

Make Your Startup Great at One Thing - jim_greco
https://medium.com/@jgreco/be-great-at-one-thing-313e0ea9263a

======
vvpan
These "startup advice" articles on Hacker News always come off as cheap
marketing. Each one seems to make sense, but are so imprecise and arbitrary
that they are absolutely useless in practice. Tomorrow there will be another
article that points out that you have to add extra features that your
competition doesn't have and that's the way to do it, and upon reading it too
will make sense.

And about this particular article, can you be any more banal than by stating
"do one thing and do it well"? The only difference is that usually people make
comparisons to Swiss army knife and in this case it's that ninja tool.

~~~
saosebastiao
It reminds me of the Forer Effect, usually used to describe how Horoscopes can
sound like they apply to you, but are written in an abstract enough way such
that they could possibly apply to anybody.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect)

------
gingerlime
I think the problem is there even if you're focusing on the One Thing. Look at
Github. They have issues, wiki, gist, pull requests, search, repo browser,
keyboard shortcuts, private repos and so much more. That's still within the
One Thing.

And of course, Github built those things over time. But the question that
still remains, especially on the early days, with limited resources:

What new _feature_ should we add next to this one thing?

from a list of dozens of features that customers are screaming for... Shall we
add a native app? or should we add Facebook integration? Should we add some
gamification elements or redo the homepage to increase conversions? and the
list goes on.

~~~
kareemm
Github's One Thing is source code hosting. Everything else either supports
that (e.g. pull requests) or is complimentary (e.g. issues).

~~~
rpedela
Sorta. There were plenty of websites for source code hosting before Github,
but they all sucked because you couldn't collaborate or at least not easily.
Github focusing on easy-to-use collaboration tools (pull requests and issues)
is what set them apart.

------
asadmemon
Reminds me of Paul Buchheit's article:
[http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-your-product-
is-...](http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-your-product-is-great-it-
doesnt-need.html)

------
MichaelTieso
I get what the author is trying to say but thought I'd add a bit on the Ninja
Wallet mentioned there.

I have a Pocket Monkey
([http://zootilitytools.com](http://zootilitytools.com)) which is similar to
Wallet Ninja and have been carrying this around for over a year in my wallet.
I personally love this tool and will never leave home without it. Much like as
Swiss Army Knife, this thing has been useful so many times for me. Admittedly
however my most frequently used part of the tool is the bottle opener. Other
aspects of the tool don't get used quite as often. However if I were to carry
the rather large tool the author links to, it would not fit in my wallet.

gmu3 mentions the issue with airports. I travel _very_ frequently through
several different countries including the US and have never had any issues
keeping this in my wallet. I've only been questioned once but they were okay
with it and let me keep it. It's not sharp enough.

The Pocket Monkey is an easy conversation starter as well. Every time I whip
it out to open someones beer because there are no openers available they are
often impressed of how small and strong it is.

Disclaimer: I was given a Pocket Monkey (worth $12) free to review on my own
site in 2013.

~~~
thissideup
That thing looks cool. One small nitpick, it's easier to open a banana from
the seed end as opposed to the stem. Source: primates.

------
graeme
I tend to agree, but the author picks an odd example. The Wallet Ninja appears
to be a product in the vein of the swiss army knife, an IMMENSELY successful
product.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army_knife](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army_knife)

~~~
gmu3
I had a Wallet Ninja several months ago and it could be useful every once in
awhile. I'd go the airport though and I would be stopped every time, and I'd
have to talk to the agent and insist it's TSA compliant. After a handful of
times, I decided it was nowhere near worth the hassle.

~~~
general_failure
You will have the same problem with a swiss army knife and TSA. Not sure what
you are trying to say with your comment.

------
zabramow
I don't want to be too snarky, but is this news to anyone? Who is building
start-ups that are trying to be everything all at once? Who has that many
resources?

~~~
jfernandez
I see a problem too when these sort of articles are a little too
abstract/simple. I think the solution here is ground articles like this on,
you know, real startups that have succeeded on focusing. In that respect there
are few sites that try to address this issue.

I think what articles like this me is that the author/company has 'figured it
out' through their own experiences and are so excited to share that joy in
some way.

~~~
zabramow
Agree. The article is total fluff. Also, Pinterest started out as Tote when it
was many things and they found one feature that really caught on. It's good to
focus, but let's not pretend like there's some magic recipe.

------
timedoctor
I think this is simple advice and often incorrect.

For example: JIRA, it's very complicated software. Many of the complicated
features I think are essential for it to get into the Enterprise market.
Revenues $242 million.

Basecamp: Their mantra is simplicity (although they do not actually do just
one thing, they have several features as part of their software). Revenues
estimated at over $100 million.

I do no think there is one simple answer to how to build a successful startup.
Focusing on being great at one thing might be a good idea for some businesses
but it's not only way to do things and it's far from proven as "the" way to
build a startup.

[http://www.afr.com/p/technology/atlassian_sales_leap_as_reve...](http://www.afr.com/p/technology/atlassian_sales_leap_as_revenue_7HYwjBcYr0BZzL0pDn6N4O)
[https://medium.com/@hungrycharles/basecamp-the-small-
bootstr...](https://medium.com/@hungrycharles/basecamp-the-small-bootstrapped-
multi-billion-dollar-company-9573988a1435)

~~~
NhanH
In a sense, the "one thing" that JIRA does really well is being bloated (and
through fulfilling the check box process).

And I'm only half joking. I mean, have anyone ever successfully been
productive at using the thing? To me, it certainly doesn't do well in
department of being useful to developer (or manager, for that matters).

------
tlogan
Actually, it is a little more complicated than this.

First, startups do need to find out what is that "one thing". So many startup
end up building more features (use cases) since they are searching for "the
thing". That is ok - but the problem is that many startups are not removing
features (use cases) even after their metrics show that this new feature is
not "the thing".

I heard arguments like this:

It is wrong to release a user feature and then simply remove it when your
testing shows it isn't improving any metrics. Users will feel they are being
cheated, even though they aren't spending a single penny for that feature.

My answer to that is: "How much money did you say they paid for this?"

------
m3rc
What if your startup's product is a Wallet Ninja?

~~~
tyuwan
Good point! I would prefer Wallet Ninja over a bottle opener.

------
frade33
In our times, being good at things is not enough anymore. You have to be a
'specialist' and in some cases, chief specialist, and you can only be one, if
you have dedicated yourself to it 'solely'.

Jack of all trades and master of none. will only leave you among the mediocre.
It is easy to be good at multiple things, but as I said, almost everyone is
good at a lot things. But a Few are the real class.

~~~
jim_greco
There's too many other 'good enough' options out there. Time is a precious
commodity and you'll never get anyone to make investment in your product if
it's not so much better than anything else out there.

~~~
gearoidoc
Nonsense. Because: define "better".

More "functionality"? Better marketing? Better UI? Better traction? Better
team?

Final point: it seems like you consider investment to be a necessity to build
a company. It's not.

~~~
jaredsohn
I interpreted investment in the GP as meaning getting users to put their
energy into a product. Like [https://hbr.org/2014/11/how-customers-get-hooked-
on-products](https://hbr.org/2014/11/how-customers-get-hooked-on-products)

~~~
gearoidoc
Fair enough. Your contention that no one will look at your product unless its
"so much better" than anything else is nonsense.

Were that the case then we'd only have one product in each market where, by
your definition, the market would allow all but one to die out.

~~~
jaredsohn
FYI, I didn't make that contention or set a definition (although you likely
were talking with the GGP there.)

For what it is worth, I think you do need to make the product substantially
better for people to check it out within a crowded market, but in a similar
spirit to one of your other posts, there are multiple ways to distinguish your
product (scaling, UI, feature set, etc.)

------
iopq
I worked for two startups and they BOTH wanted to build marketplaces.

One of them had amazing traction with sellers because they said "it's free to
sell right now, hop on in!"

They failed because they didn't have customers.

The other one was an advertising platform, but they didn't have enough
advertisers to actually PROFIT from selling their advertising. So they sold
lots of advertising... only to pay Facebook to show it (because people want
their views and they want them fast) and actually lost money.

What if they just focused on one thing? A business focused on referring
sellers to marketplaces... a business working to sell someone else's
products... they'd both be very successful at one thing instead of failing to
provide on both ends

------
shanecleveland
Reading between the lines, but I assume the author would agree on starting
simple (feature A only), and only refine or add to that feature when the
customer base dictates it. If one customer suggests feature B, another
customer suggests features B and C and a third customer suggests features B
and D, then perhaps it would be a good idea to starting looking at adding
feature B or "pivoting" altogether to feature B.

And B may become more successful than A, but you never would have gotten there
without first doing A really well.

------
barbarian
Response article: [https://medium.com/@dylanbaskind/fumbling-around-in-
business...](https://medium.com/@dylanbaskind/fumbling-around-in-business-
beethoven-versus-michelangelo-237f3ab402e0)

------
ThomPete
Hmm. Isn't the problem that most companies in fact are only great at one thing
and with time that is what will kill them?

~~~
adventured
No, it's the one thing that they happen to be good at, that is the problem in
that case.

Some 'one things' scale to epic proportions, like Google's search engine or
Facebook, and become large stand-alone products all to themselves (and
dominate their category).

If your product doesn't have that capacity, you're likely to eventually end up
as the target of a bigger company that has that. The Windows ecosystem was
famous for that, Microsoft continually ate things that were useful and put
them into Windows, killing off entire niche product segments.

The iPhone is about 3/4 of Apple's entire business (the iPad shrank
significantly this past quarter, and nobody cared much, because of the
iPhone's growth). Search + ads is the extremely share of Google's business.
And Facebook (11 years old) only makes money from its core social network for
now.

Most very successful companies only do one thing really really well. There are
a few conglomerates running around, but they're a very small fraction of
businesses.

Also, being good primarily at one thing, doesn't mean you can only ever be
good at just that thing. The iPod has all but disappeared as a meaningful
business for Apple, to the extent that they essentially no longer talk about
it. Apple has been good at one thing, with three different unique things: PC,
iPod, iPhone.

~~~
ThomPete
Not sure we are talking about the same thing.

------
notadocta
I appreciate this gentle reminder as I am in the midst of building a MVP for
my start-up.

Thanks.

------
leoplct
It's seems easy, but reality is really difficult.

------
chenster
Be a spoon, or fork. Don't be a spork.

------
post_break
Replace start up with Yahoo and I agree.

------
Mz
Now I want a Wallet Ninja (or the Pocket Monkey mentioned by another
commenter) -- though, tbh, I wanted it the second I saw it, before the article
talked trash about.

Having read other comments here, I am kind of wondering how one figures out or
defines that "one thing" that the business is supposed to focus on and do
well. I don't know of any business that survives by doing literally one thing
and only one thing well. So you are awesome at your One Thing, but you can't
figure out how to take credit cards or secure the premises or keep people from
showing up at work drunk or high. Any of those things can destroy a business.

The reason business is hard is because you have to juggle so many things
successfully. If that weren't true, we wouldn't have so many articles on how
to do this. We would all just be rolling in dough, doing our one thing or
whatever.

