News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on “OK, but there are two rules…”.

Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by redthrowaway on Thursday January 13, 2011 @03:22PM (#2101199)
I appreciate the message, but am I the only one for whom the "fail fast" mantra is becoming grating? It seems like it was originally a good idea: if your startup is dead, let it die. Don't cling to a failed idea. Now, however, it's almost used instead of a plan, or as an excuse not to carefully consider your options. It seems as if it appeals to our innate laziness: "Take a shot. If you miss, oh well, better luck next time." There's no hunkering down, no in-the-heat-of-the-crucible, just give up and try something else. It feels like a truism packaged for the Twitter generation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by callmeed on Thursday January 13, 2011 @04:17PM (#2101354)
No, I agree. The "Ready, Fire, Aim" [1] approach is often taken to extremes. I see people do it with both their business plan and marketing approach.

But, I think the "Be relentless, never give up!" approach is becoming just as bad. A bad idea is a bad idea and you have to know when to move on or pivot big.

One is poor planning. The other is myopia. Both should be avoided.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Ready-Fire-Aim-Million-Agora/dp/047018...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by andyswan on Thursday January 13, 2011 @04:13PM (#2101337)
Fail fast was just a side benefit. The point I was trying to make was to force yourself into creative and innovative solutions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by redthrowaway on Thursday January 13, 2011 @04:18PM (#2101360)
No, and I think your point was valid. I wasn't taking issue with your article, but I always twitch a little bit when I see someone saying how great it is to "fail fast".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by quanticle on Thursday January 13, 2011 @03:57PM (#2101309)
Agreed. While the "fail-fast/fail-often" method does work, that doesn't mean the older model of carefully planning and considering your market is bad or ineffective. I mean look at Apple. Every product they've got right now has had years of very careful thought given to industrial design, user-interface, and marketing. Apple doesn't release a product unless they're at least 90% certain it can capture the market.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by redthrowaway on Thursday January 13, 2011 @04:16PM (#2101349)
Apple also isn't looking to get bought out by Google for $60M. They're in it for the long haul, and they're looking to be big players. Most of the small startups I see these days, unfortunately including YC startups, seem to be launching with the idea of doing one cool thing, having no idea how to make money in so doing, and hoping to get bought out in a talent acquisition by Google or Facebook before they run out of money. In many cases, it seems to be less about entrepreneurship and more about putting together a really cool portfolio so you'll get a massive signing bonus when you get hired. Now, that's certainly a legitimate way to make money, and it makes sense for the angels and founders participating in YC and the like. But it's not entrepreneurship.

How many of the angel-backed startups these days are really looking to be long-term players? How many are looking to IPO in 10 years, vs get acquired in 2-3? How many founders envision themselves as the CEO of their company in 20 years? The fail fast mentality seems, on the surface, to be a reflection on an underlying current in the founder mindset: that entrepreneurship is a way to make enough money that you won't have to get a "real job". Just slug it out fo a few years, then become an angel yourself.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by phamilton on Thursday January 13, 2011 @04:42PM (#2101433)
Paul Graham even seems to advocate the 2-3 years instead of 20.

From http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

"Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast."

It's a motivation for a startup. Solve the "money problem" early in life, and do more important things later.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by redthrowaway on Thursday January 13, 2011 @05:09PM (#2101539)
I had that essay in mind when I wrote that comment. I agree with Paul, to an extent. It certainly does make economic sense both for individual founders, and for angels, to view entrepreneurship as a ~3 year endeavour, with the exit strategy being acquisition or bust. I don't, however, think it's ideal for the market as a whole. Google is only around because Yahoo refused to give Larry and Sergey $1M for it, so they decided to see what they could make of the endeavour. Yet Google's impact on the tech world and marketplace has been staggering. What would have happened if eBay, Google, Paypal, Amazon, and Youtube had all sold to Microsoft?

I don't have a problem with people launching websites with the intention of selling them in a couple years, but I do dislike the notion that that is what constitutes successful entrepreneurship. The tech world needs its Googles and Facebooks, which means we need entrepreneurs with vision who are willing to stick with it for the long haul.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by DanI-S on Thursday January 13, 2011 @04:48PM (#2101453)
On the other hand (and without disagreeing), there are very few technology companies who have been around for 20 years and still produce exciting, relevant products. Perhaps short-lived enterprise also has benefits to the world as a whole?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by alain94040 on Friday January 14, 2011 @04:37AM (#2103048)
Iterate Quickly

Also known as “kill ideas fast”, this advice is saying that your idea is probably not worth the pixels it’s displayed on. Ideas are a dime a dozen, execution matters. You’d be better off with a dumb idea in a large, expanding market!

Trust Your Guts

Also known as resilience or tenacity: when everyone else tells you to give up, when there is no hope in sight, what separates the successsful entrepreneur from the wanna-be: perseverance. Don’t give up.

Here’s my take on the contradiction: both your guts and everyone else are right — partially. It takes a very smart person (you) to figure out the gem that your guts detect and remove the junk that everyone else sees.

(source http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2009/12/18/startup-advice-contr...)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by efsavage on Friday January 14, 2011 @08:19AM (#2103388)
"It seems like it was originally a good idea: if your startup is dead, let it die."

I never saw it that way, or at least at that scale. I see it as a way to move fast by validating assumptions with evidence and being unemotional about sunk costs. Rather than spending many hours of meetings and design sessions and approvals to try a feature or change, just do it, measure it, and if it's not working, kill it. If it is working, keep it, and nurture it. If you just spent 3 months on an idea that is getting no traction, don't spend another 3 months trying to fix it when you've got other promising things in the pipeline.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by bane on Thursday January 13, 2011 @09:31PM (#2102293)
It's amazing how many things can become successful if you just stick it out and work at it. No?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by redthrowaway on Thursday January 13, 2011 @10:48PM (#2102462)
Exactly. The "fail fast" notion is anathemic to most worthwhile pursuits, from school to skill acquisition to sports... I'm not sure why it's suddenly considered a virtue in the startup world.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by whatusername on Friday January 14, 2011 @12:40AM (#2102692)
It depends on what extreme you take it to. For the classic sports example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mMioJ5szc

Fail Fast can also be seen as: Perform, get feedback, perform slightly better, get more feedback, iterate until perfect.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“OK, but there are two rules…” by shub on Friday January 14, 2011 @10:49AM (#2103888)
But we already have that. It's called practicing.
[ Parent | on HN ]