I think it's valid to say that's how his product gained traction quickly, but I doubt that's why DistroKid is a successful company (guess, I'm not in the know).
Did I miss where that's against the rules of legitimacy? Or am I misunderstanding what you're implying?
DistroKid is successful because pud is a badass entrepreneur and a passionate musician that understood the pain point and executed beautifully.
But at the same time you can't underestimate - or edit the story to not include - the value of early traction and a built in "free" source of eyeballs while you're tweaking product market fit over four years.
The price of Pud hitting #1 on HN w/a piece of start-up content marketing is a little sort out - for the rest of us in the comments section here - about what lessons to take away from the content, and what else to consider.
I read these sort of success threads as basically case studies, and that marketing channel is probably relevant.
> The best way to develop contacts with VCs, in my opinion, is to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way.
> If you can't get hired by a venture-backed startup right now, work at a well-regarded large tech company that employs a lot of people like Google or Apple, gain experience, and then go to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way.
> And if you can't get hired by a well-regarded large tech company, go get a bachelor's or master's degree at a major research university from which well-regarded large tech companies regularly recruit, then work at a well-regarded large tech company that employs a lot of people like Google or Apple, gain experience, and then go to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way.
> I sound like I'm joking, but I'm completely serious -- this is the path taken by many venture-backed entrepreneurs I know.
The weird thing is how someone who does this is lauded for it, but if it's a family rather than an individual that compounds earlier wins, suddenly it's 'wealth inequality' and terribly unfair.
The thing about capitalism, which I feel is not widely understood, it's that as a participant, you're meant to compete, but you're not meant to win. The need for money to sustain your lifestyle is what drives people to productive work; competition is what drives companies to optimize. But the moment someone wins - a person becomes rich, a company becomes a monopoly - they actually become a problem. At best, they're no longer working and optimizing. At worst, they can disrupt lives of a lot of people.
The promise of great wealth is phony by design.
aiming higher is human nature. The system is based on this evolutionary fact (sometimes called 'greed', or self-interest), not on directing human behaviour.
The market is also based on mutual self-interest. There are no 'external incentives' other than access to higher/more expensive goals.
There are - living in a market economy requires nontrivial amount of work just to maintain what you have. Both individuals and companies have to work to balance out their operational (living) expenses; moreover, in case of companies, competition forces you to "aim higher" because not doing so will make your profit fall with time.
When you "win" in the market game, those incentives diminish or disappear completely.
This is not external, but natural.
Humans need a constant supply of food/energy, food spoils etc. Tell me what kind of economy works otherwise.
I'm also talking more about life goals e.g. getting a better job, as opposed to working at all.
> competition forces you to "aim higher" because not doing so will make your profit fall with time.
This is dependant on a lot of things. There are plenty businesses that have survived being less than innovative. But I'd argue whether being competitive counts as "aiming higher"; competition doesn't always grow, sometimes there is constant competition, and innovation is part of business.
Actually, come to think of it, the market for digital services is quite "ultra-global" already.
Either way, whatever the market size is, monopolies in a given market is the the victory condition - the goal - for the monopolist, and a failure mode for the entire market. Hence how it works is that the idea of "the win" is dangled in front of you so that you work, but it's meant to be snatched away in the last moment, so that you never reach it.