I loved this post (gets one of my rare upvotes) because the guy does a great job taking apart everything he did wrong. Maybe these lessons should be obvious, but empirically they aren't: people keep making these mistakes, over and over.
Thank you for saying this. It's something that's only cemented in me over the past few years to connect the similarity between "anonymous" survey data and what gets posted on another anonymous posting place, 4chan.
And their point is valid: There is a wide "startup" belief that you needn't know the market or domain, the customers, etc. You just need to find a domain name and make a web page and customers will come and somehow a business will fall together. Only the overwhelming odds are that it will face likely failure.
Another trait of many of these types of posts is what idlewords points out: The tendency for people to generalize lessons. This is the risk of the dirty sushi restaurant with poor service that inevitably fails, but then writes a broad treatise about how the area won't support sushi restaurants. We see this constantly among such "lessons learned", where macro inputs are often substituted for micro failures.
Also:
..."things no responsible person would ever not know before even considering raising money." ...
...classic marketing grad trying to do startup things...
...over-exuberant and irresponsible entrepreneurs...
not sure how you don't see this as ad hominem critical.
An attack on BOTH the writer and the argument, as unnecessary critical or negative as it could be, is not an ad hominem attack, and by no mean make the criticism an invalid one. Especially if the criticism of the writer comes because of the writing (ie. "from what you've done, it seems like you're too inexperienced and naive etc...")
(I'm sorry that this is really off topic ...)
Using mailchimp and wufoo-
https://medium.com/who-what-why/from-a-mailchimp-email-and-w...
Built a Facebook page-
> Their observation isn't remotely an ad hominem
>> "things no responsible person"
Calling someone irresponsible seems pretty ad-hominem.Saying a position should be rejected because it is presented by someone who is irresponsible is ad hominem.
Ad hominem argument isn't the same thing as a personal attack; its the fallacy of arguing that a position should be rejected because of the personal characteristics of the person presenting it.
I've learned the hard way that it's exactly the lessons that are "obvious" are the ones that I should be paying attention to. If a lesson was both obvious and easy to implement, you probably wouldn't hear the lesson repeated so many times over so many different people.
So whenever I read yet another startup lesson that seems obvious and is frequently repeated, that's a signal for me that that lesson is actually very difficult to implement on the ground, in the moment.
Basically, I don't see it as an inherently bad thing. Until we've got Culture terminals and a Hub to chat with to convince us why something is a bad idea, I believe it'll always be this way. The other thing is that sometimes it works, so being an entrepreneur can have the same allure as a lotto ticket, only with even more illusion of control.
I thought this was a great post by OP, and I thank him for it.
When you're in the startup you most often miss the forest for the trees. You're too involved sort of like a peson in an abusive relationship. It sometime takes a neutral third part to make you realise "wow you really have it bad".
I've never read a story about any failure that didn't sound obvious in a after-the-fact analysis. Read up on why Nokia failed against Apple or how the banking system collapsed. When reading any of thee you will always think "huh, what a bunch of dumbasses", we highly over value our own behaviour and pretend that can never be us but it frequently is.
When you're young, you are bulletproof and ten feet tall and can run through walls and you have no concept of your own limitations. What seems obvious to those of us who have gone through the cycle of a startup is the greenfield learning experience for starry-eyed newbies.
Paul Buchheit has talked about the "danger of experience" (http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-technology.html). It's tough, but it's compulsory on us to apply our experience while simultaneously challenging conventional thinking.
This idea that there is some magic advice that this article is lacking and that only a seasoned (technical) founder can share with you is a fallacy. You are chasing a unicorn if you cannot accept common sense advice on its face.
Here's a piece of advice and lesson that you might not know (although I hope you do.)
There is something to learn from everyone, and the if you aren't willing to learn from EVERYONE, the problem is you that you aren't willing to learn, not that they don't have something to share with you.