Content pfp
Content
@
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Nick T pfp
Nick T
@nt
it seems that startup approaches split politically along the rift of techno-centricity: whether we believe in technology is a means to an end, a tool, or its own domain around which other things orbit. two groups and two dogmas form: vibe of the first: "let's hire a dev to ship this", do things that don’t scale, enterprise SaaS, user interviews, product/business CEO. vibe of the second: “fuck around and find out”, hackathons, tinkering, research and deep tech, engineer as CEO.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
dusan.framedl.eth pfp
dusan.framedl.eth
@ds8
hmm, i kind of believe in first and prefer the 2nd approach. maybe it's a matrix :)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Nick T pfp
Nick T
@nt
i think it depends if you aim to build a business or a technology. you don't build amazon or airbnb by tinkering in the same way as you don't build bitcoin or midjourney with user interviews
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
dusan.framedl.eth pfp
dusan.framedl.eth
@ds8
reading more carefully i actually prefer combination. i think it depends on the level of innovation you need to bring in to succeed. sometimes, you're "just" optimizing operational efficiency. sometimes you have to be really inventive (no way about it without a bit of "fafo").
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Nick T pfp
Nick T
@nt
bingo 🎯 - besides, why should we be dogmatic about anything? despite this many are - mostly in blindly following people who have succeeded with one method or another and then wrote books about it. E.g. Thiel vs. Ries.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
dusan.framedl.eth pfp
dusan.framedl.eth
@ds8
oh yes, agency is hard. having no one to blame but myself in case of failure is a tough pill to swallow.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction