
lost considerable marketshare to that threat, they will be less open about the
competitive ideas they have going forward IMO.

We're working on a company right now that has competitors that, if they had
the eureka moment that we have had, would run with it. There is no reason to
even risk exposing them to our ideas. So we speak in very broad terms when we
discuss what we are working on.

I am going to do some more reading but I do not understand the mentality of
share all of your ideas openly and everything will be okay.

Can someone please ELI5 the logic underlying this orthodoxy?

Thanks and I post this with all due respect. It's not an attack. It's a
confused man typing in public.

~~~
Ma8ee
1\. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Your idea is most likely not nearly as unique or
revolutionary as you think. Most people you tell it to will probably be
neutral to negative, and the chance that you will tell it to someone that both
thinks it is an excellent idea and have the resources in time and money to
follow through on it is exceedingly slim.

2\. You need the invaluable input from other people. Maybe your idea is crap,
maybe it has already been tried, maybe no one is prepared to pay to solve that
particular problem, maybe someone else is already doing whatever you want to
do successfully and are years ahead of you. You better get to know these
things before you spend 18 months coding in your basement.

~~~
dd36
And both those arguments apply to people that don't know how to do due
diligence or lack significant experience in the industry that they are
addressing. Somebody could be working on your idea in total stealth and unveil
it tomorrow. It's impossible to have perfect due diligence in a non-
transparent world. Yes, if you lack experience, you should definitely talk to
a lot of people, especially prospective users.

What we are working on currently is a spin off of an existing company that we
already run and we've spoken to numerous other users about it. It's a solution
to a common problem in a particular industry that nobody has appropriately
addressed. Until we launch, I do not see the wisdom of telling strangers what
we are working on. There are existing very large companies that have certain
pieces in place and if they had the insight that we do, could devote resources
and beat us to the punch. Sometimes there is value in blindsiding your
competition.

I simply disagree with complete openness as a universal rule. Maybe because of
egos it's better to be open more often than not but it should be a carefully
considered modus operandi.

We will be launching within 6 months and already are alpha-ing with users. You
can take a measured approach to openness. It's not just complete openness with
everyone you meet or complete cryptic, insular stealth mode.

------
7Figures2Commas
Here's some common sense: if you're the CEO of a startup, you should be
focused on your own company. Period.

This might come off as overly harsh, but it's absolutely true: taking 45-plus
minutes out of your day to engage in an "argumentative" call with "the brother
of a friend" who has a "world-changing idea" is a waste of time. As is
blogging about it.

Your job as CEO is not to advise other entrepreneurs or to preach the startup
gospel; it's to steer your own ship.

~~~
jaf12duke
OP here.

In past startups I would have agreed with you. When I did my first startup, I
worked on it exclusively. I skipped vacations. I skipped classes (I was in
school at the time). I did practically nothing else.

I burned out.

The title of CEO doesn't define me as a person. I'm just a guy that started a
company. I get stressed. I need help at times. I have things I like doing
unrelated to my company.

Blogging is one of those things. I blog because I love writing. Writing
startup stuff for the HN community gives me purpose to that writing. It's a
sweet bonus that many of our users are on HN, but that's not actually my top
motivation. It's just because I like doing it.

As for 45 minute phone calls to help a friend. I'll bet the karma gets paid
back nicely. But even if not, I'm not sure I could I look myself in the mirror
if I became so self-important that I lacked the time to be generous.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
You and others have read more into my comment than is there. I wrote, "If
you're the CEO of a startup, you should be focused on your own company.
Period." Maintaining an appropriate level of focus on your company does _not_
require that you work 16 hours a day, neglecting your own health and personal
relationships in the process. _Burn out is a symptom of working too much. But
working too much is usually the symptom of an inability to prioritize and
filter._

In my experience, the difference between successful entrepreneurs who have a
healthy balance between their personal and professional lives and those who
don't is that the former prioritize and filter and the latter don't.

There are 24 hours in a day and each hour is precious. As the CEO of a young
company, you probably have a significant amount that needs to get done each
day, and you and your employees are counting on your ability to "get it done."
If you're spending an hour on an "argumentative" phone call about startup
philosophy with somebody who has an idea, you're trading an hour of time that
can be used to benefit you or your company for an hour of time with a person
who clearly prefers conflict to counsel. Let's talk about you, not your
company, for a moment: in an hour, you could easily fit in a vigorous workout,
take a power nap, enjoy a lunch with a friend or relative, or cook a meal for
your significant other.

In reality, of course, the decision to give an hour to an individual who won't
even reveal what he's working on sans NDA doesn't mean that you have an hour
less work to do. It just means that you'll need to make it up, today or
tomorrow, increasing the likelihood that you'll be "working late" and reducing
the likelihood that you'll be able to fit in a vigorous workout, take a power
nap, enjoy a lunch with a friend or relative, or cook a meal for your
significant other. Activities that it should be noted benefit your overall
well-being and are thus likely to have a positive impact on your performance
as the leader of a company.

Obviously, I'm not saying "never take a phone call" or "don't be willing to
provide advice." But as the CEO of a company with employees, you _are_
important, and your time _is_ valuable. Being _unreasonably_ generous with it
is not of benefit to your company, or you.

------
adamzerner
He shouldn't have stopped talking about the conversation with the lawyer.
There were interesting disagreements there that I would have liked to hear him
expand on, and say why exactly he disagrees. For example, he said that he
enjoyed the conversation because it forced him to better articulate what he
previously just assumed to be true.

------
tieTYT
How much of this applies to creating a game? Honest question.

~~~
rafd
On the one hand, entertainment products are difficult to capture by the
current startup rhetoric because (1) the audience/market is broad, (2) the
user doesn't have a problem (well, perhaps "boredom"), both of which put a
damper on the customer development method.

Nonetheless, there's still a lot to apply. Identifying early adopter players
and a channel to them, measuring retention and other analytics, iterating and
releasing frequently, creating a viral loop -- these are all concepts that
apply to game dev.

At some point, I think most games do try a "big launch" because ads and top 10
lists is how a majority of people find new games (even indie games now have
the Humble Bundle as a consolidated channel). Another reason for big launches
is the fake market dynamics of the app store: a one time boost when launching,
and a positive feedback loop for downloads. But even with big launches, a lot
of testing and tweaking is done internally (and it's standard practice on the
app store to test the release in single markets, likes say Canada, because the
app store stats are independent for each market)

~~~
tieTYT
Really good info. I'd love (and even prefer) to release my game today so I can
get feedback earlier. But in its current state (shitty graphics, no tutorial,
50% of the intended features implemented) I'm lost as to if that would be good
or bad. Common sense dictates the best way is the "big launch" you're talking
about.

I think I can make a good/great game eventually given a long enough time with
many feedback cycles, but I'm not sure if the user base for games ever grow
that way. It seems that you get your one chance to be amazing from the start
or you wasted all your time.

My plan is to get to a point where I can have people in coffee shops try it
before I make it public or have a very tiny private beta eventually. But I
wish there was a way I could get feedback sooner from more than friends and
family.

~~~
btilly
Minecraft was publicly released as an early alpha in 2009, and there was not a
full release until 2011. Thisstands as an example proving that a clearly
unfinished game can be released and iterated into a much better game than the
developer could have created in isolation.

The trick was that the state was described honestly. It was offered cheaply.
Upgrades were always free, but the next version always cost more. This set
expectations properly.

If Notch can do it, and you want to, maybe you should try it.

~~~
tieTYT
Do you happen to know if he charged from the get-go?

~~~
btilly
When I heard about it he was charging on a known sliding scale. I don't know
about the start, but I suspect it came fast.

