Personally I'd avoid posting products on PH or HN for that reason and instead focus on growing organically in a niche market where you're not immediately discoverable by copycat founders. In general PH feels more and more phony to me and I think there's a lot of astroturfing going on.
HN and PH audience is 99% of Marketing and / or Tech people.
Coincidentally, those people make product for Marketing and Tech people, and of course promote on website visited by Marketing and Tech people.
But basically anything outside of those two realms feels completely under-addressed by SAAS:
- public services
- waste management
mostly "unsexy things".
That's why you should probably avoid posting here if you don't want copycats.
Serve a totally different market, and make it to the front page of that market's HN. Then you're in business.
You can post to HN as a victory lap/vanity metric when you've got a moat of traction. :)
I hear this a lot. Couldn't be that everyone (makers/founders) addresses these PH/PH spaces because they are packed with early adopters instead of the other industries where every new innovation will be taken with FUD?
And that's the cause that it's under-addressed. It's hard to convince "classic" industries to adopt new SW stuff and new paradigms.
"if someone else could copy your product, and they have more customers/grow better, then you aren't the right fit for it"
Also, nowadays, product is a small part of your company. Can you remember the last time you saw someone having an initial traction just because they have a great product?
You can copy Airtable/Notion as long as you want, adding some more features to it. But it's not how it works, I believe.
I wonder how people generally combat this kind of scenarios.
Be genuinely interested in solving the problems that your users have. Devtools have always been attractive as products to developers, but they are notoriously difficult to be successful with. You need to find all of the workflows that your users have and optimize them effectively. Sometimes the things that are needed are dull and boring, but if they visibly take someone's time then there is long-term value. Be careful about supporting esoteric approaches that will disappear, but also be aware that this can help with locking in some customers at the right point.
Agencies tend to be bad at support. They are optimized for making new things and moving on. You have an opportunity to provide a strong support experience which is coupled with intelligence gathering on developer needs.
AFAIK it's a common practice to copy up and coming indie games from the app store top charts because an established team would have the muscle to catch up and surpass the new ones. I don't see why wouldn't be possible to do it to any other product that is not an overnight success but shows healthy organic growth. I think this was also the idea behind huge early funding rounds, that is to create a large early success so that it's not copied right away.
Organic grows != "we just launch and see how users come to us"
Huge early funding rounds = outstanding team + understanding of market + previous successful exits + 10B TAM
Until they have sizeable operations, all startups are "company == product". They are pretty vulnerable of being copied.
In short one needs to have something is hard to replicate - but that does not need to be technology.
The main argument against that working is that I'd prefer OSS self-hosted options — no one chasing the quick buck is going to go that way!
To take Hacker News as an example, there are many excellent projects posted in the 'Show HN' section that get no traction at all. And then there a few lucky ones that suddenly take-off. There's no "wisdom of the crowds" moment that propels one project to success over another because it's more worthy or excellent - it really is random in so many cases.
We think success = product excellence: how else could a product rise to a leading position in the market or to such pre-eminence unless it was better than the alternatives? But the mountain of successful products ranging from mediocre to terrible quality shows that product excellence isn't always the key ingredient to a product's success.
Lest this all sounds too negative, I would never discourage anyone to pursue their product idea. But when it comes to promoting a product, developers should be cautious about relying on just one source for promoting their product (Hacker News, Product Hunt etc).
I buy software, as a customer, both in my personal life as a consumer and also in my role at a tech company where I'd buy more B2B software. I don't use PH as a resource, but I hear about it a lot. What's it's role in the startup ecosystem / what am I missing out on?
For founders/makers, it's obviously a great source of traffic, leads, and exposure for your product.
For users, it's more about being in on the ground floor with a hot new product. Sometimes that means getting an exclusive deal or free features. Other times it's just the exclusivity of being one of the first customers for something that may be very big one day (think lower user IDs on Twitter or GitHub, for instance).
I think a lot of people like playing with new toys, and PH is a good way to do that without having to spend actual money buying something new to play with. I think it fits in the same niche as those that watch unboxing videos. It's fun to play with new stuff.
Is this actually true? The thing I'm trying to figure out is who is sitting in the audience at PH. Is it really potential customers, or networks of folks somehow connected to the poster that are there just to upvote? Am I atypical in not looking at PH when I'm interested in a solution to a problem I have? (I suspect I'm the norm)
I swear there is an exact, cheaper replica of tools like Canny every day (which itself was a clone of UserVoice before they went enterprise).
Staking your big launch of something truly novel on Product Hunt is just asking for clones with 2-3 months.
I don’t understand how the Product Hunt community keeps upvoting the same product idea, cloned 100x. It feels like it is being gamed somehow, because I can’t be the only one that sees this happening…
Now that I went all-in on it, I think there is much more to it than what you can see at a first glance. There are a lot of dividing factors, like support, features, ... or in our case a unique design and good support for resellers (agencies) and technical people (server-side integration). We have been called copy-cats, but that doesn't mean different people won't find similar solutions for the same issue like it happens with us or in science from time to time.
Before Google became a monopoly, it was just one of many search vendors. Google’s advantage was that they made search easy and simple enough for grandma to understand and use it.
Maybe it's fine to continue as a hobby project, but for business, if it cannot sustain without a significantly large market share, or have too competitive environment, better to work on other problems.
You are right though, if that's the environment you face you just need to move on.
It seems like so many wants to have a successful semi-solo SaaS that pay their bills. They aren't longer a way to sell a product and a startup idea, but an attempt at a lifestyle. Some people throw up smooth landing pages for barely working products, and quickly move on to the next idea if it doesn't stick.
How can I invest time and money in using a product if I'm afraid the founder will bail after a few months?
In my experience companies with VC money are much more likely to "flip" a business and sell to someone else causing disruption, or bad updates who make the product worse.
I still haven't had any of the subscriptions for products made by indie developers get significantly worse or change significantly.
They keep the lights on, add some features without breaking existing stuff.
If they're in for the lifestyle more than the money, I think they're less likely to sell and more likely to hold and maintain (assuming they're charging enough to make a living).
Yes, it's doable to replace things after a year or two. But, if a bunch of dependencies have risk, that turns into a rip-and-replace treadmill of negative customer value and burns out a team.
Personally I think one of the upsides is that the semi-solo team might actually decide that the successful product is "done" and move on or go into maintenance mode. IMO products like Spotify and Slack could have reached that point a while ago- sure they could still work on uptime, data compression, etc. But there is only so much you can tack onto a music player or a chatroom. They keep shipping more redesigns and new features that don't make users any better off but need to keep people busy.
Would you rather a risk a much bigger one-off payment? For software? Sure, it works now, but it might never get updated, and eventually stop working altogether due to OS updates or other factors.
The one-time payment model is a much greater risk to the consumer than monthly subscriptions.
With SaaS you have all of these same constraints (as there's no guarantee they update the service either), plus the risk that they just turn it off one day on a timeline you can't control, plus potential risks that they will leak your data if they don't maintain security (or want additional money), and with the added risk/cost that they may decide to no longer support something you need due to a forced "upgrade" (like API compatibility).
Anecdote: A company I know used to have an on-premise product. The customer paid for a yearly license*. Then they developed a cloud based offering, a SaaS. In order to force customers over to this solution they simply stopped updating and giving support to their old product.
* Sometimes we forget that the old software model of offline or customer-installed (client, or server, on premise) also has fees attached to it, in the form of a license you have to keep maintaining. Often yearly.
If the customer wanted to keep using the product, they could not stop paying the license fee just because the vendor stopped updating and supporting it.
A lot of the enterprise on-premises software that I use (from Atlassian, Microsoft, Oracle, etc.) come with perpetual licences. The annual maintenance cost is for support and for updates. I can think of a few exceptions that only have term licences, like IBM PurifyPlus, but based on my personal experience, a majority of on-premises software falls under the former category.
That's often good rather than bad, as many products are optimized away from usability over time.
> and eventually stop working altogether due to OS updates or other factors.
There are means to mitigate that (e.g. running software in VMs), that work fine as long as software isn't fighting it.
Arguably the biggest factor causing software rot, making one-time payment risky, is purposefully adding dependencies on vendor's servers (e.g. for "collaboration") where they don't belong. This is also what is used to justify the continuous stream of updates - whereas in reality, it's just there to create a plausible reason for why a perfectly good product now requires a subscription. Software that's designed to be paid one-off from the start doesn't require these kinds of anti-features, and doesn't rot nearly as fast.
 - It's famously said that Dropbox was doomed from the start, because it's a feature, not a product. Unfortunately, that view is part of what's making SaaS so incredibly user-hostile. Syncing data is a feature completely orthogonal to applications, and even operating systems. There's no need for a SaaS vendor to make their own synced storage for app data, unless they're purposefully trying to entrap their users.
I feel Adobe products are a great example of this.
Short term - yes. But long term? It seems there is no point in planning to use a software for years now. And I don't like to migrate my knowledge base to new tool, every 2 years. But is there a way other than mastering org-mode on weekends?
1. a quick tutorial will be plenty to get you started: https://mickael.kerjean.me/2017/03/20/emacs-tutorial-series-...
2. if you don't want to bother learning emacs, no worries, use one of the web apps such as the one I built: https://demo.filestash.app/login?next=/view/org/emacs.org#ty...
The rule still applies: whatever you chose, do not become dependent on a SaaS offering. The problem is in the name: service. A service is something other people do for you. They can stop at any time.
The problem is in having a trustworthy vendor or a healthy marketplace of alternatives you can switch to.
An important aspect of most SaaS businesses is that they're not commodities. It's a core part of most SaaS business models - they're purposefully sticky. When you become dependent on one, and it shuts down, or gets acquired, or decides to discontinue the features you care about, there usually is no drop-in replacement. There may not be a replacement at all, for the combination of features you need. And whatever alternative you find, migrating all your data is usually difficult, and often not possible.
That's a false choice. The problem with the proliferation of "services" is that many are hard to cancel, or are betting that I'll forget to cancel.
I'm sorry to say this, but this just shows lack of empathy.
You're looking at your belly-button, because you're a particular type of user that's aware of product/company life-cycles/spams... very few people are thinking about the problem of a founder bailing out after a few months when they're subscribing to something.
Plus if you're so afraid of that when you're looking to use the product, then it must be a really good product and most likely the founder knows he is onto something. In that scenario the most probable outcome would be the founder selling to someone else, or stop updating, then people just naturally migrate to something else.
It is too easy to: splash page, Wordpress, "rails new saas" for a product and then try to sell via SEO / outbound, etc that the field is quite saturated - and un-discovered niches are a lot harder than say 2013.
I never got this about SaaS. People talk like it is a vertical. How is saying "I want to start a SaaS" different from saying "I want to start a one time payment ecommerce business?"
I say this btw from having worked at a SaaS business for years.
Because it is, for many founders. Those who think, "I want to start a startup, make lots of money. A SaaS business is the easiest to start and most investor-friendly." What the business will actually do is irrelevant, something to be picked along the way.
I see it as a vertical too - a column of a larger vertical I call "toilet paper companies" (with no offense meant to actual toilet paper manufacturers and sellers): companies run by people who couldn't care less about what the company is actually producing/offering, and have zero interest in the thing they're selling (beyond pretending to, for marketing reasons). Companies that would gladly switch from making rocket parts to making toilet paper, if they believed it has better long-term ROI.
And yes, people who think "I want to start a one time payment ecommerce business" (aka. "a web store") are a part of that larger vertical too.
Yes a company can be started along a founders personal passion... for this example, lets call it bikes [could be anything]. A founder following passions will create something around bikes - and in most cases fail due to saturated market, competition which they cannot outspend, etc.
Other founders approach business AS the passion. Surveying the competitive landscape, capital models, future growth potential - and marry that with building something for people, helping them solve their problems is the passion, creating a business structure designed around them.
Yes. And my feeling is, this is where our market economy has jumped the shark. People running a business for the sake of running a business are able to put more focus, effort, knowledge and skill into optimizing its success. Many ways of doing so involve reducing the value delivered to the customer, but compensating it with manipulation (e.g. more marketing) or abuse (e.g. lock-in, dark patterns) - and all advantages gained this way compound. Thus, in a fair competition, a business run for the sake of its value has little chance of prevailing against a business run for the sake of being a business.
The problem I see with this is that the value of a business to its customers, and to the society at large, is in the product or service being delivered. The business as an entity is incidental, a necessary evil to generate the value. Businesses being run for the sake of running them seems, to me, like optimizing for precisely the wrong thing - putting the cart before the horse.
It’s at a point where most consumers have to decide between one SaaS or another; it muddles retention. A one-time payment business is better these days (or a hybrid) especially if you have a product consumers are willing to come back for.
There's already a cash flow and profit motive in a business, so if a SaaS can demonstrate that it enables more value than it costs, there's a tangible advantage to paying for that service.
IMO saas is muddled so it’s meaning is not as much about the billing model anymore.
There are definitely tons of the type of company you’re talking about though.
I'd like to play a role of an inventor and a builder of crazy technologies. Imagine https://www.noya.co/ or https://frame.work/. My only concern is that not being from a research background or a first world country could hinder my chance of doing that. Hope that made sense.
Time for something completely different.
Not even that, these days people simply start newsletters...
Still, I wouldn't write off the payment model. People seem to prefer subscriptions to one-time payments. If they didn't, Netflix, Spotify, etc., wouldn't enjoy the popularity they do.
I practically know only 2 people willing to pay monthly sub for note taking or various such trivia. 99% of everyone I know is very conservative about monthly subs. Sure Netflix / Spotify / YouTube Premium / etc. are worth it but most apps out there really are not.
Plus there's such a thing as a "sub fatigue" these days. People feel everybody is after a chunk of their wallet each month and are starting to resist. I don't even mean myself or other tech-savvy people; I really mean mothers and grandmothers who have no clue but still don't want to pay up all the time.
Yes there are many SaaS products than before but there are many successful SaaS products than before too.
You really have to standout and innovate now more than ever.
That means, when you launch in Hacker News or Product Hunt, your product cannot be premature.
My opinion is that if you are a serious company you should delay launching on HN or PH as much as you can. Once you are out, the destiny of the product is not your control.
Imagine if the campaign fails, you are going to have hard time explaining to investors why the campaign failed. Instead, I think one can control all the odds around the product, de-risk by making sure there is a pre-existing group of dedicated users already and then launch.
Your product should be easy to find as early as possible. You need the customer feedback to build the right thing and you need the compounding effects of an early internet presence (eg SEO). Don't hold back launching, launch while you're still at least somewhat embarrassed of your product.
Translation: people are distancing themselves from the MVP concept.
Customers expect polish, and they expect a lot more functionality than the bare minimum.
For context, I kept a twitter thread detailing what I worked on, and when the customers started coming: https://twitter.com/RozenMD/status/1364881512500404224?s=20
That's why it's the minimum viable product, and not the bare minimum product. Determining what's needed for viability is an important part of the MVP design process.
I'd expect an "MVP" for an electric car company like Tesla Motors to be a microcar, but instead it was a luxury sports car.
If there's no-one selling drinks in the park on a hot day, a homemade lemonade stand might do good business. If there's a café and a food market in the park & 5 ice-cream shops nearby it would be harder to get the same outcome for the original product
You have way more designers, software devs, libraries, etc, now in comparison to 2013. The trend will be for these things to be almost "commodities"... even for solo founders, you don't need to know design to copy/inspire yourself from a plethora of examples out there.
With no code tools you can quickly slap things together to validate stuff, before outsourcing the development to somewhere else if you need to get things going, or hire a dev.
Things are just easier and more abundant, so to make the classical "MVP" or a more polished "MVP" probably doesn't require that much extra effort/resources.
Also you need to realize that standards have changed, some small things that were valuable are now taken for granted.
That being said I think people have erred way too much away from the MVP concept and aren't fundamentally testing the biggest unknown with their MVPs. Of course you're going to need SSO at some point but you don't need it for a MVP.
Similar to how the quality tools rarely look as snazzy as the wanna-be's, and are sold to a more professional audience at a higher price but lower volume. They also typically need much less advertising and marketing, they are sold by reputation and word of mouth.
Simply not true, this is a caricature that you're seeing because only the vapid or exceptional stuff goes to Instagram.
It sounds foreign now, but when AWS was new this happened all of the time: Companies who saw Amazon as a competitor in some way usually had someone, somewhere in management who was afraid of using anything hosted on AWS.
It sounds silly now, but I remember having a lot of these conversations back when AWS was new. Typically, the older the company's management, the more likely they were to be afraid of using AWS for anything related to their business.
Would you really trust Amazon enough to take that risk?
There would need to be an massively good reason to do that, and "incrementally better analytics" isn't it.
This is why it comes down to trusting Amazon. Essentially the question is "Do you trust Amazon not to do something that would be 'professional suicide', like accessing a rival company's AWS data, enough to risk giving them your data?" If you're running an online retailer that's a competitor to Amazon you should probably fall on the side of caution because companies do stupid shit all the time.
- Amazon predatory pricing
- Amazon trying to mistreat their workers (including AWS) as much as they can
- Amazon/AWS copying products, FOSS software, and messing up with companies that they invest into.
- Their complicity with all the scams going on their store.
- And a big, big etc
But, but, Amazon is not AWS! Amazon is retail and is a different environment! Yes, but it is under the same people.
Doing that at scale doesn't make them more trustworthy. Or it shouldn't. Then again I guess if you're a super-creepy stalker at large enough scale then you're Facebook or Google and instead of getting probation and a restraining order you get billions of dollars, so maybe it does work that way.
GCP and Azure successfully acquired a lot of retailers and ecommerce providers for this reason. This happens even today with medium to large size competitors of Amazon.
There's probably room for niche services selling "we're not hosted on 'the cloud', aren't owned by anyone likely to be in competition with you, and control our hardware" but there's a lot of overlap there with companies/owners/managers who take this to the point of not trusting anything that isn't self-hosted (because there might be security problems, nevermind that DIYing is at least as likely to have such problems, or because they fear vendor lock-in to a perhaps unhealthy degree), so it might be a hard market to sell to.
Owners of video media apparently want more money, and are betting they can earn more by not giving up control to others and selling for cheap.
I am inclined to agree with the owners of video. If people wanted easy access to all the video/tv shows, they could right now pay the various services. It is not that time consuming or laborious, it just costs a hundred or two hundred dollars per month.
The fact that people do not, means that people are not willing to pay that much per month (on top of tv service subscriptions, which come with live sports).
For one, subscriber counts would go way up just like how literally 1/3 of Americans are allegedly legitimate music streamers, because paying one fixed price for literally almost all recorded sound is a pretty good deal in the eyes of consumers. For two, you'd end up with higher 'real' subscriber counts with a one stop service; right now its probably $90 a month at least for an individual to subscribe to all the popular streaming services which is why literally everyone I know is sharing account passwords with like three other people rather than shelling out the same price as the old evil cable bill. Personally, I'd be happy to pay $10 a month for a one stop shop and not have to deal with texting my brother to ask when he will be done watching Survivor on the shared netflix account.
All this would add up to more customers lining up with more money, but its not done seemingly out of some false sense in these executives that their Disney+ or their Peacock will somehow capture market share (which by definition means securing more of the limited available popular IP) in a world where IP holders no longer play ball with eachother.
I'm seeing this as well and it's eye-watering how inflated the valuations have become for pre-product companies with no clear distribution levers.
The consequence of this easy money has been a lot of flash-in-the-pan startups that seem more stable than in eras past (they've got lots of employees, a nice office, and some good press coverage, they must be legit!), but actually can flame out pretty quickly after a couple of years of serving actual customers.
As a result, there are more buyers who are just more wary of new SaaS companies to begin with - they have the legitimate concern of whether you'll be around in a few years to continue supporting their needs, or just disappear with a nice "It was a great journey" blog post.
While capital has become commoditised, the market is still yearning for more good tools, and SaaS is still a good delivery method with acceptable pricing. Founders should certainly think very carefully about why they are raising before they do so, and maybe even skip it altogether.
Why would the valuations climb 10x? This makes sense given the author's second observation:
> There are way, way more SaaS companies and getting initial traction is harder
The rounds are bigger because more money is needed to compete. But investors would lose their shirts if they multiplied the valuations by 10-fold.
This is a good point, if probability of success decreased 5x while average outcome increased 10x, then a 2x increase in seed valuations would be reasonable. I don't actually know the differences in probability of success / expected value for the typical seed stage startup, but anecdotally it doesn't feel less likely. It is definitely harder to get off the ground, but I see a lot fewer companies (anecdotally) stumbling in the "middle" part of the journey between $2M to $100M in ARR or so, whereas I feel like in the past a lot more hot SaaS companies used to stall out. So I think that washes out against the harder initial stages.
In a winner-take-most market, it's easier for the acquirer to leverage a successful SaaS company 10x what they could in 2013. This doesn't surprise me.
Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (developer guidance).
What about founders who don't go the VC route and choose to bootstrap instead? PLG seems to be out of the question unless one has a long runway. I reckon even for the bootstrappers, things have changed between 2013 and 2021.
PLG = Product-Led-Growth
PMF = Product-Market-Fit
(VC = Venture Capital, but that should be already common knowledge)
While I found it quite entertaining to imagine that the Polynesian Leaders Group is searching for the Pacific Music Festival while burning Venture Capital cash, I had to dig a bit for the acronym's explanation to come up.
I'm not convinced. In B2B the user of a product in a company is rarely the purchaser of the same product. Has that relationship pattern changed significantly? That article at least doesn't talk about that.
The definition of PLG offered by the article suffers from magical thinking by anthropomorphizing products (unless we are now capable of making products that are sentient):
“Product-led growth (PLG) is a business methodology in which user acquisition, expansion, conversion, and retention are all driven primarily by the product itself.”
That said, if you can spend $1 to get $1 of ARR, or even $2 to get $1 of ARR, and your company is doing 100% net revenue retention or better, then you likely will make more money over the long term selling equity, going unprofitable to spend on growth, and getting paid back over then next 12-24 months due to the nature of compounding growth / exponentials.
Uber would have been wiped out by now if it came out 20 years ago. Burning cash on the promise of future profit that still hasn't come around is a recent concept. Even companies like Standard Oil and Walmart would make money from other streams when they are putting a price squeeze on some competitor. It blows my mind how much slack these companies are getting, probably just because companies operating this way are a dime a dozen these days so there is some safety in numbers if TINA of places to invest in tech.
If you have evidence Standard Oil ever sold anything at a loss please share. I don't know about Walmart but everything I've read suggests that Standard Oil won by getting better at manufacturing faster than its competitors and passing on those cost savings to consumers. Less efficient companies failed, as those selling worse products for high prices are wont to do.
I mean yeah they succeeded because it turns out that for a commodity just having one large network for everything is more efficient (and if you own everything, no middlemen!). But that's just an argument for nationalising commodities.
All that Standard Oil profit year after year came from somebody.
Because the government is so great at efficiently doing things and selling things I can totally see how you'd make the leap to nationalize all commodities.
Plenty of public companies have had several years in a row of >100% net retention. When Dropbox filed its S-1 it had a graph showing that every quarterly cohort of customers who had signed up had continued to grow massively in value over time, and i imagine the majority of successful SaaS co's could show a similar chart.
To elaborate on my earlier comment: Salesforce has been unprofitable during almost its entire 20+ year existence and it’s worth over $200B. It uses debt and equity to finance growth much more quickly than using profits to do so and thus has grown extremely fast. Do you believe Salesforce is in imminent danger of failure?
Speaking from the buyer-side of SaaS, I expect this is because users are starting to realize that they don’t want three dozen browser tabs open at all times to accomplish basic business functions. IT departments are realizing that siloing business operations in that many different apps means you need a massive DE team to keep everything integrated and in sync, hoping that these SaaS companies stay in business and keep robust APIs. No wonder data engineer is quickly becoming the hottest new role.
50 people - heck even 10 - who think my product is worth using and I'm happy. That's how low my expectations are, just to keep myself sane :)
(I'm obv. not counting on this product making me a full-time income. I'm doing it for the experience and to get a feel for the industry.)
We'll see though, and you are right that keeping low expectations is a key.
Even thought articles like these (and all the comments here) can give a lot of (good?) information, it can also create a bunch of paralysis.
I'm also working on starting my first SaaS and I completely believe that "you don't learn until you launch".
That my product is copied and 90% of my user have been captured? WOW! I came up and built an idea worth copying and with such potential on the market!? Let's do it again!
I think this is also the freedom of no VC/investors asking for their ROI and an stable income. We can experiment, see what works and go from there. I'd also be flattered if my idea gets copied :-)
I can learn from my competitor and grow even more!
Good luck on your project!
The Airbnb story where they launched with no payment solution to get a feel for the market/product always fascinated me. Maybe those days are over, where you can hack something together quickly, just to try it out?
Ask crypto/defi service providers how fast their organizations grow, people “ape” $2 billion into a product as consumers within days or minutes!
It just gets leaner and faster!
Where is that shit happening. I have a product with customers and can’t get 6 figures.