But for one successful project that he mentions (Dropsend) there are 2 projects of his that have 'failed':
- the webapp Amigo -- https://myaccount.heyamigo.net/serviceDown.html -- that he even marketed starting a blog about its build and there was even a quote of O'Reilly talking about an untaped market.. and it's gone
- a few years back Ryan also built a subscription based online project manager, before 37Signals launched their Basecamp, and it's no longer around.
Bottom line: he says you can do it to, and he's right, but you have to really know your target market at the start (which he did with targeting Dropsend to the designer/agency market, that he knew well due to his work on BD4D) and have contacts in it to spread the word (at the start, eventually your client demographic expands)... but it isn't as easy as he makes it seem on a blog post based on one of his successes, when that formula didn't work out well for his other projects.
I think it all depends on your definition of success. Many of the hackers on ycnews seem to want to make money so they can do something else. Becoming financially successful is just a step towards allowing them to concentrate on a passion without worrying about monetization.
In which case it would seem logical to make x million the quickest and easiest way possible. I think many will agree its easier to do that building "mundane, income-producing businesses" than trying to create the next Google. In which case, keep the mundane apps coming...
If your goal is to make enough so that you can concentrate on something else, creating a mundane income-producing company is the wrong plan, because it will rapidly stop producing income if you stop paying attention to it.
HotOrNot.com or PlentyOfFish.com have done pretty well for their owners...even if they stopped producing income now (which PlentyOfFish may do, given competition from FaceBook), their founders have banked enough off them to live well for the rest of their lives.
I'd imagine 37signals is in that category too...it sounds like they're making a few million in profit each year.
It depends on your definition of "mundane". You could start a consulting company, take whatever software jobs pay best and make your business grow to the point that it could be attractive to a buyer. This may be boring, but it's easier than creating the next Facebook.
It's also possible to have a mixed model, which is working very well for us. We do some consulting work but only pick clients that are interesting in terms of improving our products or doing work we like. This allows us to be profitable and work on our own interesting stuff without the pressure of concerned investors.
If you define success as founding the next Google then the overwhelming majority of readers on HN will be unsuccessful. The number of "Google class" firms in Silicon Valley is perhaps a dozen in the last two decades. It's akin to defining successful as winning the lottery, because, let's face it, they were as lucky as they were smart.
Except that "big success" is a lot rarer than it seems. Mundane success (and a few millions) is actually a lot easier to achieve - practically any very hard working, reasonably intelligent person can get there within 10-15 years, and that assumes 1-2 false starts/failures along the way.
The problem with this meme is that it ignores the fact that success = log(quality). To build a business that has 2,000 paying customers is probably 85% as hard as building the next Google. To the extent that becoming the next Google is more unlikely than that, I'd say it's because once you max out the quality the rest is basically flip-a-coin.
The challenge with a VC investment is that it comes with a 5-7 year shot clock, after which they need to liquidate their investment: they don't want to return a minority holding in private firm to their limited partners. Bootstrapping or Angel investment allows you to be more patient about success. Also, the competitive landscape for a $1M revenue firm is very different than one earning $100M, it's much much harder. Very few larger firms care about a $1M market, or even a $10M market, especially if they view it as an unprofitable segment from their current revenue. But they will find a $100M market much harder to ignore.
There was actually a blog post making this argument a while back. I think it may have been submitted here, but I can't find it because news.yc only lets me see my last 180 saved stories. It goes through the numbers though and makes a pretty good case that getting "only" 2,000 subscribers is actually extremely difficult. (There was something vaguely similar submitted only a month or so ago, but the one I'm thinking of is from much longer back.)
Technology vs. Business. Think Xerox copier: the breakthrough that made money wasn't the dry copy process, it was charging by the copy and not for the machine. Adsense was the business breakthrough, not PageRank.
"Imagine ... seeing a deposit of $10 million - right after you’ve been acquired or sold all your shares.
[...]
OK, now imagine you’ve done the things on your list. How do you feel. Any happier? ... I’d be willing to bet that you won’t actually feel much happier than you do now. You might feel nice for about two months, and then you’ll be itching to do something else.
Happiness isn’t found in being the next company to sell for $100 million. So that’s the whole point - you can have a small web app business and still enjoy the good life."
I don't think I'll ever be able to see eye to eye with the people who put forward this kind of argument. Maybe we're talking about different things, or maybe we just see life differently. Maybe it's a lack of imagination, I don't know.
The $100 million, or 10, or even 1, isn't about the number of zeroes in your bank account, it's about freedom. Freedom to scratch my "itch to do something else". With the money, that can be bumming around and travelling, or it can be creating something I enjoy but which is very unlikely to ever pay the rent, or it can be trying to start a second $100 million company, or it can be "a small web app business". Without the money and with a small web app business, it can be... a small web app business.
In other words, running a small web app business is all you need to be happy, as long as what you need to be happy is running a small web app business.
that kind of comment also shows you just how little people understand the value of a dollar. If people truly appreciated the range of creative potential that 10 million dollars represented they wouldn't be nearly as dismissive about it.
bottom line: if you're going to be doing the same exact thing whether you have 10 million or not, just give me the 10 mill. I guarantee I won't be doing the same thing.
I'd do the same thing I'm doing now whether I have 10 million or not. The difference is that with 10 million, I'd be sure that I could keep doing the same thing, forever. (Or at least until I got bored with it. ;-))
I think it's fundamentally messed up to measure your success based on how much money you make. It reminds me of http://xkcd.com/59/ .
The work should be the reward itself. You shouldn't be creating a product because you think it will make you $$$. You should be creating a product because you think it will have a true and substantial positive impact on the world.
I remember when I visited France, one of the things that really struck me, was the number of shopkeepers I met, who owned their shop, often selling stuff they had a hand in manufacturing, and had decided that this was what they wanted to do with the rest of their lives -- to create something beautiful and share it with others who could appreciate them.
the american people are a fearful people. they don't want lifestyle jobs, they want jobs that they will be able to get rich at so they'll have financial security.
Is this attitude because they know that if you get old and have no money in america there will be no one to look after you? I don't know.
One question i have is how the accounting is done for the $200k profit, bearing in mind the app benefits from the wider business (Carsonified events etc). As a standalone app it might be paying more for marketing, legal/ accounting, management overhead etc
The problem when entrepreneurs who created companies like DropSend and 37signals tell us to follow their "stay small/independent" model because it worked for them is that they represent the small pool of entrepreneurs who succeeded doing it. The is a classic selection bias. Although the argument you should stay small and independent and avoid VC money "feels" right, looking at just a few companies who succeeded isn't enough to prove it. I would like to see a real study comparing the success rate of VC funded startups vs. independent ones. It would research the success distributions for both models and highlight which model (small and independent vs. big and VC-funded) has the best risk/reward ratios for the founders. Until such a study is made, I will take the "avoid VC money" advice from those who made it work with a grain of salt.
Until such a study is made, I will take the "avoid VC money" advice from those who made it work with a grain of salt.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but you must be eating a lot of salt, because the opposite advice -- "take VC money" -- also suffers from selection bias, despite the eloquent efforts of Philip Greenspun.
This is one of those situations where science lets you down. I guarantee that if you wait around for a real study of any given market, you will forever be ten years behind the curve. (I think people are still just beginning to understand what the dotcom boom of the 90s was really about, for example.)
And when you do finish collecting and collating and interpreting all the data, and you make your Spock-like decision about which path to take... you'll probably be miserable, because it will turn out that the most rational choice is to become an accountant, but you fscking hate tax forms.
Taking VC money is one way to build a company. Angling to be bought by Yahoosoft is another way to build a company. Aiming for independence, small size, and modest profitability is yet another way. All of these strategies fail more often than they succeed. The most important difference between them all is probably which kind of failure will make you happiest. All else being equal, I would probably rather fail to build a modestly profitable Basecamp-like app than fail to win a million-dollar VC dice roll... but all else is never equal, so it depends on the circumstances.
I didn't mean to suggest that I'll wait for this kind of study to come out before deciding which path to take, just that very few data points aren't enough to make a strong case that "avoid VC money" is the best advice to give entrepreneurs. Both independent and VC funded ventures have had many successes and failures, and you need to look at more than just a few cases to get a sense of the right way to go.
IMO, if you think you have an idea for a Basecamp-like app that you can develop quickly with no outside investment and sell enough subscriptions to make it self sustaining, go for it. It's probably a safer strategy than betting on a 100mil exit in VC funded company. However, it's also possible that 37signals has picked a low-hanging fruit the likes of which aren't always easy to find and that the "avoid VC money" advice doesn't work for companies that need a longer runway to profitability.
There are studies out there for success rates of VC-funded companies. I read one that had a success rate of 18% for first-time founders, 20% for founders that had previously failed, and 33% for founders that had previously succeeded. Don't have time to dig it up now, unfortunately - it was about the gains from serial entrepreneurship, and I think it was posted on news.YC.
It's much harder - possibly impossible - to measure the success rate of bootstrapped ventures, because the boundaries are much fuzzier. For example, my current venture started with 5 founders (none of whom are still with it) and is now just me. We've launched 3 websites, all failures, and have one still under development. If the new website succeeds, should this count as 5 failures, one per founder that left? 1 failure, treating the original founding team as a failure and me as a success? 0 failures, since none of the other 5 founders quit their day jobs, and so it was just a hobby for them? 1 failure, since one of the other founders committed significantly to this and did a lot of work for it (even while still holding his day job), yet the other 4 didn't really care? 3 failures, one per failed idea? 1 failure, since two of the failures were launched while we were all still at our day jobs? 0 failures, since it all worked out in the end? 2 failures, since the hypothetical success builds upon one of the failures? 5 failures, since there were a couple other hobby projects that weren't intended as startups but might've become so had there been interest?
With VC, there's a clear delineating line between startups. You just go by the corporate entity, which must exist for them to take investment. But bootstrapped startups frequently don't incorporate until it looks like they'll be successful, and often success comes from accidents.
And by many of the definitions of bootstrap failure, the big VC-funded startups are failures too. My first employer (VC-backed) went through 4 business plans in the year I was there. Paypal did too, as did Flickr. Should those be counted as 3 failures and 1 success?
I'm skeptical about any sort of statistical data anyway, because (as with any economic data) the act of publishing that data changes the data itself. If a study comes out showing that you should not take VC money, there will be a flood of entrepreneurs into those markets that can be serviced without VC funds. That'll necessarily drive down success rates, as the market becomes oversaturated, competition drives down margins, and bootstrappers find it unprofitable to continue. Similarly, if a study comes out showing that you should take VC money, there'll be a flood of entrepreneurs into the markets that are considered "hot" by VCs, like what happened in social-networking/bookmarking in 04/05. That'll drive down success rates, companies will fold or be acquired for peanuts, and the next study will say you shouldn't take VC money.
You make a good point that I haven't considered. I would define "success" or "failure" as the ultimate outcome of the efforts of the group of founders who worked together on one or more products, regardless any part/full time jobs they had. Having one successful product, no matter how many failed ones, equals success. Having no successful products equals failure. That's just my definition -- feel free to pick a different one if you like it better.
One should be skeptical of any statistical study (didn't you know that 60% of statistical studies are flawed? :) ) but I think it would nonetheless be interesting to analyze a larger data set of startup outcomes to answer the VC funding question.
We've launched 3 websites, all failures, and have one still under development. If the new website succeeds...
If the new site succeeds the whole thing is a success. Who cares about the failures? Certainly not you.
Once you succeed the narrative will immediately fall into place. Your earlier "failures" will turn out to have just been stumbling blocks, correctable mistakes, and/or learning experiences along the road to success.
Which just makes your main point stronger: You can't rationally measure the "success" or "failure" rate of "ideas" until you define "success", "failure", and "idea" -- all of which are arbitrary and vary from company to company, from founder to founder, and from time to time.
Bottom line: he says you can do it to, and he's right, but you have to really know your target market at the start (which he did with targeting Dropsend to the designer/agency market, that he knew well due to his work on BD4D) and have contacts in it to spread the word (at the start, eventually your client demographic expands)... but it isn't as easy as he makes it seem on a blog post based on one of his successes, when that formula didn't work out well for his other projects.