Congrats on launching! I can sort of relate with trying to pull off ideas on the side in a field completely unrelated to computer science as someone who wasn't bred from a young age to program. It's definitely hard, and I commend you for putting in the hours and the effort.
As for the product: It's a neat idea. I think it'd be cool if you actually gave people on Facebook and promoters in general a small cut of some sort of revenue. It'd give users two incentives, both monetary and social (being known for discovering great undercover bands). Have users compete to be the best 'agents'.
Don't mind the haters – it's the growing trend 'round here on HN. If you're not a CS guy, you don't deserve much, basically. That's even more so for people working in business. But you've done far more than the people here can claim to have done.
Best of luck!
Edit: What made you settle for that one idea? Was it the only one you had, or did you choose it from a list of others you were entertaining? I imagine working in an industry like Finance you haven't got much time to play around with ideas left-and-right, so there's a bit more calculation in picking an idea to move forward with.
I worked most nights during the week for a 1-2hrs and every weekend, sometimes spending full days working on the weekends. I found the time when I could and delegated work to my cofounders who did the same. It was just a lot of hard work and extra hours. I sacrificed some social life but still managed to enjoy New York hugely over the past year.
I think people underestimate how much you can get done if you commit to at least 1-2 hours during the week EVERY DAY, and at least another 12-16 hours on the weekend. Working during the week is critical, even if it's difficult, simply because it keeps the momentum going and motivation fresh (in my experience of trying it every other way). It's also a deceptive 30-80% additional capacity than what you have merely working weekends.
Oh and paying attention to what you're doing and how long it took, and making sure not to waste unnecessary time on nice-to-haves or unnecessary research rather than critical functionality. This is particularly important if you're working alone; I find reviewing my source control checkins and my PivotalTracker progress very helpful in this respect.
Then again I ended a great relationship for work so perhaps I'm not the best exemplar of priorities.
Sounds good in practice, but I have a real hard time building anything in 1 hour increments. I need a good 3-4 hours scheduled to make solid progress on any of my side projects. I have a feeling others may have the same problem... and PG described this pretty well in his "makers schedule" essay.
I used to believe that too but while 5 blocks of 1 hour each aren't as efficient as 1 block of 5 hours, it's still better than 0 hours.
Today I've managed to get Hadoop set up in pseudo-distributed mode in 1.5 hours on a fresh VM I just installed, while reading a tutorial in the background waiting for stuff to download and install. Tomorrow I'll think more about how I want to convert my crawler prototype from C# over to Ruby on the cluster and read a bit more about how this all works while I wait for code to compile or packages to run at the day job.
Even the 15min I spend eating while at the client are used to think, read and plan my next step or how I will implement something. Same for the drive to/from work. Yup I talk to myself. There's a lot of time in the day when you're supposedly busy that you can get constructive work done.
In the evening I'll start working on getting my first test job to run. At the end of every day it looks like I've made little progress, but at the end of the week I'm certain to be happy with my progress (something I learned from David Burns' "Feeling Good" is to actually test your hypotheses; if you feel you didn't accomplish much, actually test it by listing what you did and you'll be probably be pleasantly surprised).
Thanks, I appreciate the examples. I think a lot of it comes down to organization -- with some planning I certainly could find smaller items that fit into 1 hour blocks (configuration, writing tests, documentation, etc). Depends on the nature of the project though.
Good point on capturing and reviewing progress. I'm always trying to get better at that.
I think this will depend on what role you play. As someone who's technical, 3-4 hours is the minimum for sure but if you're responsible for business relationships (like making sure you try to sign an artist every day) then 1-2 hours sounds possible.
Reminds me of a saying from my former CEO, "it's not about the time left in the game, but the number of swings at the bat you get."
Yeah, but doing it after you come home tired from a stressful job is not that easy - even if you have the drive, your brain is too tired to think clearly...
yes I feel that alot, as an engineer it's really hard to concentrate on your project after work.. But I realize something for me, maybe it's also for others but if i manage to start it somehow, i can go further more than i expected actually.. hardest thing is for me is beginnig..To figure out beginning I just check my checkouts on plastic source control and realise that we already done alot, is just fix everything and it's your fuel now you can go :)
I am also in finance working full-time. I spend about 2 hours a day working on our payments platform. 6 months ago I cut off my cable and it's amazing how much I'm actually getting done! People who use "lack of time" as an excuse to not get anything done should seriously consider adding up all their idle time, you'll be surprised!
Can you elaborate on the level and detail of planning you had to do to be effective in 1-2 hour chunks?
I think it would be really interesting for the productivity obsessed to maybe even see a mockup of the task lists you would generate to get a sense of how detailed of a list was good.
I use a website/app called Orchestra for my to-do lists. I've seen a lot of people write that to-do lists don't work, but they do for me. Planning out what exactly I needed to get done when I would sit down to work on OKDJ was important for me. I was also very goal oriented. I tackled building the company is phases: assembling the team, building the site, gathering content etc. And I would list out what needed to get done at each of those phases.
I am surprised that an ex-finance guy would start this type of company. The music industry is a startup death trap with more than 99% of startups failing. Of all the possible industries to make money, why would someone voluntarily join an industry with declining revenue, nasty lawyers, and a million other competitors?
While I agree with the points you make regarding the industry The OP answers your question in his post - albeit without directly addressing any of your negative points about the industry.
For whatever reason, this video incited a thought about the power of free music and the power of fans as promoters of the music they love. This concept consumed me.
And...
If you are ever consumed by an idea, focus on that idea and see where it takes you. Your obsession with it likely means that it embodies your passions and values.
Despite your quoted facts, there is still ENORMOUS room for disruption in the music scene. At least in my opinion, but my biggest problem is broadcast radio, and the fact that there are SEVEN BILLION people in the world, there is no way only five of them are making music I want to hear. I think broadcast and internet radio need to blend together somehow. (yeah yeah, mobile phones, data, pandora, it's happening) But I digress...
I like seeing sites getting launched, way to go to make things happen. But sign up with FB, and pollute my FB wall, Imma pass on this app. I think plenty of others don't have my mindset though, so you may gain some traction.
This reminds me of a startup mantra from the 90s: Eat like a fly, poop like an elephant.
So far there is nothing. A website with a music player and a share-on-facebook button. But the blog post sounds like Andy already turned this thing into a billion dollar company and now bows down to the mere mortals to share the wisdom he gathered. On his heroic journy to fame and riches.
>But the blog post sounds like Andy already turned this thing into a billion dollar company and now bows down to the mere mortals to share the wisdom he gathered. On his heroic journy to fame and riches.
Well yeah. He worked in finance. That's how they think in finance.
"If you are ever consumed by an idea, focus on that idea and see where it takes you. Your obsession with it likely means that it embodies your passions and values."
Obsession is a dangerous thing. It clouds your judgment and ability to think rationally. Sure, it provides the energy to work all day on Saturday and Sunday, but it also causes you to quit a high paying job to work on a webpage with a play button and a link to share on Facebook.
Can I follow up with you on your experience (even second-hand) with music promotion? This seems like a key part of any attack on the RIAA's stranglehold on music today.
Congrats on the launch! And thanks for sharing your experience with us. I'm at the start of a very similar process. I've been sitting on an idea over the past year and had a false start with a co-founder. I'm now pushing on on my own, so you've given me some great ideas on the various stages.
Thanks for the inspiration!! Good luck!!
Fourmii - I'm about a two months away from launching my site after having not one, but two false starts with co-founders that made me decide to go at it alone as well. In hindsight I wish I had a co-founder or at least a mentor who's built and launched a site before. Most of my decisions were off and/or not immediately necessary for the launch. Even choices that I thought were brilliant turned out not as expected. None of this has to do with the product itself, but just getting from development to launch. good luck!
I think the most important issue with building a company as you work full time is the need for absolute leanness.
Out of necessity you have far fewer hours than you'd like to work on a project, and this really forces you to focus on whether each thing you do takes you closer to being able to launch.
Seems to me like you can win by default for people like me.
Just want to click a website and start playing music that's decent in one click, I can't be stuffed researching or downloading albums. In europe all the sites I liked in the USA have we are coming soon banners, aka massive opportunity to win by default at the moment in terms of traffic (although to be honest I have no idea how you would get me to buy something, guilt me into supporting artists by showing them pictures of their kids maybe).
Minus points:
Keeps playing the same songs, I don't really even notice because I am music retarded, but my gf will kill me if I put your website back up.
Tried to login with facebook to see if that would play me some different ones, says it wants permission to post to my wall. No way in hell am I giving you that.
Hmm, well I guess you were lucky to have found someone competent who took that offer. I'm not sure if I would be willing to work equal hours for 4 times less equity.
I'm assuming the Biz dev cofounder would have taken a similar amount. Which should make the equation a little better. However, I agree - he got a good deal with the cofounders (not sure if that is necessarily a good thing)
Not too be too negative but I don't see anything that would take more than a week to build here (technically). The hard part is going to be to stand out among the other thousands of sites with the exact same model.
Based on the title of your post I was assuming to read something like '..and I picked up Ruby on Rails, a few tutorials, and just started coding..'
How much technical knowledge did you have before starting this project? And how much did you learn in the process? Doesn't it feel awkward to say you have 'built' it?
I had very rudimentary HTML/CSS knowledge when I first started. Now I'm proficient with HTML/CSS and I'm learning PHP and Javascript through working on the site and studying in my free time.
I'd define building as putting pieces together to create something of greater value. I came up with the idea for the site and compiled the team and resources necessary to ship an MVP. Our tech co-founder built the site, our designers built the feel, and our bizdev co-founder built up the content. I managed this process strategically and am heavily involved in each aspect. We all built it together.
since he was the technical guy, can you talk about what your role was as the founder? did you pick up any technical stuff to help build the product (technically)? if not, what were your main contributions aside from the idea (i assume coming up with what features the site should have, etc...)?
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Although I think you should've delved into the details of working on your own project after coming home from a stressful job - it definitely isn't easy - even if you have the drive and are excited, your brain is tired and it's just super hard to work at your full capacity.
First off, congrats on the launching the site! It looks great. I played with it but I am having a hard time trying to figure out the business model. Is the key revenue stream advertising?
When I look at last.fm, it also sells other music related items such as ringtones, and also advertises. I can't understand last.fm as well.
Interesting post indeed. However, I was expecting you to quit your day job once this was able to pay for itself and the salary of three people. I did not expect to see you quit it to launch this.
Am I missing something? What's your monetization plan? How long before you're profitable?
I wish this article included a rough range of the monetary spend since it looks like most of the work was "outsourced" to others. Unless it was all equities?
It would be less impressive if the money amounted to a huge sum! Just wondering...
Did you have a non-compete agreement with the firm you worked for? I would have thought working in financial services your employer would technically have first dibs on anything of value you create.
>Surround yourself with smart people always.
I've been struggling with this one for a while. I've cut time drains and people that keep me down, how to go the next step?
Building a product is obviously extremely important, but without the bzdev skills and ability to launch and scale a business you need a well rounded team. Not just an all start programmer.
we all too often beat up on founders that stay at their jobs before committing full time to a startup. staying at your job isn't always a bad idea at first. taking the risk out of the startup lifestyle suggests this guy will do the same with investors' money when it comes to the life of his new company.
> I obviously needed to find someone technical to build the website, whether a freelancer or a cofounder.
Two jokers drop out of Goldman Sachs after a very short employment stint and hire some kid to build them a Facebook-based link-sharing game that targets emerging artists who have no money on the most garish website I've seen in quite some time and all he gets credited with is Lead Engineer. Not even Mr. Lead Engineer.
If non of the above doesn't embarrass you from turning down below-market deals with non-technical, inexperienced dreamers than nothing will. You need to recognize that your skill set is a finite commodity and the more time you spend on loser projects like these, the less in-demand you become. On the other hand, everyone knows that you'll do almost anything for cheap and you'll end up as the "coder dude" while the co-founders debate the merits of shitty internet-generated logotypes and branding as they plan their trips to SXSW.
tl;dr: Facebook-based link-sharing games are loser projects you need to avoid.
You have basically speculated the intentions of three people, the relationships they have with one another, and the outcome of their company all from this one line. Pretty impressive. It sounds like you've watched The Social Network one too many times. Constructive criticism would be of much more value.
Further, it seems you are completely ignorant to the contributions that skilled businesspeople can make to a startup, and instead you've opted to succumbing to the played-out stereotype of all finance guys preying on the young, nubile, innocent programmer who just wants to build things and do good for the world.
> you are completely ignorant to the contributions that skilled businesspeople can make to a startup
In this case, can you please list the contributions that you think were made by the non-technical, strategic members of this team, and why you think they should share in 80% to 90% of the company vs. the 10% to 20% that our esteemed colleague who actually built the feature did?
And I call it a feature because a one-page that tracks your likes and posts them to your timeline making very basic use of Facebook's API is a feature, not a startup and it certainly isn't a going business concern that may turn a profit large enough to grow beyond its current MVP.
Bandpage.com very well may be a product, but what we have here is a very basic implementation of the API and nothing else aside from a horribly-conceived design. I won't even mention the uselessness of the so-called awards or even ask what prompted the use of Disqus for a Facebook app. I guess those were all consuming business decisions that took a year to hash out.
tl;dr: Exactly what value did the layperson add to this thing?
> tl;dr: Exactly what value did the layperson add to this thing?
They made it happen. The site would simply not exist were it not for the dream/passion/drive/whim/fantasy of the OP. In a more deserving context, the following story could be referenced :
That said, I'm not going to defend the merits of the site itself. It looks awful, adds seemingly no value and isn't something I would think of actually using.
However, we should not trivialize the act of bringing ideas to fruition. That's what it's all about, after all.
> Facebook-based link-sharing games are loser projects you need to avoid.
Can I be any more clearer and constructive to a young developer looking to break into the industry?
Okay, maybe I should've added that if you need the money, feel free to do the work but don't go putting your name on it and make sure get paid up front.
I'm not speculating on what intentions the two non-technical people on the team have as when I see one year's worth of work from lightbulb to launch manifested in that weekend project of a poorly conceived website, I already know they have no clue what the next step is and therefore it's a waste of time to even think about it. It's a couple of dudes trying to find unsigned talent through clicks measurements on Facebook.
Facebook-based link-sharing games are loser projects you need to avoid.
Mark Zuckerberg had a professor at Harvard who tried hard to convince Zuck to stop wasting time on this stupid facebook idea and get more serious about his degree.
Your advice to the developer sounds similar to the advice given to Zuck by his professor.
That's probably good advice. A startup is a bit like gambling and recommending that a student finish their studies rather than bet it all at the casino is solid advice.
Zuckerberg made a rash decision and got lucky. there were many similar sites at the time and anyone claiming to know which, if any, would become the big social site isn't being very honset.
I keep hearing the "got lucky" argument when describing Facebook and Zuck. All it shows is ignorance. If you study Facebook, you can seriously find very explicit product and culture decisions at each stage of its growth. These have little to do with luck.
I'd argue Zuck experiences the same share of luck as an average person does. It's what he has made out of his luck.
For example, a big evidence cited with the "luck" argument is how Zuck just happens to run into Sean Parker who introduces him to Peter Thiel. But the role of "luck" is over-stated: there are hundreds of people who run into Sean Parker. A handful of them even get introduced to Peter Thiel. But getting introduced or funded by Sean Parker/Thiel is not a ticket to a billion dollar company. There is much more to it having little to do with luck.
You can also find very serious and explicit product and cultural decisions in all of Facebook competitors, and indeed in all startups. Everyone thinks they have the next billion dollar company, but the majority do not.
All you are doing is looking in hindsight and using Facebook's profits as justification for Zuckerberg's decisions or to credit him with something other than luck.
You are defining intelligence, intuition, or brilliance based on success. No wonder your observations support your view, it's impossible not to.
As for staying in school, there are two very good reasons for it. 1) Learning is the only way to actually not be ignorant and university is still one of the best environments to learn. 2) Every smart investor hedges their bets. Every investor recognizes risk and that startups are risky and that most don't succeed. Founders are not some sort of exception. Thus, finishing school is hedging your bets. It's good advice.
I'm sure you deeply want to believe that luck has little to do with it. It's a nice feel good story. But you don't have a convincing argument. Everyone recognizes that various types of skills are important, but nobody has ever put forth a magic formula that will guarantee a successful business. Until that happens, we cannot claim that luck has nothing to do with it.
Until that happens, we cannot claim that luck has nothing to do with it.
I never claimed that. This argument's always been about "how much", not whether.
I believe luck has a small part; you seem to argue that it has a huge part. I argue that in light of all the explicit decisions that facebook made, the role of luck is smaller than you appear to suggest.
You state that other facebook competitors also took explicit decisions. Merely taking explicit decisions does not provide results. You also have to make the right decisions and execute in the right way.
You are correct, I believe the risk of dropping out to do a startup is large enough as to be considered reckless.
We can argue about Facebook all day, as many have before, but even that in itself lends support to the notion that it was mostly luck. We cannot agree on and point to any specific idea, or combination of ideas, that lead to Facebook's success over others. More, we cannot show that Zuckerberg actually held any such idea as the basis for his actions. Targeting schools? Convenience. Targeting social? A common idea at the time. Using php? Convenience and a common choice at the time. Not all successes are due to some sort of genius. Many are just unexpected and happy results.
The professor was giving a generally good advice for average people. (though of course I do not consider anyone going to Harvard to be average)But the professor is also ignorant of what is going on with the internet (trend) and never saw what Zuckerberg was seeing. But Mark was also lucky because part of the success of Facebook is the continued screwing up of MySpace. I remember Sean Parker saying that Facebook would never have succeeded if MySpace corrected all the little issues they had with users because they already have the network. Network is difficult to break, no matter how good your features are and how much money you have, just look at Google+.
Goldman guy meets up buddies working M&A, figures a way to flip his stupid-co to Big Corp for millions.
This stuff happens every single day. Those crazy M&A deals you see of crappy startups? They are not typically done by nerd_programmer_dude.
I am all for extreme precaution when picking cofounders, especially nontech ones, but it also helps to know what the best non-tech cofounders are able to achieve.
Pretty much the most rash conclusion ever based off not much information. Why would a freelancer potentially getting paid to build something be wasting time with a project, even if the idea isn't solid? Not every coder out there is going to be hacking away creating the next Facebook or Twitter; some people like building skills, relationships, and getting paid while doing so.
I must disagree - not with the analysis but with the concept "you should avoid working for crazy assholes who demand blood while paying you peanuts". Now, I'm not going to say that living this life will make you happy, but you shouldn't think of it as "being exploited" you should think of it as "getting some other guys to pay for your education".
Technical skills in particular are in very high demand right now, higher even than six months ago, and they were astronomically high then. But it takes years to develop those skills, and taking uncomfortable, difficult work and living through it without visiting the psych ward (yeah, that's the hard part) is a notch on your belt.
tl;dr Life is a learning process, you can even learn from loser projects.
I find this post strange: there is no demonstrated success aside from having the courage to quit a job to pursue a start-up (which is commendable but very different from achieving success), yet the author appears to be giving advice. This feels like a captain starting a voyage who, a few days after leaving shore, sets himself up as an experienced person. This seems more useful from a historical point of view than from a practical point of view.
As for the product: It's a neat idea. I think it'd be cool if you actually gave people on Facebook and promoters in general a small cut of some sort of revenue. It'd give users two incentives, both monetary and social (being known for discovering great undercover bands). Have users compete to be the best 'agents'.
Don't mind the haters – it's the growing trend 'round here on HN. If you're not a CS guy, you don't deserve much, basically. That's even more so for people working in business. But you've done far more than the people here can claim to have done.
Best of luck!
Edit: What made you settle for that one idea? Was it the only one you had, or did you choose it from a list of others you were entertaining? I imagine working in an industry like Finance you haven't got much time to play around with ideas left-and-right, so there's a bit more calculation in picking an idea to move forward with.