Comment by deyan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by deyan | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You are a good writer and I enjoyed reading the article. I agree with many of the other points written here such as politics being omnipresent in the corporate world.

I am writing to add one point I did not see mentioned elsewhere:

You are making an implicit assumption that working on a "smaller" idea (like the ones mentioned in Indie Hackers) is somehow less risky than aspiring to be the next Zuck. Empirically, this seems to be false.

I have worked for ~15 years on startups. I have many friends, who are also entrepreneurs. I have observations on all sorts of efforts - from small side projects to large VC-backed bets to bootstrapped businesses.

My takeaway is that technology startups are characterized by a tremendous amount of risk and require a lot of hard work - regardless of the type of venture. I encourage you to talk to founders (in person, not reading PR-oriented websites like Indie Hackers) and verify that for yourself.

If I had to make up numbers to illustrate this notion, I'd say that making a $1B/year business might be 0.001% likely, while making a $1M/year business might be 0.1% likely - but for all practical purposes, both are incredibly challenging to pull off. If that's the case, might as well aim as high as possible and justify the risk involved.

Turns out the one thing that really matters is having a strong idea, which is forgiving to the many mistakes entrepreneurs inevitably make. In that regard, I wish you luck and hope you end up with a strong concept sooner rather than later.

I'm not the author of the article, but I did create Indie Hackers, I've talked to many hundreds of smaller indie founders, and I also went through YC where I met many hundreds of moonshot founders (and was one myself), so I have some perspective here as well.

My conclusion is that starting a small indie business is less risky than aspiring to be the next Zuck.

First, it's harder to fail, because there are fewer forces pushing you to make risky decisions. For example, you can start doing contract work, take on clients, and use them to support you while you build your indie business. Hell, you can keep working at your full-time job if you want to and build your business on the side. Those are bedrocks of income that can last you more or less indefinitely. Often, your employer ends up being your business' first customer. Additionally, you don't have an investors telling you to quit your job and use their capital to scale up your business' costs beyond the level that your revenue can support, which is one of the primary reasons that funded businesses go under.

Second, the business opportunities are simply more plentiful. The bigger you get, the fiercer competition gets. The more money you aim to make, the fewer paths there are to get there. If you want to find your first 10 customers, you can go out and talk to 50 or 100 or 200 people yourself. Every marketing channel is your oyster. None of your competitors feel threatened. The niches you can fill are endless. If you want to go from 1M to 10M customers, however, you need an exceptionally clever strategy, brilliant insights, a lot more resources, and a much higher degree of luck.

It's difficult to actually measure success rates without agreeing on the answer to this question: What counts as someone trying to start a business?

With small indie projects/companies, I'd wager there are a lot more people starting who aren't really serious and never take more than a couple of sincere steps. They might lower your perception of the success rate, especially compared to VC-funded companies if your denominator there only includes those who've actually raised a round. More people fail tryouts for the high school basketball teams than tryouts for the NBA. People filter themselves.

But I assure you that, if you're committed to the task, your chances of succeeding with an indie business are much, much higher than 0.1%.

I very much appreciate the reply (only saw it now).

I honestly don't know whether I or you are right or wrong. I know I am working with a limited data set (i.e. the people I have met and what I have read and absorbed online). Sounds like your experience is much the same, with the added benefit of doing this for a living via Indie Hackers (which is awesome btw). I am not aware of good places to find solid statistical data. Even if there were any, I'd say that they may not be valid - exactly for the reasons that you mentioned such as commitment, which is impossible to measure.

I think part of the problem is one of definition - what do we mean by "risk" really? If you mean the % of companies that, say, raised VC money but did not end up succeeding in the typical goal to reach $1B in valuation, is that actually risk? I don't think so - it is an outcome in the form of statistical probability for a specific goal, but it doesn't make sense to me to think of it as risk, at least with the common definition of the word from an entrepreneur's point of view. It may be a risk from the VC point of view, but that is rather unique because most entrepreneurs can't spread their bets.

That's why perhaps I should have used a word such as "effort." Making your goals smaller definitely gives you way more options - that much I 100% agree with. There are simply more ways to make $100K than $1M than $10M than $100M. But the effort does not seem to be any different from my (limited) experience. My friends working on bootstrapped companies have different problems - but are working just as hard as those with VC backing. The former are (sometimes) more in control of their companies since their goals are lower, while the latter find themselves chasing a bar that keeps rising. But both are working their butts off on a daily basis. I am not seeing things like competition being weaker or them having an easier time (again: limited data set so beware).

Experientially, my impression is that it is all about the product market fit. If that product market fit is strong and in a great market, the business is a powerboat that you can simply pour gas in to make it go faster and farther - as much as there is potential, which sometimes turns out to be a large enough for VC. On the other hand, if the business is a sailboat, then you are at the mercy of the winds. If they are in your favor and so strong that you can't keep the boat afloat, raising VC makes sense. But if they are not, then VC backing is a poor fit - gas is useless because it is finite and the moment you run out of it (i.e. out of cash), the winds will push you back or sink you or you will sit still. Most of the drama around financing stems directly from not understanding the nature of the business and therefore financing it incorrectly (e.g. aspirationally raising a VC round for what is really a non-VC company / sailboat). That's why the best companies rarely need a lot of money to show traction - because they have great product market fit in a fantastic market, which simply pulls them.

The thing is, you can't control or change product market fit. There seems to be a good chance you can't even analyze it without doing things. You discover the type of boat you have by getting out there and sailing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com