Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshu | Hacker News Reader

No product is truly tested until it faces the marketplace. Until then, even the best ideas and plans may be wrong. So why invest deeply in things that might not work? It'd be better to just know.

View on HN

There seem to be at least two different "fail fasts". I think you're talking about ideas failing fast; Mark's talking about companies failing fast.

It bothers me seeing people giving up too easily. Pisses me off, even. That's what struck a chord for me in Mark's post. It doesn't compute for me when I see people get really excited about an idea, have the first iteration not stick and then just stop. And that seems to be really common. I think that's the rub with Mark too.

Definitely. Companies can always change focus, do something else. But I think you can't push an idea to work when it isn't good enough. Perhaps there is bleed across the two concepts.

My first "rub" is that people launch products too quickly without thinking / planning first. Measure twice, cut once. I'm all for MVP and learn but not without planning first. My second "rub" is the one you identify. People use the "fail fast" mantra as an excuse to give up early if it doesn't work.

People who follow "fail fast" actually work a lot harder, than those living in dreams for years, VC how throw good money after bad money and then fail.

No idea where the notion "fail fast" = easily give up comes from.

Your analogy is off base. The opposite of "fail fast" is not "living in dreams for years." The arguments is: spend time planning before your launch (measure twice, cut once) and don't give up easily if the first iteration doesn't work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com