[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)