[jacquesm]

I think you miss the point entirely and quoting Paul Graham without understanding what he writes is not going to help either.

What Paras is getting at here is that if your goal is to make money then you are probably better off building something that has that premise baked in to it from the first moment rather than to just go and make some consumer app that might get traction but that will be hard to monetise.

The 'people' from Pauls piece can be interpreted as both consumers and businesses, and if you aim for 'people' that are willing and used to spending money for the kind of service that you provide then you stand a much better chance of making money than if you just 'build anything people love and use'.

Sure, youtube is a great counterargument, but barring being bought out by some big company such a success could easily be lethal. See 'imeem' and lots of other highly popular but ultimately losing propositions.

Making money should not be an afterthought, it should be a focal point if that is your motivation to do this sort of thing. If you do it for fun or because of a drive to change the world for the better, if you're already rich from past ventures and any one of a hundred other reasons why you are not currently in it for the money then sure, go ahead and do that thing that scratches your itch.

But if you plan on paying the bills focus on where the money is made first.

[jpcx01]

Nah. pg's post fits perfectly here. Specifically the part "Don't be discouraged if what you produce initially is something other people dismiss as a toy."

This is exactly what paras is doing. Dismissing apps he doesn't think can make money as toys. Why should the focus just be on making money?

Saying "if your goal is to make money" is sort of strange to me anyways. Probably because my goal is not to make money, but to build new and interesting things that have an impact. Focusing just on money to start seems like the path to building yet another 37signals basecamp knockoff.

[jacquesm]

> Dismissing apps he doesn't think can make money as toys.

No, it's just that bills want to be paid and if you plan on paying the bills from your venture then you should plan on doing something where making money is not a question but (assuming proper execution) as good as guaranteed. Typically in the business world that means you start signing up your (potential, pilot) customers before you have a product.

Dismissing apps that can't make money as toys is not the same as saying that 'what you produce initially is something other people dismiss as a toy'. Really, they're not even close to being the same thing.

> Maybe thats just because my goal is not to make money. It's to build interesting things and have an impact.

Yes, that probably has something to do with it. If making money is a secondary goal to you for whatever reason then you are in a luxury situation, one that likely the vast majority of the people out there envy you very much for.

The interesting part for me is that typically developing without a monetary incentive to do so leads to lots of wasted time and effort, having a simple and concrete number to measure the success of your application by (turnover vs 'eyeballs') works wonders to stay focused.

"Make something people want" is not a religious item, it's common sense if you want to make money you had better make sure that there is a market for your product. That's the 'want' bit.

Developing 'just for eyeballs' or 'impact' or 'personal interest', 'technical fascination' and so on is great but without a monetization strategy you might as well be living in 1999.

You keep taking PGs words out of context and applying them to the writing of Paras because in your mind there is a seeming contradiction but I think the similarities are far larger than the differences.

YC typically does not invest in companies that have no clear idea of how they plan to make money, even when they're focused on the consumers.

[jasonlotito]

> Saying "if your goal is to make money" is sort of strange to me anyways. Probably because my goal is not to make money, but to build new and interesting things that have an impact.

That's sort of the point Paras is making though. If your building a new and interesting things to have impact, but your expecting it to make money and calling it a startup, it's not OK.

> Why should the focus just be on making money?

He's not saying it should.

> Dismissing apps he doesn't think can make money as toys

He's not doing this either.

[jpcx01]

I am expecting to make money. And I am calling what I do a startup. And the my goal of the startup is to build new and interesting things.

I guess thats not OK

[jasonlotito]

You're being obtuse on purpose. But I'll bite:

> I am expecting to make money.

Merely expecting to make money doesn't make money. You have to have a plan to make money. You can expect things all you want, but they won't happen.

> And I am calling what I do a startup.

You can call what you do a startup. Calling it a startup doesn't make it so. A rose by any other name and all that jazz.

> And the my goal of the startup is to build new and interesting things.

See, that's your problem. You don't even know what you are building. "New and interesting things"? What is that? You have to be specific.

So, literally, you are expecting to make money from a startup where you build new and interesting things. You don't know what those new and interesting things are, or how you can make money from it, or even if you can make money from it. You don't have a business plan. You don't even know what market you'll be in (the building new and interesting things market?).

[jpcx01]

You're right, I'm not really happy with my input in the thread. Obtuse is a good word for it.

I doubt we have that different of an outlook. My passionate disagreement with the original author however is the belief you have to put making money above all else. I've seen too many startups end in failure (many of them clients) because they tried to monetize too early, or put nickle and diming customers above user satisfaction.

[chc]

I think you've got the article exactly backwards. As I read it, the point is not that you have to put making money above all else. The point is that your chances of making money improve dramatically if you consider first what people are willing to pay money for.

I find that the other approach is more likely to invent the kind of annoying and harmful revenue strategies you're criticizing. A product that has a built-in market of customers waving money does not need to stoop to that level to turn a profit. You can focus on making a product that your customers like and making sure they know about it.

How you prioritize making money is up to you. The OP is a helpful tip on getting it if you want it.

[jasonlotito]

> My passionate disagreement with the original author however is the belief you have to put making money above all else.

That's where the confusion is. That's not what the author intends. Basically what he's saying is that you can't just build something and expect to get paid for it. Switch out the word expect for "demand" and that might help matters. Just because you create something doesn't mean people are obligated to pay for it. Expecting that is wrong.

The author doesn't believe in putting money above all else. You don't even need to monetize early. But you need to have a plan. Just expecting things to work out all right is the wrong way to do it.

[drndown2007]

It's OK if you have a plan for how you'll make money. If you're just building something cool, and figure, somehow..., later..., you'll make money, that's what he is saying is not OK.

DHH at 37signals would probably agree too since that's his thing -- if you can't charge from the get go, you're not building a business, you're just gambling on 'good luck' happening somewhere (ie getting bought out by Google, etc)

[nadam]

I think Paul Grahams essay IS somewhat contradicting Paras's essay. For example look at this paragraph:

"organic startup ideas usually don't seem like startup ideas at first. We know now that Facebook was very successful, but put yourself back in 2004. Putting undergraduates' profiles online wouldn't have seemed like much of a startup idea. And in fact, it wasn't initially a startup idea. When Mark spoke at a YC dinner this winter he said he wasn't trying to start a company when he wrote the first version of Facebook. It was just a project. So was the Apple I when Woz first started working on it. He didn't think he was starting a company. If these guys had thought they were starting companies, they might have been tempted to do something more "serious," and that would have been a mistake."

I think Paul is suggestinging (at least emotionally) that you shoud follow your creativity and hope for a later opportunity of a great business.

In my opinion Paul is focusing on the kind of businesses which are mostly B2C, very innovative and very very risky.

My taste is somewhere in-between: my idea is that somewhow the joy of creativity should be combined with some seemingly boring old fashioned B2B market's need.