Hacker News Reader

Comment by yellow_and_gray | Hacker News Reader

I feel there's something inconsistent to be reconciled here.

On one hand single-founder startups don't get as big, which is a bad thing. On the other, writing code for 8 years as a single founder is right about the definition of doing things that don't scale, which is a good thing. So you can't say Colin running Tarsnap as a single founder for 8 years was bad for Tarsnap.

But it also sounds like unexplored terrain. The more specialized a skill you need for some types of work, the more likely this scenario is to happen. What's missing here is a way forward. If the goal of Tarsnap is to grow, the north star is Tarsnap's growth rate.

Colin, could you share more about what you are looking for?

View on HN

If the goal of Tarsnap is to grow, the north star is Tarsnap's growth rate.

Well, Tarsnap's goal isn't to grow. I mean, growth is nice, but I'd be perfectly happy if it stayed at its current size; my priority is to have a good product.

I deeply admire anyone who does business like you.

I am curious; how do you come to the conclusion that staying small is better than growing the product/business and taking over as some suggest?

I said that Tarsnap's goal wasn't to grow, not that Tarsnap's goal was to not grow. What it comes down to is that Tarsnap is large enough now to be easily self-sustaining (it pays me more than I would expect to earn anywhere else), and my goal from the start was "build the service I want to use", not "become rich".

That's how I run my game project as well. Except that I haven't gotten to a point where it can sustain working on it full time. Have you written about the history of Tarsnap like how you started it, how long before you were able to use it as a living, etc...?

I haven't written any sort of history like that, although you can get a few bits of history from looking back at my older blog posts. Tarsnap has always been my full-time job, though; when it was still very small I supplemented it by doing some consulting, but mostly I lived off my savings.

>>On the other, writing code for 8 years as a single founder is right about the definition of doing things that don't scale, which is a good thing.

Doing things that don't scale isn't good in and of itself - it's just a means to figuring out what product people want, and offering an early version of it without investing in the ability to scale. Once you've done that, I think the point is to figure out how to scale the previously un-scalable activity, and then you have a business.

"Single-founder startups don't get as big, which is a bad thing"

Setting aside the question of whether this is true, why is it bad to have a smaller business? I can think of several advantages, not the least of which is the luxury of remaining the sole developer.

It's weird that you spend the comment telling Colin what he's doing wrong, and then ask him at the end what he wants.

I didn't say it's bad to have a smaller business. I said it's bad to have a smaller startup. Because by definition a startup is a company designed to grow. If a business isn't growing then it's not a startup. Between the two extremes of being a Google or a barbershop, it's closer to a barbershop.

It also isn't as weird that I wrote that comment considering I alarmingly find myself falling into Colin's shoes as a single founder. If there's a trap laying ahead that I could avoid, I'd rather know about it sooner than later. It's not to disparage Colin that I wrote the comment. It's to learn from him. I like Tarsnap and I'm a Tarsnap customer.

If there's a way forward that is unexplored terrain, I at least would like to learn more about it.

I wonder how far YC pondered over this question actually. What do you do with the cpercivas?

This gutsy, uncompromising quality is a trait of successful founders. I'm curious to see what will happen.

"Because by definition a startup is a company designed to grow"

That is not what the word means in common usage.

Merriam-Webster: "a fledgling business enterprise"

Oxford: "A newly established business"

Wikipedia: "A company, partnership or temporary organization designed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model"

Etc.

Paul Graham: "A startup is a company designed to grow"

No wonder that's not what the word means in common usage considering startups themselves haven't been common enough to make it into hundred-year old dictionaries.

Yeah. Stupid old dictionaries. Hey: a good YC application idea! Disrupt them!

The biggest thing I learned from this downvoting is that sometimes it's better to only quote new knowledge and let others pick up the conversation from there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com