Comment by meredydd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by meredydd | Hacker News Reader

As several people here have observed, "we built this for $10,000" actually means "We did something for which the main input was time and effort, and incurred $10k of incidental costs". The physical-goods stories are cute, but any software company is clearly in this category.

I therefore think it's more interesting to break it down by how you get that time. I see a few categories:

1. Have rich parents. Yes, yes, this is true of some people (but probably fewer than you think), and isn't very interesting except for starting political arguments.

2. Have a supportive partner on whose earnings you can live. This is much more achievable for many people, and under-emphasised (it's common for, eg, postgraduate education!)

3. Have an existing consulting work that gives you steady work 1-2 days per week. People say "startups die by consulting", and they're right, but what kills you is finding new work (it becomes the "top idea in your brain", which is lethal). If you have an established client who's happy to spend a year paying for 1-2 days a week, you're perfectly positioned. (This is how we started https://anvil.works, and I can't speak highly enough of it)

4. "Productised consulting" - consult full time until you come up with a product that all your clients will buy immediately, then switch to selling that product. This sounds great in theory, but I've seen a few people try and fail to make that leap (possibly because it's really hard to stop "find new consulting work" from being top idea on your mind, especially if you have employees/partners to feed).

5. Have a business with good cash-flow characteristics that can be launched fast enough to become self-sustaining within its first month. This is what this article seems to focus on, but apart from "productised consulting" (where you start out selling something that's not your product), I'm very skeptical that it really works for product businesses. If you try this, I'd recommend having a fallback to one of options 1-4!

Those options all make the assumption that you have to carve that time out of regular working hours. I'd just like to add an option #6 - work on your project on nights and weekends, launch it on nights and weekends, and make the leap to working on it full time once it becomes profitable.

Meanwhile, increase your savings rate so that you might be able to make the leap sooner. That way if it gets to the point where you're profitable, but not yet making enough to cover your expenses, you can potentially jump ship earlier than you would've been able to otherwise.

It's pretty much the plan I followed and so far it's working well (left my job ~5 months ago). On the topic of increasing your savings rate, some of the ideas/mindset from https://mrmoneymustache.com were helpful.

Working nights and weekends is a luxury for the young and childless. It's just not realistic for most people with families.

Very much this. I'll add that some jobs leave little free time and/or little mental energy during the week once you get basic self-care out of the way.

I almost added a bit about the > 40 hr/week problem. I can only speak for myself but out of the 3 software jobs I've had none of them regularly required more than 40 hours/week. That's a privilege for sure, but those jobs do exist. Probably not at most startups, and probably not at most sexy well-known companies... but it's a tradeoff (like everything, it seems) -- the shiny line on your resume from AmaGooFaceSoft, Inc. or the tiny chance at a big payout vs. making a decent salary and being able to forget about work outside the hours of 9 to 5.

It probably varies by area of the world/country as well. I imagine the long hours are more the norm in the middle of a startup hub city vs. out in the suburbs.

True, but then all of the other ways listed are also luxuries. So this is seems like a reasonable option for those it is available to (i.e. those without dependants)

As a young (well not that young) and childless, yeah. I don't think this can work for everyone. But it's another option to consider.

You should add:

6. Get lucky with whatever you pick to that effort into. It's hard to predict that your idea is actually a good one.

6. Save money? If you are a software engineer and you live frugally you can save 100k in 2-3 years. Live off that money for 7 solid years. Of course if you go drinking, eating out and more it won't last that long. (Live in a room, not a whole flat)

Yep. Or, better yet, save and invest for 15 to 20 years. With decent returns, you'll have enough cash to provide a middle class lifestyle in perpetuity. The FIRE movement is where it's at...

> 2. Have a supportive partner on whose earnings you can live [on]. This is much more achievable for many people, and under-emphasised (it's common for, eg, postgraduate education!)

My wife an I have taken turns shouldering our living expenses to good results. If it's manageable -- you both make enough individually to stay out of debt -- I think it's a really good fit. You both benefit if it works. If it fails, you're maybe out of some savings plus opportunity cost, but not in debt or having to deal with investors.

Yes, the article does focus on #5.

I don't know the authorities who "have observed", my observation differs a lot: most businesses that still exist after 5 years have done exactly that. But that, of course, requires a "we have a solution to a problem we have, let's sell that"-mindset, not a focus on exit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com