The "cold start problem" refers to the difficulty new products face gaining initial traction due to a lack of existing users or content. This blog post explores how leveraging network effects can overcome this challenge. It emphasizes the importance of designing products where the value increases with each new user, creating a virtuous cycle of growth. Strategies discussed include building single-player value to attract initial users, focusing on specific niches to concentrate network effects, utilizing data-driven personalization, and seeding the platform with content or users. The post highlights the importance of strategically choosing the right network effect type for your product – direct, indirect, or two-sided – and adapting your approach as the product matures and the network grows.
Tract, a startup aiming to teach kids coding through a collaborative, Minecraft-based platform, ultimately shut down due to several intertwined factors. While achieving initial traction and securing funding, they struggled to convert free users to paid subscribers, hindered by pricing experiments, discoverability issues, and a complex product that proved difficult for the target demographic to grasp independently. Further challenges included platform dependencies on Minecraft (requiring users to own and run it separately) and internal disagreements on product direction, ultimately leading to unsustainable burn rate and the difficult decision to cease operations.
HN commenters discuss the author's postmortem of their startup, Tract. Several express sympathy for the founder's experience and praise his transparency. Some question the viability of the core idea – a no-code platform for building internal tools – doubting whether the problem was significant enough or the solution sufficiently differentiated. Others point to potential issues with the go-to-market strategy, focusing on a niche (recruiting tools) that may have been too small. The technical implementation choices, particularly using Retool under the hood, are also scrutinized, with commenters suggesting this limited flexibility and control, ultimately hindering Tract's ability to stand out. A few offer alternative approaches the founder might have considered. Overall, the comments paint a picture of a well-intentioned effort hampered by strategic missteps and a challenging market.
Paul Graham advises aspiring startup founders to relentlessly pursue their own curiosity. He argues that the most successful startups are built by founders deeply passionate about solving a problem they personally experience. Instead of chasing trends or abstract notions of good ideas, Graham encourages builders to work on what truly interests them, even if it seems niche or insignificant. This genuine interest will fuel the sustained effort required to overcome the inevitable challenges of building a company. By focusing on their own curiosity and building something they themselves want, founders are more likely to create something truly valuable and novel.
HN users largely agree with Paul Graham's advice to focus on what truly compels you and to avoid prestigious but ultimately unsatisfying paths. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes of choosing passion projects over seemingly "better" opportunities, ultimately leading to greater fulfillment. Some highlighted the difficulty in identifying what truly interests you, suggesting exploration and experimentation as key. A few cautioned against blindly following passion without considering practicalities like financial stability, advocating for a balance between pursuing interests and ensuring a sustainable livelihood. The idea of "keeping your horizons narrow" to focus deeply resonated with many, although some interpreted this as focusing on a specific problem within a broader field rather than limiting oneself entirely. Finally, some users discussed the role of luck and privilege in being able to pursue unconventional paths.
Jason Bosco's post celebrates the milestone of his company, SendGrid, achieving profitability instead of relying on venture capital funding. He emphasizes the deliberate choice to prioritize building a sustainable and profitable business from the ground up, highlighting the benefits of controlling their own destiny and focusing on customer needs. This approach, while potentially slower in terms of rapid scaling, allowed them to build a stronger foundation and ultimately led to a more rewarding outcome in the long run. The post implicitly contrasts the often pressured, growth-at-all-costs mentality of VC-backed startups with SendGrid's more measured, organic path to success.
HN commenters largely discussed the merits and drawbacks of bootstrapping vs. VC funding. Several pointed out the inherent bias in Jason Bosco's original tweet, noting that he's incentivized to promote bootstrapping as a founder of a bootstrapped company. Others argued that profitability allows for more control and long-term vision, while VC funding enables faster growth, albeit with potential pressure to prioritize investor returns over other goals. Some users shared personal experiences with both models, highlighting the trade-offs involved. A few questioned the longevity of Bosco's "forever company" aspiration in a constantly evolving market. The idea of "ramen profitable," where founders earn just enough to survive, was also discussed as a viable alternative to both VC funding and robust profitability.
Robin Sloan reflects on the evolving nature of online stores, arguing against the prevailing trend of mimicking large marketplaces like Amazon. He champions the idea of smaller, more curated shops that prioritize a unique browsing experience and foster a direct connection with customers. These "shopkeepers" should embrace the web's potential for individual expression and build digital spaces that reflect their own tastes and passions, rather than striving for sterile efficiency. He encourages creators to consider the emotional impact of their shops, emphasizing the joy of discovery and the personal touch that distinguishes a truly memorable online retail experience.
HN commenters largely agreed with the author's premise that "shopkeeping" tasks, like managing infrastructure and deployments, distract from product development. Many shared their own experiences of getting bogged down in these operational details, echoing the frustration of context switching and the feeling of being a "glorified sysadmin." Some suggested various solutions, from embracing serverless platforms and managed services to hiring dedicated DevOps engineers or even outsourcing entirely. A particularly compelling comment thread discussed the "build vs. buy" dilemma, with some arguing that building custom solutions, while initially attractive, often leads to increased shopkeeper duties down the line. Others emphasized the importance of early investment in automation and tooling to minimize future maintenance overhead. A few countered that small teams and early-stage startups might not have the resources for these solutions and that some level of shopkeeping is inevitable.
Ruth Belville, known as the "Greenwich Time Lady," carried on her father's unique business of selling the precise time to Londoners from 1892 to 1940. She would synchronize her pocket watch, nicknamed "Arnold," to the Greenwich Mean Time clock at the Royal Observatory and then visit her clients, mostly jewelers and businesses, charging them a small fee for the accurate time. Though the advent of radio time signals presented competition, Belville continued her service, valued for her reliability and personal touch, until the outbreak of WWII. Her meticulous timekeeping method and long-standing tradition represented a bridge between astronomical observation and personal timekeeping in a rapidly changing world.
HN commenters were fascinated by Ruth Belville's story, with many expressing admiration for her entrepreneurial spirit and the unique niche she carved out. Some discussed the technical aspects of her time-selling business, questioning the accuracy of her chronometer and how she managed logistics like transportation and client scheduling. Others drew parallels to modern subscription services, noting that she essentially offered "time as a service." A few users shared further historical context, pointing out other instances of time being a commodity or highlighting the transition to standardized timekeeping. Several commenters also lamented the loss of such quirky, individualistic businesses in the modern era.
The "Cowboys and Drones" analogy describes two distinct operational approaches for small businesses. "Cowboys" are reactive, improvisational, and prioritize action over meticulous planning, often thriving in dynamic, unpredictable environments. "Drones," conversely, are methodical, process-driven, and favor pre-planned strategies, excelling in stable, predictable markets. Neither approach is inherently superior; the optimal choice depends on the specific business context, industry, and competitive landscape. A successful business can even blend elements of both, strategically applying cowboy tactics for rapid response to unexpected opportunities while maintaining a drone-like structure for core operations.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's distinction between "cowboy" and "drone" businesses. Some highlighted the importance of finding a balance between the two approaches, noting that pure "cowboy" can be unsustainable while pure "drone" stifles innovation. One commenter suggested "cowboy" mode is better suited for initial product development, while "drone" mode is preferable for scaling and maintenance. Others pointed out external factors like regulations and competition can influence which mode is more appropriate. A few commenters shared anecdotes of their own experiences with each mode, reinforcing the article's core concepts. Several also debated the definition of "lifestyle business," with some associating it negatively with lack of ambition, while others viewed it as a valid choice prioritizing personal fulfillment.
Indie app development is a challenging business. While success stories exist, most indie apps don't achieve significant financial success. Marketing, discoverability, and competition from larger companies are substantial hurdles. Furthermore, the continuous need for updates and platform changes necessitates ongoing development effort, even without guaranteed returns. Despite the difficulties, some developers find the pursuit rewarding for the creative freedom and potential, albeit small, for financial independence. Ultimately, passion for the project is crucial for persevering through the demanding and often unprofitable reality of indie app development.
HN commenters generally agreed with the author's points about the difficulty of the indie app market. Several shared their own struggles with discoverability and monetization, emphasizing the importance of marketing and a unique value proposition. Some suggested alternative business models like subscriptions or focusing on niche markets. A few commenters pointed out the inherent luck involved in succeeding, while others questioned the sustainability of a purely indie approach, suggesting exploring contract work or other income streams for stability. The importance of managing expectations and enjoying the process was also highlighted.
Paul Graham argues that the primary way people get rich now is by creating wealth, specifically through starting or joining early-stage startups. This contrasts with older models of wealth acquisition like inheritance or rent-seeking. Building a successful company, particularly in technology, allows founders and early employees to own equity that appreciates significantly as the company grows. This wealth creation is driven by building things people want, leveraging technology for scale, and operating within a relatively open market where new companies can compete with established ones. This model is distinct from merely getting a high-paying job, which provides a good income but rarely leads to substantial wealth creation in the same way equity ownership can.
Hacker News users discussed Paul Graham's essay on contemporary wealth creation, largely agreeing with his premise that starting a startup is the most likely path to significant riches. Some commenters pointed out nuances, like the importance of equity versus salary, and the role of luck and timing. Several highlighted the increasing difficulty of bootstrapping due to the prevalence of venture capital, while others debated the societal implications of wealth concentration through startups. A few challenged Graham's focus on tech, suggesting alternative routes like real estate or skilled trades, albeit with potentially lower ceilings. The thread also explored the tension between pursuing wealth and other life goals, with some arguing that focusing solely on riches can be counterproductive.
CEO Simulator: Startup Edition is a browser-based simulation game where players take on the role of a startup CEO. You manage resources like cash, morale, and ideas, making decisions across departments such as marketing, engineering, and sales. The goal is to navigate the challenges of running a startup, balancing competing priorities and striving for a successful exit, either through acquisition or an IPO. The game features randomized events that force quick thinking and strategic adaptation, offering a simplified but engaging experience of the pressures and triumphs of the startup world.
HN commenters generally found the CEO Simulator simplistic but fun for a short time. Several pointed out the unrealistic aspects of the game, like instantly hiring hundreds of engineers and the limited scope of decisions. Some suggested improvements, including more complex financial modeling, competitive dynamics, and varied employee personalities. A common sentiment was that the game captured the "feeling" of being overwhelmed as a CEO, even if the mechanics were shallow. A few users compared it favorably to other similar games and praised its clean UI. There was also a brief discussion about the challenges of representing startup life accurately in a game format.
After their startup failed, the founder launched VcSubsidized.com to sell off the remaining inventory. The website's tongue-in-cheek name acknowledges the venture capital funding that allowed for the initial product creation, now being recouped through discounted sales. The products themselves, primarily blankets and pillows made with natural materials like alpaca and cashmere, are presented with straightforward descriptions and high-quality photos. The site's simple design and the founder's transparent explanation of the startup's demise contribute to a sense of authenticity.
HN commenters largely found the VCSubsidized.com site humorous and appreciated the creator's entrepreneurial spirit and marketing savvy. Some questioned the longevity of the domain name's availability given its potentially controversial nature. Others discussed the prevalence of subsidized goods and services in the startup ecosystem, with some pointing out that the practice isn't inherently negative and can benefit consumers. A few commenters shared personal anecdotes of acquiring and reselling goods from failed startups. The overall sentiment was positive, with the project viewed as a clever commentary on startup culture.
The author announced the acquisition of their bootstrapped SaaS startup, Refind, by Readwise. After five years of profitable growth and serving thousands of paying users, they decided to join forces with Readwise to accelerate development and reach a wider audience. They expressed gratitude to the Hacker News community for their support and feedback throughout Refind's journey, highlighting how the platform played a crucial role in their initial user acquisition and growth. The author is excited about the future and the opportunity to continue building valuable tools for learners with the Readwise team.
The Hacker News comments on the "Thank HN" acquisition post are overwhelmingly positive and congratulatory. Several commenters inquire about the startup's niche and journey, expressing genuine curiosity and admiration for the bootstrapped success. Some offer advice for navigating the acquisition process, while others share their own experiences with acquisitions, both positive and negative. A few highlight the importance of celebrating such wins within the startup community, offering encouragement to other founders. The most compelling comments offer practical advice stemming from personal experience, like negotiating earn-outs and retaining key employees. There's a general sense of shared excitement and goodwill throughout the thread.
Ron Garrett reflects on six failed startup attempts, rejecting the label of "failure" and instead focusing on the valuable lessons learned. He emphasizes the importance of choosing the right co-founder, validating ideas early and often, building a minimum viable product (MVP) quickly, and iterating based on user feedback. Marketing and distribution proved crucial, and while passion is essential, it must be coupled with a realistic market and sustainable business model. Ultimately, he learned that "failing fast" and adapting are key to entrepreneurial growth, viewing each setback as a stepping stone toward future success.
HN commenters largely praised the author's vulnerability and honesty in sharing their startup failures. Several highlighted the importance of recognizing sunk cost fallacy and knowing when to pivot or quit. Some questioned the framing of the experiences as "failures," arguing that valuable lessons and growth emerged from them. A few commenters shared their own similar experiences, emphasizing the emotional toll of startup struggles. Others offered practical advice, such as validating ideas early and prioritizing distribution. The prevailing sentiment was one of empathy and encouragement, acknowledging the difficulty of entrepreneurship and the courage it takes to try repeatedly.
Y Combinator (YC) announced their X25 batch, marking a return to pre-pandemic batch sizes with increased applicant capacity. This larger batch reflects growing interest in YC and a commitment to supporting more startups. Applications for X25, the Spring 2025 batch, open on November 27th, 2024 and close on January 8th, 2025. Selected companies will participate in the core YC program, receiving funding, mentorship, and resources. YC is particularly interested in AI, biotech, hard tech, and developer tools, although they welcome applications from all sectors. They emphasize their focus on global founders and the importance of the YC network for long-term success.
HN commenters largely expressed skepticism and criticism of YC's x25 program. Several questioned the program's value proposition, arguing that a 0.5% equity stake for $500k is a poor deal compared to alternative funding options, especially given the dilution from future rounds. Others doubted the program's ability to significantly accelerate growth for already successful companies, suggesting that the networking and mentorship aspects are less crucial at this stage. Some criticized YC for seemingly shifting focus away from early-stage startups, potentially signaling a bubble or desperation for returns. A few commenters, however, saw potential benefits, particularly for international companies seeking access to the US market and YC's network. Some also raised the point that YC's brand and resources might be particularly valuable for companies in highly regulated or difficult-to-navigate industries.
Summary of Comments ( 2 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43761835
HN users generally found the article a surface-level treatment of the cold start problem, offering little beyond well-known advice. Several commenters pointed out the lack of concrete, actionable strategies, especially regarding "manufactured network effects." The most compelling comments criticized the reliance on generic examples like social networks and marketplaces, desiring more nuanced discussion about niche products. Some suggested exploring alternative solutions like single-player value, SEO, and paid acquisition, while others questioned the actual effectiveness of some proposed "network effects," labeling them as mere virality or growth hacks. A few appreciated the introductory nature, finding it a decent primer for beginners, but the overall sentiment leaned towards disappointment with the lack of depth.
The Hacker News post titled "The Cold Start Problem: Using Network Effects to Scale Your Product – A Review" has a modest number of comments, sparking a brief discussion around the article's topic. While not a bustling thread, several commenters offer perspectives and experiences relevant to overcoming the cold start problem.
One commenter points out the inherent difficulty of the cold start problem, emphasizing that "solving it" is often synonymous with achieving product-market fit. They argue that if a product truly addresses a market need, the initial users will naturally bring in more users, thus negating the need for manufactured network effects. This perspective suggests that focusing on core product value is paramount, with network effects emerging organically as a consequence.
Another commenter introduces the concept of "synthetic single player mode," suggesting that even products inherently reliant on network effects can offer initial value to individual users. This approach involves creating a compelling single-user experience that provides immediate utility, even before a larger network forms. This can involve incorporating AI, pre-populated data, or other mechanisms to simulate the benefits of a network. The commenter provides the example of Duolingo, which initially functioned as a standalone language learning tool and later incorporated community features.
A further comment highlights the importance of focusing on a specific niche when launching a product. They argue that targeting a small, well-defined group allows for more effective initial marketing and fosters a stronger sense of community, which can organically drive network effects. This strategy emphasizes the power of early adopters within a niche who can act as champions for the product.
Finally, one commenter questions the article's focus on network effects as the primary solution to the cold start problem. They suggest that other factors, such as marketing and sales, play a crucial role, especially in B2B contexts. This perspective challenges the article's central premise, suggesting that relying solely on network effects can be a limiting approach.
While the discussion thread is not extensive, these comments offer valuable insights into the complexities of the cold start problem and provide alternative perspectives on how to approach it. The discussion revolves around the importance of core product value, the potential of synthetic single-player modes, the effectiveness of niche marketing, and the role of traditional marketing and sales strategies.