
Don’t drink the startup Kool-Aid – just find a problem and try to solve it - adamfletcher
http://venturevillage.eu/startup-kool-aid
======
jackkinsella
Small online business owner here, chiming in.

I believe the overuse of the word startup comes from a certain kind of
pretentiousness, a want to associate one's own small-business, small-market,
technically trivial, mom-and-pop online business with world leaders like
Facebook and Google. Making the linguistic link is good for the founder's ego,
and even better for convincing naïve investors to fund barely viable visions.

If you're one of the many non-technical teams who cannot build products
yourselves and have an idea with dubious money-making prospects then you can
have a great adventure on half a million euro of dumb money, and believe me
many founders in Berlin are.

I've lived in Berlin since January and during that time I witnessed a rising
hipster startup culture. Unskilled and unexperienced college graduates with
big egos raise dumb money, hire programmers to build code they don't
understand, then spend their days 'networking' at trendy hotels in down-town,
throwing minimal techno parties and going on trips across Europe for 'business
and pleasure'. It's a great lifestyle, and I've nothing against people
enjoying themselves - it's certainly my priority now. But I find this sort of
carry on repugnant when an investor's money is at stake.

Viaweb was founded by PHD students at MIT, one who invented the worm and the
other who wrote timeless Common Lisp textbooks. The modern waterfall of self-
professed 'startups' are run by guys and girls who watched 'How to Build a
Blog in 15 minutes using Rails' then decided they were the next Steve Jobs.
Let's get realistic here - building a web app or an Iphone app these days is
no more high-tech than a mechanic fixing your broken car.

Drop the ego, drop the pretense - the majority of business now labelled as
startups are small online businesses and there's nothing wrong with that.

~~~
incision
"Let's get realistic here - building a web app or an Iphone app these days is
no more high-tech than a mechanic fixing your broken car."

I think high-tech folks tend to underestimate what it takes to be a mechanic.

~~~
dasil003
Perhaps, but the analogy is not all bad. After all, there's a lot to know
about making web or iPhone apps. You might pick up the basics fast enough, but
if you don't know what you're doing it's liable to blow up down the road.

~~~
einhverfr
Are you saying there is not a big difference between a great mechanic (who
fixes stuff that stays fixed) and the one to whom you are always bringing your
car back to?

------
yesimahuman
I _just_ blogged about something similar today called the Failure Fallacy
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4444523>).

We are making it hard on ourselves to be successful because of the ideas and
types of businesses we are drawn to create.

We jump into crazy ideas with no provable business model or customer when we
could experiment and apply customer validation to our potential product.
Jumping in like a crazy person is glorified in our community because we love
watching others do wild things and hope it will help us be more wild.

I want this to change. More people should be running successful businesses,
though they might not be instagrams. I want to see your unique touch on so
many tired products and ideas.

------
nihonjon
Anyone else tired of all these entrepreneur/startup blogs and articles? It's a
bubble in itself.

Now I skip past them like I skip tabloid and gossip "articles".

~~~
mindcrime
You have to understand, before it was called "Hacker News", this was "Startup
News". A heavy focus on startup culture and entrepreneurship is a part of the
DNA of this site. I expect it will always be that way. Complaining about
startup / entrepreneur articles here is almost akin to getting in the water
and then complaining that you got wet.

~~~
alberich
Funny that a lot of articles here wouldn't really be categorized as "hacker"
news :) Lately, everything is "hacking". Seems like the word lost its meaning.

~~~
potatolicious
It's been like that forever - "hack" has become a buzzwordy synonym for
"clever trick".

Found a cool way to get the word out on your product? You've "hacked
marketing". Have an increment improvement on an existing concept? You've
"hacked" that vertical. Interesting new job posting system? "Hacked
recruitment".

I'm pretty sick of this community/field forcibly inventing words for every old
thing instead of just calling it like it is - and this includes all of the
"growth hacker" crap over the last few days. We're doing the same shit
everyone else has been doing for hundreds of years, except we've changed the
context to involve technology. These buzzwordy exclusive words we use do not
actually describe fundamentally different concepts, they're just opportunities
to fall all over ourselves and fawn at ourselves in the mirror.

~~~
CodeCube
That is in fact the origin of the term. Check out the book Hackers, by Steven
Levy ([http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Computer-Revolution-Steven-
Lev...](http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Computer-Revolution-Steven-
Levy/dp/0141000511)) and read up on how the Tech Model Railroad Club
appreciated 'clever tricks' on how someone solved something, and it didn't
necessarily have to be a 'technical hack' to warrant the phrase.

Another great text on the topic was written by Stallman:
<http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html>

"It didn't become easy—for practical purposes, using two chopsticks is
completely superior. But precisely because using three in one hand is hard and
ordinarily never thought of, it has 'hack value', as my lunch companions
immediately recognized. Playfully doing something difficult, whether useful or
not, that is hacking."

------
josscrowcroft
Fantastic writing style in this post - it somehow jumps out of the page, not
sure how to describe it. Congrats.

Only time I ever felt like giving up on my latest venture[1] was when I
started trying to view it as a "startup" and thereby compared it to other
"startups". I got really depressed for a week or so trying to be a "startup
guy", which thankfully I didn't become. It was like the goals of the business
(provide a killer service _in order to fund my continuing education and frugal
lifestyle_ ) got replaced by the "be the coolest thing ever" startup vibe,
which sucked.

This article reminds me again that it's not a startup... it's a site that
makes a little money by solving a common problem for developers like me,
better than other people, and will hopefully make a little more money, once
I've done some good marketing and solved that problem even better!

[1] <https://openexchangerates.org>

~~~
greenyoda
I looked at openexchangerates.org and it looks like a very useful service
(real time exchange rates via a JSON API) that people would actually pay for.
But there already seem to be other businesses competing in this space. I'm
curious as to what advantages you provide compared to sites like xurrency.com
or exchangerate-api.com.

~~~
josscrowcroft
Thanks, and good question - it's a very old industry in the web, so the main
benefit is ease of implementation (and about to get even easier), highly
responsive support, great community and remarkably low prices :o) - that said,
I'd love to hear any thoughts you have on other advantages that could be
provided - hit me up on twitter @josscrowcroft if you have any ideas.

------
npguy
Here is the real issue: finding problems. Here is why:

Anyone who tracks startups knows these two conflicting facts:

1\. Ideas are not everything – execution is key 2\. It is extremely important
to solve a problem that people would find value in, and therefore pay for.

Summary: It is of course important to execute well and solve the problem, but
the starting point is to know if the problem is worth getting solved.

Now look at our education system through this new prism the flaw comes out
very, very clearly the system today teaches problem solving, applying theory
to practice etc but there is little to no emphasis on identifying problems.
Think about your own school / college days for a second in how many instances
were you given a situation, and were asked to identify problems to solve?

The problem to be solved was always STATED nobody ever asked us to come up
with a set of difficult problems to solve.

Over time, this lack of practice in identifying problems translates into
difficulties in spotting profitable opportunities. Even if we do, there is a
lack of conviction and we end up pivoting multiple times.

Our education system cultivates employees, not employers – to be one, you need
to be trained not to solve a problem, but to identify one.

For some reason HN would not allow me to submit the link for the above, it
kept killing the post and any related query. Am trying to be reborn as a new
guy on HN now.

------
001sky
_In between all that succeeding and failing were a large number of businesses
who didn’t really know what they were doing yet or how they would do that
thing profitably. So, weren’t really businesses in the traditional sense and
we needed a new word with which to call them._

cheap to scale > scale per se > scale potential

------
aggge3
Most of these "entrepreneurs" are just product/service designers. The problem
is, the world of startups is starting to look like the counter at 7-11. We
need real ideas, physical technology, not just some worthless app.

------
protolif
modal adverts make baby jesus cry.

------
nirvana
The silicon valley Startup Kool-aid has a false dichotomy:

You're either patio11[1], a "nobody" building a "lifestyle business" or you're
making the next Instagram.

Consequently we have a cargo cult mentality that has evolved. Lets compare
these two:

Location:

"Obviously you need to be in Silicon Valley. This is where all the wannabe
startup hipsters move to!"

I mean, you can't go to a coffeeshop without hearing a harvard MBA who think's
he's a programmer because he made an excel macro work once, talking about how
he's going to disrupt multiple paradigms with his massive SoLoMo app they're
building. "This is where it's all happening, man!"[5]

"Japan? There's no startup scene in Japan. Hell, that's a 12 hour flight. You
think VCs are going to fly 12 hours for a board meeting?"

Business model:

"Dude, if you charge money, like %90 of the people aren't going to use your
product! But if you're free, and you've gamified your appointment calendar,
people will share it! If you can get your virality factor to 2, you'll have a
billion customers in 5 months!"

"Oh, there will be a way to make money later, somehow, just look at google,
twitter and Facebook!" [2]

Funding:

"If you're going to be scalable, you need bank, man! The VCS are in silicon
valley, the VCs are critical to having a business. They'll give you great
advice, connect you up with the other movers and shakers so you can have Cock-
Tails Man!" (Yeah, I can't make myself sound like a startup hipster, I know.)

"Without money, how are you going to build anything? How could you ever scale
it? You have to start with money!"

Company culture:

"IF you see the CEO writing code, you've failed. You gotta delegate. I mean,
never invest in a company run by a programmer, they'll spend all their time
delighting in some technical solution that's super elegant but nobody at any
cocktail party is going to give a damn about! I mean, what do customers care
about how good you did something? They company has to be run by a people
person-- so at the cocktail parties he[3] can network with other people!
People's what drives business, and this is what gets business done!"

Do they even have cocktail parties in Japan? Isn't liqueur outlawed or
something there?[4]

Advice:

"You see with VCs, its not the money that's valuable, its the advice! They're
going to be able to tell you the right moves and you'll be able to grow so
much faster!"

I can't contrast this with patio, because I don't know where he gets advice.
But in my experience, VCs [can be] beyond clueless[6]. I've seen them force
companies to shut down profitable businesses and focus on long shots (which
had the nice side effect of making the company more desperate for the
investment, and by drawing it all out the VC was able to get much better terms
and take the whole thing when the company later sold, shutting out the
founders and employees who got nothing.) I've seen VCs force product direction
based on fads, and force the use of inappropriate technologies (provided by a
company they had a relationship with, naturally) which caused product delay
and ultimately a significant reduction in the value of the company on exit.

Much of the investment process seems to be spending time getting investors up
to speed so that they even understand what it is you're doing-- which maybe is
one of the reasons they'd rather fund instagram than patio11. I mean, they
don't know anything about the hair salon industry (his only clients as far as
they can tell) but everyone likes to take instamatic pictures!

And if you don't have a business model, you don't have to worry about the
business model!

[1] All respect to patio11. I think he's on the right track here, and he
seemed to be the best example to use. Nothing derogatory said here about him
or his business is meant that way, merely to characterize the people who would
see him in a derogatory light. [2] Here's a bonus: Why is google's
monetezation strategy significantly better than twitter an facebooks? It might
turn out not to be if the latter two find a way to make it work, but right
now, it works much better. [3] Always. No such thing as a She CEO, I mean,
women just don't have the ruthlessness needed, amirite? [4] I don't think
people are this naive about Japan in particular, but I hear them say the
strangest stuff. [5] Somehow startup hipsters in the bay area speak with a
style that's a cross between "Brah" and San Fran hippy from the 1970s. In my
head. [6] This is why YC has had so much success, in part, as PG is not
clueless and his vetting and blessing lets VCs outsource dealflow. I think
angels are probably a lot less clueless, though I have less experience with
them. Looking at Gabriel Weinbergs recent summary of his angel experience you
see a very different approach than the mentality I'm laying out here.

~~~
kvnn
> [2] Here's a bonus: Why is google's monetezation strategy significantly
> better than twitter an facebooks?

Is that a question or a quiz? If a quiz, can I have the answer?

~~~
nirvana
A lot of the traffic google gets is people looking to buy e.g.: "refrigerator
reviews". Everyone going to google is looking for something, even if a lot of
them aren't looking for a product, when they are looking for a product it is
to buy it.

Facebook and Twitter, however, are sites people use for socializing, and if
they're looking for something, its usually links to news.

Thus, google's traffic is more monetizable. This is not to say that Facebook
and Twitter won't grow up to be big businesses with really lucerative
monetization... its just that it isn't as clear. I think google found its
strategy in adwords a lot faster (2000 is when it was launched) as a result,
while facebook ads are there, they've not been as successful and facebook has
been around a lot longer than google had when adwords came out.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
I'm still waiting for Facebook to launch their competitor to AdSense. I think
that'll be a pretty big deal when it happens. (it _has_ to happen; it'd be
incredibly dumb for them to not do this.)

