Hacker News Reader

Comment by breck | Hacker News Reader

(b) I've heard of many Internet companies like this.

In fact, most of the stories I've heard of companies doing the 20-hour day thing end in failure. I think more people try it that way.

Actually, I should rephrase that---companies that START OUT with 20 hour days more often than not end in failure.

The reason why is simple: there's no reason why you need to work that hard until you've found a "magic model" and are scaling it.

In other words, here is my blueprint for maximizing your odds of starting a successful Internet company:

a) have stable income.

b) start side projects part time, don't work on them for more than a few hours a day.

c) once one of the side projects is generating significant revenue more than income source A, or is growing like a Twitter, then slowly ramp up to where you're working the 10+ hour day thing

d) sell for bazillions

If you skip A and B, you will likely fail.

View on HN

While it might works for some, it definitely not working for me.

I am still a fond believer in going full-time if you're doing startup. The reason is because, 95% of the people that i know (include me), work much more effectively if you go full time. Your speed are just faster and you discover dead-end faster (and most of us definitely hit that wall). Beside those, i've seen again and again that if you don't jump on it full time, most people will have "excuse" to go back to their job / school. There is always excuse to drop the project especially when things get tough/rejected (your whole hypotheses about the business collape? rejection by Y Combinator?).

My experience is, when you put yourself on the line, you'll go extra mile to grab anything that are needed to be successful. Understandable though that this is more possible for person like me, single-and-no-family.

>My experience is, when you put yourself on the line, you'll go extra mile to grab anything that are needed to be successful.

Has this worked for you?

My experience is, when you put yourself on the line, you fall a lot harder.

Doing things part time has tended to work much better for me.

Going extra mile and everything else tend to work smoother, yes.

It's too early to say we're anywhere near success. =) Guess this is preference. But, i'll stick with what works for me.

What you describe is the no-risk route. However, by going full time on a project you increase its chances of success significantly. I'd argue that it is very hard to determine that an idea (including successive iterations) will not lead to a successful internet company till you go full time on it.

> However, by going full time on a project you increase its chances of success significantly.

Yes, you do increase the project's chances of "success" significantly. You don't, however, increase your chances of success. Instead, you increase your chances of failure and decrease your chances of significant success.

The reason is because odds are, you've chosen the wrong project. Also, as things inevitably go wrong, if you don't have a cushion you're greatly increasing your chances of failure.

> What you describe is the no-risk route.

There is still risk in putting time and/or money into a project part time. Also, even if your project has traction there will still be a lot of risk in going at it full time.

I think the opposite of what I'm describing is not even the high risk route, it's the gambling route. You get more of a rush but it's not wise to do and generally ends badly.

> I'd argue that it is very hard to determine that an idea (including successive iterations) will not lead to a successful internet company till you go full time on it.

I disagree. I think you should assume odds are very high that the idea will not lead to a successful internet company, UNLESS you have good traction when you go full time on it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com