PostHog, a product analytics company, shares 50 lessons learned from building their own product. Key takeaways emphasize user feedback as paramount, from early access programs to continuous iteration based on observed behavior and direct conversations. A strong focus on solving specific, urgent problems for a well-defined target audience is crucial. Iterative development, rapid prototyping, and a willingness to abandon unsuccessful features are essential. Finally, internal alignment, clear communication, and a shared understanding of the product vision contribute significantly to success. They stress the importance of simplicity and usability, avoiding feature bloat, and consistently measuring the impact of changes.
AI products demand a unique approach to quality assurance, necessitating a dedicated AI Quality Lead. Traditional QA focuses on deterministic software behavior, while AI systems are probabilistic and require evaluation across diverse datasets and evolving model versions. An AI Quality Lead possesses expertise in data quality, model performance metrics, and the iterative nature of AI development. They bridge the gap between data scientists, engineers, and product managers, ensuring the AI system meets user needs and maintains performance over time by implementing robust monitoring and evaluation processes. This role is crucial for building trust in AI products and mitigating risks associated with unpredictable AI behavior.
HN users largely discussed the practicalities of hiring a dedicated "AI Quality Lead," questioning whether the role is truly necessary or just a rebranding of existing QA/ML engineering roles. Some argued that a strong, cross-functional team with expertise in both traditional QA and AI/ML principles could achieve the same results without a dedicated role. Others pointed out that the responsibilities described in the article, such as monitoring model drift, A/B testing, and data quality assurance, are already handled by existing engineering and data science roles. A few commenters, however, agreed with the article's premise, emphasizing the unique challenges of AI systems, particularly in maintaining data quality, fairness, and ethical considerations, suggesting a dedicated role could be beneficial in navigating these complex issues. The overall sentiment leaned towards skepticism of the necessity of a brand new role, but acknowledged the increasing importance of AI-specific quality considerations in product development.
Mastering the art of saying "no" as a product manager is crucial for focusing on impactful work and avoiding feature creep. It involves strategically prioritizing tasks, aligning with overall product vision, and gracefully declining requests that don't contribute to that vision. This requires clear communication, explaining the rationale behind decisions, and offering alternative solutions when possible. Ultimately, saying "no" effectively allows product managers to protect their roadmap, manage stakeholder expectations, and deliver a more valuable product.
HN commenters largely agree with the article's premise of strategically saying "no" as a product manager. Several share personal anecdotes reinforcing the importance of protecting engineering resources and focusing on core value propositions. Some discuss the nuances of saying "no," emphasizing the need to explain the reasoning clearly and offer alternative solutions where possible. A few commenters caution against overusing "no," highlighting the importance of maintaining positive relationships and remaining open to new ideas. The most compelling comments focus on the strategic framing of "no" as a tool for prioritization and resource allocation, not simply rejection. They emphasize using data and clear communication to justify decisions and build consensus. One commenter aptly summarizes this as "saying 'no' to the idea, but 'yes' to the person."
Summary of Comments ( 7 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43267095
Hacker News users generally praised the PostHog article for its practical, experience-based advice applicable to various stages of product development. Several commenters highlighted the importance of focusing on user needs and iterating based on feedback, echoing points made in the original article. Some appreciated the emphasis on internal communication and alignment within teams. A few users offered specific examples from their own experiences that reinforced the lessons shared by PostHog, while others offered constructive criticism, suggesting additional areas for consideration, such as the importance of distribution and marketing. The discussion also touched on the nuances of pricing strategies and the challenges of transitioning from a founder-led sales process to a more scalable approach.
The Hacker News post titled "Things we've learned about building successful products" (linking to a PostHog newsletter article) generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a handful of comments focusing on specific points from the article and offering further insights or alternative perspectives.
Several commenters appreciated the practical, experience-based nature of PostHog's learnings. One commenter highlighted the value of the list's emphasis on focusing on user needs and iterating quickly, praising the advice to "Ship, talk, iterate" as fundamental. They expanded on this, stating that constant communication with users is crucial for understanding their true needs and ensuring the product's relevance.
Another commenter zeroed in on the importance of niching down initially, as advocated in the article. They agreed with this strategy, explaining that starting with a specific, well-defined target audience allows for a deeper understanding of their needs and facilitates faster product-market fit. They also cautioned against prematurely broadening the target market, emphasizing that focusing on a niche allows for more efficient resource allocation and a stronger initial foothold.
The discussion also touched upon the challenge of balancing short-term wins with long-term vision. One commenter pointed out the inherent tension between delivering immediate value to users and building a sustainable, long-term roadmap. They suggested that while quick wins are essential for maintaining momentum and demonstrating progress, it's crucial to align them with the overall strategic direction of the product.
One commenter provided a contrasting perspective on the advice about saying "no" more often. While acknowledging the importance of focus, they argued that early-stage companies should be more open to exploring different opportunities. They suggested that saying "yes" more often in the beginning can lead to unexpected discoveries and potentially uncover valuable new directions.
Finally, some commenters engaged in a brief discussion about the effectiveness of different product development methodologies. One commenter mentioned their positive experience with the Shape Up methodology, while another questioned its suitability for all types of projects. This exchange highlighted the ongoing debate around choosing the right development process and the importance of adapting methodologies to specific team structures and project needs.
Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post reflect a general appreciation for the practical advice offered in the PostHog article. The discussion provides further nuance and context to the original points, offering valuable insights from various perspectives on product development challenges and best practices.