I think his point is that scaling up on the web is a solved problem, which is mostly true. If you look at most startup's pitch/plan the biggest risks are not in technology.
Steve Blank would say there's Market Risk (will your customers want it?) but minimal Invention Risk (can you deliver it?). Contrast this with biotech where you're trying to cure diseases. Minimal market risk, tons of invention risk. Read more here: http://steveblank.com/category/vertical-markets/
"his point is that scaling up on the web is a solved problem, which is mostly true"
Maybe, but that isn't what "Technology, however, isn’t the driver any more for startups" means. "Technology" is a lot more than "scaling on the web", even in software based startups.
"Steve Blank would say there's Market Risk (will your customers want it?) but minimal Invention Risk (can you deliver it?). "
Steve Blank is also careful to qualify that statement with "for some types of startups" (unlike the author of this article, hence my "too broad a brush" judgment). Assuming every software startup, even when the web is used as an interface, is a "web 2.0" startup with minimal Invention risk is intellectual laziness.
"The scarce talent is business model engineering and product marketing"
This doesn't have any supporting arguments/evidence/data. sounds like something a non programmer MBA type person, for whom of course programming is easy and programmers are commodity hires (like say receptionists) would say. I'd like to hear a supporting argument for why great programmers, who are what startups are usually desperate to hire, are not "scarce talent", but marketing folks are. Sure, for some startups, that is no doubt true, but as a generalization it seems too broad, which was my point.
So yes I've read Steve's book too and like it a lot :-), but I don't think this dichotomy of risks supports the original article much.
I think we're agreeing. As I do for all blogs, I just assumed the courtesy implicit prelude: "This is my opinion shaped by my experiences and most likely only applies to the system I'm currently interacting with."
I mostly agree with his sweeping generalization if applied to, say, the subset of startups that get coverage on Techcrunch.
"As I do for all blogs, I just assumed the courtesy implicit prelude: "This is my opinion shaped by my experiences and most likely only applies to the system I'm currently interacting with.""
As did I, but if, as a writer, I made an unqualified claim (even if true) that is completely out of whack with my readers experience, I think it is fair to get push back. This is perhaps due to my coming across this article on HN vs directly on the original site.
I think the article is a decent one (not great, but decent).
"I mostly agree with his sweeping generalization if applied to, say, the subset of startups that get coverage on Techcrunch."
I can't speak directly for John - I'll let him do that when he gets up in the morning and reads this thread....
.... but if I were to interpret that sentence and edit it to better clarify meaning (which in retrospect, I probably should have done since I'm the site's editor), I would put the qualifier "most" in that sentence, so it would read:
"Technology, however, isn’t the driver any more for [most] startups."
We see that to be quite true when you look at the base building blocks of many web startups. They're largely the same underneath the UI, same development environments, same infrastructure, and many even run on common CMSs, and it's the positioning (i.e., the marketing) of the startup that's the key differentiator.
That marketing influences the community that floods the site, how they perceive the site, and thus how they use the site (which affects the iterative direction of the site).
"Technology, however, isn’t the driver any more for [most] startups."
Well that is marginally better, but it still assumes a certain kind of startup as evinced by the statement "that marketing influences the community that floods the site,".
You don't need a "flood" of a site by a "community" to have a successful startup. You need customers . Whether customers are pulled in my deliberate "marketing" or technological superiority providing differential capability depends on the exact offering.
If you confine the technology behind a startup to things like using open source CMS es as "building blocks", then of course technology and programming are commodities, and the "scarce talent" is indeed marketing, not programming.
I could continue, but my original point was that it was an over broad generalization, which is addressed if you are talking about the kinds of startups using off the shelf building blocks as their "technology" and have no real technological differentiator, and therefore don't need excellent programmers (who are very hard to find- just ask anyone running a "non cms" startup.)
Under those circumstances, (in other words, with a narrower focus than implied in the original sentence ) the original claim is completely valid. Under those assumptions, technology is not the driver and "scarce talent" is indeed marketing. I concede the argument.
Yeah, I think there's a narrower focus than what might have been originally implied. I'll let John come in tomorrow and clarify, but most of what John and I deal with are either Web startups or tech sector directly related to web (cloud, hardware, consulting, analysis firms, social media and design firms, iPhone design firms, Facebook development houses, ad agencies that monetize one or more of the aforementioned company types).
This is our world, and though the Silicon Valley startup world encompasses more than these types of companies, this is what was likely in his mind when he wrote it (and the context by which I interpreted the post).
Comments
I think his point is that scaling up on the web is a solved problem, which is mostly true. If you look at most startup's pitch/plan the biggest risks are not in technology.
Steve Blank would say there's Market Risk (will your customers want it?) but minimal Invention Risk (can you deliver it?). Contrast this with biotech where you're trying to cure diseases. Minimal market risk, tons of invention risk. Read more here: http://steveblank.com/category/vertical-markets/
"his point is that scaling up on the web is a solved problem, which is mostly true"
Maybe, but that isn't what "Technology, however, isn’t the driver any more for startups" means. "Technology" is a lot more than "scaling on the web", even in software based startups.
"Steve Blank would say there's Market Risk (will your customers want it?) but minimal Invention Risk (can you deliver it?). "
Steve Blank is also careful to qualify that statement with "for some types of startups" (unlike the author of this article, hence my "too broad a brush" judgment). Assuming every software startup, even when the web is used as an interface, is a "web 2.0" startup with minimal Invention risk is intellectual laziness.
"The scarce talent is business model engineering and product marketing"
This doesn't have any supporting arguments/evidence/data. sounds like something a non programmer MBA type person, for whom of course programming is easy and programmers are commodity hires (like say receptionists) would say. I'd like to hear a supporting argument for why great programmers, who are what startups are usually desperate to hire, are not "scarce talent", but marketing folks are. Sure, for some startups, that is no doubt true, but as a generalization it seems too broad, which was my point.
So yes I've read Steve's book too and like it a lot :-), but I don't think this dichotomy of risks supports the original article much.
I think we're agreeing. As I do for all blogs, I just assumed the courtesy implicit prelude: "This is my opinion shaped by my experiences and most likely only applies to the system I'm currently interacting with."
I mostly agree with his sweeping generalization if applied to, say, the subset of startups that get coverage on Techcrunch.
"I think we're agreeing."
Yes we are.
"As I do for all blogs, I just assumed the courtesy implicit prelude: "This is my opinion shaped by my experiences and most likely only applies to the system I'm currently interacting with.""
As did I, but if, as a writer, I made an unqualified claim (even if true) that is completely out of whack with my readers experience, I think it is fair to get push back. This is perhaps due to my coming across this article on HN vs directly on the original site.
I think the article is a decent one (not great, but decent).
"I mostly agree with his sweeping generalization if applied to, say, the subset of startups that get coverage on Techcrunch."
As would I. But this is HN. :-)
I can't speak directly for John - I'll let him do that when he gets up in the morning and reads this thread....
.... but if I were to interpret that sentence and edit it to better clarify meaning (which in retrospect, I probably should have done since I'm the site's editor), I would put the qualifier "most" in that sentence, so it would read:
"Technology, however, isn’t the driver any more for [most] startups."
We see that to be quite true when you look at the base building blocks of many web startups. They're largely the same underneath the UI, same development environments, same infrastructure, and many even run on common CMSs, and it's the positioning (i.e., the marketing) of the startup that's the key differentiator.
That marketing influences the community that floods the site, how they perceive the site, and thus how they use the site (which affects the iterative direction of the site).
"Technology, however, isn’t the driver any more for [most] startups."
Well that is marginally better, but it still assumes a certain kind of startup as evinced by the statement "that marketing influences the community that floods the site,".
You don't need a "flood" of a site by a "community" to have a successful startup. You need customers . Whether customers are pulled in my deliberate "marketing" or technological superiority providing differential capability depends on the exact offering.
If you confine the technology behind a startup to things like using open source CMS es as "building blocks", then of course technology and programming are commodities, and the "scarce talent" is indeed marketing, not programming.
I could continue, but my original point was that it was an over broad generalization, which is addressed if you are talking about the kinds of startups using off the shelf building blocks as their "technology" and have no real technological differentiator, and therefore don't need excellent programmers (who are very hard to find- just ask anyone running a "non cms" startup.)
Under those circumstances, (in other words, with a narrower focus than implied in the original sentence ) the original claim is completely valid. Under those assumptions, technology is not the driver and "scarce talent" is indeed marketing. I concede the argument.
Yeah, I think there's a narrower focus than what might have been originally implied. I'll let John come in tomorrow and clarify, but most of what John and I deal with are either Web startups or tech sector directly related to web (cloud, hardware, consulting, analysis firms, social media and design firms, iPhone design firms, Facebook development houses, ad agencies that monetize one or more of the aforementioned company types).
This is our world, and though the Silicon Valley startup world encompasses more than these types of companies, this is what was likely in his mind when he wrote it (and the context by which I interpreted the post).