Hacker News Reader

They spent $100M on the first phone, and $200M left over. They had capital for multiple throws, and even started working on them.

View on HN

What still puzzles me then is why they didn't keep throwing. Did they really only have one product hypothesis that they thought was worthwhile? What lesson did they learn about phones here that was enough to kill the business? And did they really have to spend $100m to learn whatever that was?

Actually there were a couple of reasons for this:

1. Not falling behind the curve. It seemed they couldn't stick to a deadline because each time they tried to, they would identify a newer cooler hardware feature that "had to be in". Doesn't help to do this when you don't have an established brand.

2. Incestuous hiring practises where it was based on brand name of canditates' school and past companies instead of focussing on indicators of execution and expertise!

3. No sense of urgency. In Andy we Trust!

Ah, interesting. That's a good example of something I think about a lot. Startups mainly focus on testing product hypotheses, but they also test organizational hypotheses, like ones about who to hire, how to organize people, and how to approach the work. This is a good reminder that you need to have enough of your organizational stuff right just to usefully test your product hypotheses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com