Warning: Software Startups are Not as Easy as Everyone Says | Hacker News Reader

Warning: Software Startups are Not as Easy as Everyone Says

softwarebyrob.com

63 pointsrwalling39 comments

I think the biggest thing is that cheap != easy

Sure, you can write good software with a cheap Pc and entirely free software, and there may be very little equipment costs compared to other industries. But that doesnt make it EASY.

I am going to be a complete fool and say the opposite. Starting up is easier than everyone says.

Reasons? The cost is really low. You don't have to quit your job. You don't have to invest a lot into your company. If things start to do well, you can afford to do both. What really is the cost? The cost is your time, and if it is something you enjoy, its a win-win situation. Am I defining a hobby? Sure, but starting up can be exactly that. There are advantages to quitting your job and investing every penny you can, but that isn't for everyone.

So starting up is really easy. Write some code, release a project. If it doesn't do well, it was fun. If it does do well, keep the ball rolling.

If you can't get anything started while you are working full time, I would suggest you will be unsuccessful if you quit your job too.

You left out the sentence that starts with "I learned on my own startup..." Why?

Can you rephrase that?

I don't know if you are curious or trying to make some sort of strawman argument.

If you are curious, I am sorry I can't spill many details. But I have done a startup and several projects in the past, and am currently involved in a startup.

If you are implying I don't know anything because I haven't done it myself...well I guess I answered that.

I also have quite a few friends who have done startups to pull some anecdotal evidence from.

A straw man is a proxy, a fake, a stand-in for the real thing. So to make a straw man argument, I have to distort something you've said so that it becomes easier to refute. Feel free to explain how I can do this when your post is reproduced verbatim above mine.

You meant argumentum ad hominem (advanced by a loaded question, even!). Technically, it's not relevant to startups' degree of ease whether you've been successful as a founder or not, but it is valid for me to ask you to cite your evidence.

You claim to be an expert on startups based on evidence you can't reveal. That's a circular appeal to authority (yourself) established by an appeal to a higher power (all your friends' top-secret successes).

I don't want to be (too much of) a pompous ass here, but I get jumpy when people try to convince me of things that are both improbable and highly desirable.

No, the strawman you were presenting was that I had no idea about this topic because I had not experienced it myself. That is a fallacy, and it is untrue in this situation. I did not mean it was a loaded question, I wasn't sure whether you were being a jerk or not.

Clearly, you were trying to be a pompous ass, and are again with this second comment. I hardly claim to be an expert, I CLEARLY stated to have some anecdotal evidence. I was simply giving some comments based on my experiences, and whether you choose to believe me is your prerogative.

Lastly, how is it improbable that starting a startup is easy? Any software developer can write their own software in a short period of time, and try to start a business based on it.

mnemonicsloth, mrtron - are you two dating?

(serious question, you sound like a couple I know)

This is my first meeting with mrtron, so I don't think we're dating (unless you mean 'by LiveJournal standards', in which your guess would be as good as mine).

I'm engaged in the real world. We fight all the time.

Your use of 'strawman' is incorrect.

I hate 'arguing' this way, but no it is not. Straw man: Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

He was presenting me as someone who had no experience with a startup, thus shooting down my arguments about the ease of starting up. Explain how this is incorrect? He presents me as an individual with no experience with startups. He then uses that to attempt to shoot down my arguments.

For mnemonicsloth to make a strawman argument, he'd first have said something like "some people say <poor argument for $x>" and then go on "however, <picks apart argument>, so we know $x is false". Therein lies the fallacy -- a disproof of a proof of $x is not a disproof of $x.

In other words, it's not about presenting a person as a poor defender, it's about presenting a poor defense. Cutting straight to a person's worth as a commentator -- as mnemonicsloth did -- is argument "ad hominem" ("to the person").

Alright, you can't post something like this and then hope that adding "I don't want to be a pompous ass" will help. Nobody is trying to convince you of anything, he was simply stating his opinion on the subject.

He said he didn't want to be too much of a pompous ass. Clearly he agrees (rightly) that he was being at least a bit of a pompous ass.

Also his level of pompousness was funny.

Some perhaps would like to think that succeeding at a startup is somehow easier than become a professional basketball player. Sure you can play basketball in your spare time and all you need to do is buy a basketball and a pair of shorts, but all that means is that playing basketball isn't hard, becoming a successful is.

Heck, the article didn't claim that starting a startup is hard. It claimed that "startups" are hard. Which is meant to prepare folks for the fact that if you want to succeed it's going to be hard. And that's something a lot of folks don't get.

Saying something requires luck is not the same as saying it is hard. Few people seem to understand that.

Diligence is the mother of good luck. - Ben Franklin

i get the feeling people are voting up by the title, not the actual article content.. seriously, this is entirely obvious and of digg caliber.. not what i expect from news.yc

Good writing creates value for the reader. This can be done not only by presenting an original insight, but by adding value to an existing insight. This can be done by

- Putting an idea into context

- Providing relevant facts and statistics

- Pointing out the implications of an idea

- Drawing new conclusions from an old idea. etc.

Even though the insight might not be 100% original, the author still managed to "say something worth saying about something worth saying something about." At least for me.

It was also exceptionally well-written.

Warning: the stove is HOT!

Warning: Contents of this cup are HOT!

If this is obvious, why do we keep hearing the same stories over and over about how easy it is to succeed with software startups? The "low barrier to entry" and other stuff that's mentioned even in these comments?

Low cost of entry isn't really an advantage since everyone is experiencing it at once. Whom do you have an advantage over when we can all build the same website in the same amount of time and host it for the same amount of money?

As always, winning in this game comes down to building something unique that is also difficult for others to build, marketing, and luck. I don't think a lot people building new web apps these days understand this.

Why do you people up vote this stuff? This place is turning into planet of the obvious... do you really need to read a page of it's not easy?

pfff junk

It's not as obvious as you might think. Otherwise, there won't be tens of thousands of anandoned startups.

Otherwise there wouldn't be tens of thousands...

It's not obvious at all how extremely hard it can be to have a successful startup. It's "harder than hard."

It's something you can't really appreciate until you've tried. Have you?

you all are hilarious...

Agree. We all know it's hard. But not until we actually try it that we get a real sense of "how hard".

The article's fault is not that the message itself is overtly obvious, it's that it neglects the more important question of: Why there will always be a large number of entrepreneurs in spite of the low success rates of starting a business and the enormous amount of work, dedication, and "luck" required to be immensely successful.

But that would be opening up an economic/philosophical can of worms that is neither here nor there.

> Why there will always be a large number of entrepreneurs in spite of the low success rates

Visit Las Vegas or lotto ticket booth and chat to people... it will clear up a lot of things.

I've played blackjack in vegas, and I am also working on my web app these days. The latter is relatively harder

This isn't a very good comparison.

I applaud the fact that the post is advocating a bit of realism (something which is in short supply in the entrepreneurial world). I also don't deny that there is an element of luck in succeeding. But it's _not_ a total crapshoot. There is a lot more variance and room for planning in a business than there is sitting at a craps table.

I think on average people who at least try to start a company and work to build something are not comparable to people sitting on their asses pouring quarters into slots or lottery tickets.

The question you are asking has a very obvious answer, because people are willing to take their chances in hopes of becoming rich. Look at the number of people trying to become actors/actresses or hope to make it big as a professional basketball/football/baseball player or heck even become a drug dealer. It's simple economics.

The potential rewards are great and most folks over estimate their ability.

Successful (software) start-ups are unlikely. They require great aptitude (the possession of which is uncommon) and rarely fabulous luck. The likelihood of a start-up succeeding is the product of two unlikely circumstances.

So I suppose it is as easy as being exceptional and lucky.

Don't sell your house.

The article is great. The only problem is that we hear the same story every hour or so. What some of us fail to realize is that most startups were not started as startups. As a matter of fact I would say that the majority of successful entrepreneurs did not start with the idea of owning/running a business. Usually engineers/hackers work on a app in their past time out of curiosity and build a product. The business or startup naturally follows.

i don't know what the hell you're talking about. Not started as startups? Most? Wow! You clearly need to do a bit more research.

Maybe if we skip the insult we can all come to an understanding. I do not think you deserve an explanation from me, but I will still give one for the intelligent and respectful others. Most successful companies today were started by engineers who were working on a product/service as a project. After realizing that they are sitting on something valuable (and most likely this happens by accident), they start to look into building a company around the product. Several people wake up and have the intention to start a business. I think that most people who want to start a business first then try to find a problem to tackle are the ones who need this sort of article. And they are also the ones who are more likely to Fail. I am not being rude it is just a fact.

I think you are wrong, although I don't think you deserved to be down-modded.

I disliked this piece for a different reason: his attitude. No successful company was ever built by someone thinking as negatively as this guy.

Sure, someone who thinks that if he creates a new facebook widget he'll retire -- that guy may need to hear this. But wait, does he? He'll figure out the problem with that soon enough.

The rest of us ... do we need some smug guy telling us that the Plenty of Fish guy was just really lucky? I've read the Plenty of Fish story, and it sounded like there was a lot more than luck involved -- and that luck was the smallest component. Oh, and I've worked at other startups and know people who are quite rich because of them. It didn't take them five years and only luck. It took the right idea at the right time, and in some cases, multiple tries.

No, successful, wealth-generating sites aren't born every day.

But it's more possible to create one than this guy seems to think.

Perhaps, but with every media source erring on the other side of the argument, this article is simply a reality check, and has to err on the side of negativity to get its point across.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com