Hacker News Reader

Comment by NiagaraThistle | Hacker News Reader

From following Pieter Levels for years, this article coincides with exactly what Pieter says about his own products: Only 5% of his 70 projects have ever made any real money. Therefore it's a better idea to build a lot of small things fast (to test traction and profitability) instead of focusing on one huge project and hope it takes off.

Obviously this is general advice and there are outliers that will break the mold, but from a lot of this data and indiehacker anecdotes, the more shots you fire the better chances you have of one of them being big. THe key is to spot the losers quick and move on to something different, and then spot the ones that are gaining traction quick and then double down on your efforts for that/those one(s).

Key takeaway: Take lots of chances.

View on HN

> A person who chases two rabbits catches neither. -Confucius.

A low success rate is not a sign you're doing things right. If you're solving a real problem people will not have an issue paying you. There is a real opportunity cost to starting a business and I would not advise anyone to use this strategy. For starters, I don't see how anyone could possibly have 70 projects. I can only assume they are a con artist.

"If you're solving a real problem people will not have an issue paying you"

The counter to this is you don't know at the outset:

- whether you have identified a real problem

- whether you are solving the problem the right way

- whether the amount the buyers are willing to pay aligns with how much you need to earn for solving the problem

- how many actual (vs potential) buyers there are for a solution to this problem

- how difficult (read: expensive) it is to find people with this problem and make them aware of your solution

- how quickly a better-funded company will come in and offer a better (in some way) alternative

- how much you like (dislike) working with the median purchaser of your solution

- how much enjoyment you personally derive from providing this solution

- etc.

All of these lead to the realization that it might be possible to struggle it out with a given niche, but it might not be the best course of action for you personally.

He built all/most of those in public, btw. Which is part of how he was able to develop a lot of well-deserved trust. This strategy has a very good reasoning, but I do think it's hard because not everyone is able to develop a huge following easily (even in daily life).

It’s software. Most of the time consuming work can be copied after the first time. User accounts, payments, etc.

There is also a fair amount of stories out there in hit based industries (startups, games) where people have documented their 50+ projects. Its hard yes. It can also make a lot of money. Few people are willing to do it or it would be more common.

the company (rovio) that built angry birds only succeeded after 51+ failed games.

source: https://entrepreneurshandbook.co/how-a-bunch-of-angry-birds-...

Company, not individual. There is a list on Wikipedia but it shows 34 games, not over 50. It's a shovelware factory. They farmed the work out to employees and contractors. I think they got lucky, they were on the verge of bankruptcy. Not efficient or repeatable.

There are different ways to do this. This is where the initial idea of pivoting came in.

As long as you pick a profitable & big industry and stick to it 1-2 years, you can most of the time can find a way to make money.

The startup mindset is focusing on "ideas" but probably easier to be successful if you think in terms of industries.

Then there are the variables of costs, scalability, competition, etc. but this is the game.

So if you are not heavy funded the best is to keep costs low as long as possible.

If startups are really innovative there is a difference, but most companies are hardly innovative.

This is a good point - and a mistake I often see is to "pivot" from industry to industry, never really getting one's teeth into the details of any particular industry.

This inevitably leads to failures because you get two valuable assets from spending time in one industry: (1) an understanding of what companies' actual problems are, in detail and (2) relationships and reputation within that industry.

Pressing 'reset' frequently makes success much more remote, but continuing to pick at a single (good-sized) industry over years will almost always yield some success to those who are good at listening and willing to adapt what they do to what they hear from customers. Even if the first idea or two don't get traction.

This is also advice that Taleb talks about in his books. There are certain opportunities that are exponentially more important to focus your attention on. Spending your time preparing for said opportunities are how you make the most of them.

Diversify initially to protect the downside but double down on your winner(s) to scale the upside!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com