

Insight From Dropbox: Failure Is Not The Worst Outcome, Mediocrity Is - yoseph
http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/47646/Insight-From-Dropbox-Failure-Is-Not-The-Worst-Outcome-Mediocrity-Is.aspx

======
johnrob
This post reminds me of Paul Buchheit's definition of startup advice:

Limited Life Experience + Overgeneralization = ADVICE

The argument posed by the author looks good so long as he selectively chooses
his examples (dropbox in this case). There's far too much chaos in startups to
ever know what the best possible outcome is, so a founder can never come to
the proposed conclusion of mediocrity (in fact, there's so much gray area that
any conclusion is really just a reflection of founder confidence).

~~~
j_baker
Yes. Clearly it makes logical sense to completely ignore the experience of
people who have been doing what you're doing longer than you have.

Seriously though, I'm not saying you need to worship everything that these
kinds of posts say. I'm just saying that one shouldn't go to the opposite
extreme.

------
mixmax
around 9 years ago I started a startup with three other guys. One of them left
pretty quickly because he'd rather keep his daytime job, the three of us
presed on. After around two years two of us thought that this particular
startup wasn't worth pursuing, because it would never take off big-time. We'd
basically missed our window of opportunity.

So we gave our shares to the last guy, and he's still running the company
today - 9 years later. We've gone on to do other things, which are arguably
more exciting, while he still sits around with two employees and tries to
squeeze every penny out of the business while going nowhere.

Leaving was one of the best decisions I ever made. Leave or shut the company
down if it enters a quagmire.

~~~
kayoone
thats shows that your co-founder probably had/has much more passion and
dedication for the idea you guys had. As long as he loves what hes doing, is
happy and can live off of it then it seems fine to me.

~~~
bartonfink
Possibly. It could also show a relative lack of initiative, or a failure to
face an unpleasant truth or a lack of attractive options as spending 9 years
on a startup that hasn't gone anywhere isn't a great resume item. The concept
of a "dead end job" isn't limited to the corporate world. He may be able to
live off of what he's doing, but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

~~~
dstein
I don't understand how you can consider being self-employed and supporting
yourself, your family, and two employes for 9 years a failure. If anything I
think working for 'the man' for 9 years and having no sense of ownership is
more of a failure.

------
shadowsun7
There's something about this that makes me slightly uncomfortable. It seems to
me that there's a very fine line between perseverance and mediocrity (probably
the same fine line between self-belief and self-delusion). I can, for
instance, think of a number of startups that 'languished in mediocrity' ...
until they got acquired. Blogger and Gravatar, for instance.[1]

Has anyone a better measurement for knowing when it is mediocrity and when it
is perseverance?

[1] Funnily enough, both acquisitions freed up the respective founders to do
bigger, better things: Evan Williams to Twitter, and Tom Preston-Werner to
Github.

~~~
nostrademons
Sam Altman had a pretty good litmus test for this:

"If no new or current users/advertisers/customers/etc care about what you're
doing, and no one in the company has a plan (or, more commonly I think, a
desire) to fix it, you are probably in bad shape."

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=95876>

This sounds like a pretty high bar, but there are lots of startups in this
position. Mine was when I folded it up - my cofounder had just left for
business school, we'd been rejected by YC 3 times, we had basically no users,
and I had run out of ideas for how to get users. I've met other founders in
their mid-30s who've been working on their "startup" for the past 10 years,
and are _still_ in this position.

In contrast, Blogger and Gravatar both had thousands of happy users, and were
growing, and had attracted the attention of some fairly important people (Dan
Bricklin, anyone?) They weren't smash hits, but they were clearly on the right
path in the dimension that matters - _do people want what you make?_

~~~
rhizome
Ironic presence of Dan Bricklin, given the goals of The Software Garden.

------
ivankirigin
I definitely don't regret shutting down Tipjoy. I think about opportunity cost
a lot, and the cost of not shutting down was huge.

This comment is somewhat ironic because I'm with Dropbox now. It really is a
great company.

~~~
brlewis
The world was not ready to understand why Tipjoy was such a great idea. When I
wish Tipjoy succeeded, I'm mostly wishing the world were different.

Tipjoy had to be shut down by its financial nature. Other sites can stay up on
autopilot for a long time. Anyvite grew after its founders moved on, enough so
that they recently came back and gave it more attention. Snipshot is one I
think could enjoy a rebirth if they made it work on the iPad.

~~~
revorad
Snipshot is one of those apps which I honestly think could be very successful
with enough patience and grind.

------
RyanMcGreal
The insight in slightly more detail:

> The reason mediocrity sucks more than failure is very simple: Failure lets
> you move on, mediocrity stalls you and keeps you from reaching your
> potential.

------
revorad
I think the real insight here is that Dropbox solved an unsexy fundamental
problem in a huge market. Dropbox is actually exactly what Drew's original YC
application said it would be. (Aside: not all initial ideas suck. Some are
good and just take a lot of work to execute).

If Drew had carried on working on the test prep idea, it would have probably
grown into something bigger within the broader education market, which seems
to be popular with a lot of startups now.

To achieve huge success with Accolade, the product would have to expand out
into new areas, unlike Dropbox, where the basic product itself caters to a
huge market.

------
paraschopra
What's wrong with running a business indefinitely with modest growth? There
are tens and thousands of small businesses all over the world that survive for
years and years and their owners genuinely enjoy running them.

~~~
sskates
There's nothing wrong with it, but a lot of people get into startups for the
large upside potential. If that's your goal then make sure you're not
shortchanging yourself.

~~~
rhizome
Stated like that, the motivation is lottery-like, and I wouldn't be surprised
if the odds of success in startups are comparable.

------
Rexxar
That remembers me the history of Angry Birds creators: Should they have stop
after 6 years without a huge success ?

[http://thestartupfoundry.com/2011/03/11/angry-birds-
overnigh...](http://thestartupfoundry.com/2011/03/11/angry-birds-overnight-
success-only-took-8-years/)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2314532>

------
maxxxxx
I think that's fine if you spend other people's money. For boot strapped I'll
always go for mediocre instead of failure.

------
dean
SAT preparation may be a _"Super-competitive category, and it was going to be
hard to differentiate."_ But you could say the same thing about online
storage. I guess differentiating, and building something special, comes down
to the ability and creativity of the entrepreneur, and knowing yourself enough
to know whether you've hit a dead end or not.

~~~
nl
What you've done there is called taking a comment out of context. The next
sentence is:

 _Most importantly though, I was not sure how big of an opportunity it was_

The market for SAT preparation is limited to students sitting for SAT in a
given year in the US. The market for Dropbox is everyone with a computer and
internet. Yes, the online storage market is super-competitive, but when it's
_that_ big it increases the likelyhood that chasing it is worthwhile.

~~~
dean
_"What you've done there is called taking a comment out of context."_

It's not out of context at all. I'm not misleading anyone with my comment, or
putting words into the OP's mouth. My comment fairly represents what the OP
said about the competitiveness of the SAT prep market.

My intent was to indicate that the online storage market is also highly
competitive. It wasn't to present a point by point analysis of the full post.

~~~
rhizome
The competitiveness of a company within a market, however, is highly dependent
upon a value of the market segment they want to participate. This is what the
second sentence means.

Differentiating and all of that don't matter a whit if there's no business to
be had, but yes, you're right, it's hard to compete in a crowded marketplace.
The thrust of the quote was more specific than that, though.

------
makmanalp
This seems to go along with the "fail fast" philosophy that has been so
popular recently.

------
sayemm
I agree with this. In retrospect, I'm so glad I failed because of the time it
saved me. The only thing worse than a failed startup is a funded failed
startup, because the latter takes up 4+ years of your life, which is why it's
interesting reading about Drew's exp with the SAT prep idea. Failure is
totally worth it so long as you learned from those golden mistakes and are
improving yourself to give yourself an edge the next time around.

I think the worst startup founders are the ones who go from one idea to the
next without really thinking about what went wrong or what they need to do
differently in order to improve their chances of winning. They think mere
repetition is going to make them lucky.

Conversely, I think the best startup founders are the ones who are persevering
and determined enough to not stop taking chances, but they're also continually
investing more time in training and improving themselves to get an edge.
Failure for them is a great learning experience. Max Levchin had four failed
ventures before PayPal.

------
bherms
I understand the glamor of writing posts like this -- Yeah! Look at us (or
them). We/they don't even care about money. It's all about building something
incredible...

You won't often find these types of posts from people or about people who
aren't wildly successful already.

------
dr_
The article fails to mention that the online storage space itself was
considered quite competitive at the time. Yet Drew Houston was able to pull it
off. It's a bigger space than SAT prep, but given the right entrepreneur,
either could have been successful.

Chris Dixon had thoughts on this in an earlier posting:
[http://cdixon.posterous.com/dropbox-and-why-you-should-
inves...](http://cdixon.posterous.com/dropbox-and-why-you-should-invest-in-
people)

------
Blocks8
I quit my full-time corporate job to create a start-up exactly a year ago.
Worked without a salary for 9 months but had a vision. Product tested,
launched and closed a Series A round of funding.

The goal now is to continue to work towards the best idea. The original idea
got us here, now we need to keep growing it and pursing it - not get
comfortable where we are. It's important to put goals to see where we'll be a
year from now to take the company from here to great.

------
websitedesigner
Thanks for the article it's given me a bit to think about. I've been running a
web design business for 5 years and I would say it's well and truly stuck in
that word you used. But it's hard to know whether you are the smart +
entrepreneurial type or just a small business operator and it's hard to know
what else to do as well. Thanks for the post though it's food for thought

~~~
nl
I'm not sure anyone has ever pointed this out to you (sorry if they haven't)
but it's pretty difficult for a web design business to scale profit growth
like a software business.

Web design is service based, so your profits and costs increase linearly.

OTOH, a single piece of software can be sold multiple times, so the profits
don't have the same relationship to costs.

I don't think that makes your business mediocre - just a different kind of
business.

------
brlewis
Dharmesh, are you saying it would be a bad thing to have a world with many
profitable startups much smaller than Dropbox?

~~~
robryan
That's not a bad thing, just someone capable of a really big startup stuck
with one going sideways could be a bad thing.

~~~
staunch
Anyone who can create a moderate success in a bad market could probably create
a big success in a great market.

------
mhartl
Stories like this underscore the caveats to the idea that determination is the
most important (controllable) factor in startup success. I think it is, but
the right strategy is often to abandon a bad or mediocre company to focus on
one that can be great. Don't fall into the trap of determination for
determination's sake.

------
presidentender
Mediocrity is not only a worse-case in startups. A 'comfortable' standard of
living, a 'comfortable' desk job which pays the bills and doesn't encourage
much development... _that's_ the worst.

~~~
artmageddon
>doesn't encourage much development... that's the worst.

(Preface: Coder at a major financial company, first job out of university)

That stings me because my current job is exactly what you describe but without
much personal development OR software development. I often wonder how much
harm it will do as a career move to just outright quit(I've been having
trouble getting another job lined up) so I can get better at my craft and get
a better position elsewhere.

~~~
presidentender
I got an internship my senior year of college with an excellent little
software consulting outfit. They hired me full-time after graduation. I, too,
was content, even though I'd sometimes work straight through the night and
fail to accomplish anything meaningful. I liked my coworkers and am still in
touch with them.

Leaving there was the best decision I've ever made. I activated my
professional network and had another job lined up in under 24 hours. Now, this
job is about as meaningful, and I will leave it at the end of my year-long
contract... but it's been a good change of pace, it doubled my pay, and I got
to move to a new city and meet new people.

I'd encourage you to take the plunge. It's easier if you have a professional
network in place, but even if you don't, unemployment is a powerful motivator.
If you're single and you're not living paycheck to paycheck... do it.

~~~
artmageddon
I feel like I'm putting a black mark on myself by admitting so on this site,
but my problem is that I haven't done well technically in recent interviews
because my programming knowledge has atrophied. I feel like if I had a little
while to really study and crank out a few more small projects that I could do
well at get an offer.

I have a decent amount saved up with no dependents. Maybe I'll make the move
sooner than later.

~~~
keeptrying
Keep applying fir this interviews. Each interview failure will make you get
out your books and hone your craft. After 6 interview failures you will be
learning more than what you learnt the whole previous year.

Just saying, your on the right track as long as you keep interviewing.

~~~
berntb
Sounds strange, but thinking about it -- it did work for me. I got motivation
when I failed an interview a few years back (I hadn't understood what was
really needed).

Otherwise, I am in the same situation as the grandparent comment, I've
certainly lost more than I've learned at the present job. (But my CV looks
better for what I planned to apply for next, which is the point.)

~~~
keeptrying
Yes but this (ie your skills atrophying) will happen at any job where your not
being challenged enough.

Its part of life. Realize that you've gotten too comfortable and get out of
there.

The lowest risk way of doing that is to keep interviewing for jobs you want.
This will force you back into learning what you need automagically.

I'm trying a new method - trying to start a company. You'll have to ask me in
a year or two whether this is as good a solution :) ...

------
kenjackson
I think Rovio might disagree. Google might also.

~~~
revorad
I don't know about Rovio, but when was Google languishing in mediocrity
(honest question)?

~~~
kenjackson
When they started. While the tech was good they had no business model. Was
having trouble making money and tried to sell to various existing search
engines, but no one bought. They eventually backed up and fell over into
targeted search advertising... and the rest is history.

A less persistent set of founders may have closed up shop and simply said,
"Great technology, but the business around search just isn't there outside the
context of a portal".

~~~
nl
I wish I was as "mediocre" and "unsuccessful" as Google's early history.

Google incorporated in late 1998, and by 2000 were powering the search results
for Yahoo (the biggest website on the internet at the time). They were being
paid (and paid well) for that too.

It was the same year (2000) that they implemented search advertising.

Given it only took them 12-18 months (of explosive growth) before they were
powering the biggest site on the internet and making money I thnk it's hard to
argue they were ever mediovre.

~~~
kenjackson
First, you have to remember that Brin and Page had done a fair bit of work
before incorporating. But I think your statement kind of proves my point. In
hindsight it seems obvious, right? But for Brin and Page, who were there at
the time, they were willing to sell the company for $750k -- and their offer
was turned down. Clearly they didn't see the company would be worth billions
in just a few years.

So there was a period of time they viewed the company as a mediocre
investment. And at this point they were just Ramen profitable. But they
powered through it, and legend has it, that it was one of the Yahoo co-
founders that helped convince them to really make a run of it.

My point, what others may look at and call "mediocrity" and say they won't pay
$750k for today, may end up in a few years being the fastest growing company
in the history of the world.

