Re:It’s a torturous chaos until it isn’t
by patio11 on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @05:26PM
(#3476791)
I don't know about "torturous chaos", but there is certainly a point early in the life of any business where a) any silver linings are accompanied by big voluminous clouds and b) many well-meaning people tell you to cut your losses (+) and take the job at Google instead. I've gone through that three times.
+ : n.b. They'll say this even if you have no losses.
It's also probably true that, for probably any value of X less than maybe 5 years, there is a business who had a graph substantially identical to mine for day 1 through X and then decided on X to throw in the towel.
"Torturous chaos for 6 months... before hockey-stick profitability" is the exception. Most startups have to grind it out for years before becoming anything more than ramen profitable.
Re:It’s a torturous chaos until it isn’t
by mkeblx on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @12:57PM
(#3475728)
Talking about FreshBooks: "As an aside, they mention that "we didn’t have our first paying customers until month 2." How do you think they felt before then? Or even in the six months after?"
I don't get it. I mean getting a customer in the first month would be ideal but having revenue in month 2 doesn't sound all that torturous to me. That one of the fastest examples of revenue traction I've ever heard.
If he was trying to make the valid point that many startups that on the surface appeared to have overnight success were in fact trucking away for years filled with uncertainty of getting traction it was unmade by the examples presented.
Re:It’s a torturous chaos until it isn’t
by its_so_on on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @01:05PM
(#3475771)
He's saying, (to paraphrase) "When Google was four servers at Stanford, Google didn't have shit." He wonders if there is any way to tell -- today -- what the next Google would be, by looking back at Google's experience at that time, or knowing if you are currently working on the next Google, based solely on the numbers in front of you and the trend these numbers are taking. Oh, and the false premise which is the mentality around here that making numbers go up is all that counts. The answer he comes to is that no, there is not.
Without specifying his false premise, however, he comes to a false conclusions. The truth is that there is more than just making numbers go up, and the truth is that it is easy to tell when you're working on the next Google. (As a rule companies on hn are not).
* edit: there's nothing wrong with building a company on numbers, instead of building the next multi $B company
+ : n.b. They'll say this even if you have no losses.
It's also probably true that, for probably any value of X less than maybe 5 years, there is a business who had a graph substantially identical to mine for day 1 through X and then decided on X to throw in the towel.
http://i.imgur.com/LE2kK.png
Even if 2010 and 2011 are ommitted for scale, the first 3 years of those graphs are essentially flat.
http://asmartbear.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads...
"Torturous chaos for 6 months... before hockey-stick profitability" is the exception. Most startups have to grind it out for years before becoming anything more than ramen profitable.
That said, I would've enjoyed seein some examples of folks with 1, 2, and 3+ years of fog before they hit liftoff.
I don't get it. I mean getting a customer in the first month would be ideal but having revenue in month 2 doesn't sound all that torturous to me. That one of the fastest examples of revenue traction I've ever heard.
If he was trying to make the valid point that many startups that on the surface appeared to have overnight success were in fact trucking away for years filled with uncertainty of getting traction it was unmade by the examples presented.
Without specifying his false premise, however, he comes to a false conclusions. The truth is that there is more than just making numbers go up, and the truth is that it is easy to tell when you're working on the next Google. (As a rule companies on hn are not).
* edit: there's nothing wrong with building a company on numbers, instead of building the next multi $B company