[birken]

The classic startup article fallacy. Let's look at these group of winning startups (from the somewhat distant past) and then find some commonalities and then make them a general guide for startups today. Without looking at the losers, you have no idea what characteristics of the "winning" startup was actually the most important. I have no doubt that for every one company that succeeded at one of these bullet points, ten failed doing something similar. That isn't to say the ideas are bad, but the fact that one startup succeeded doing them doesn't mean it is good.

Also why is everybody so afraid to mention luck in posts like these? I think if you build a product for a new web browser, and that browser becomes the #1 browser on the internet, that is pretty lucky. Yes, there is a ton of skill there too, but also a ton of luck.

I'm not saying the lessons in this post are necessarily bad, but statements like "This is how networked products achieve viral growth" and "So here’s the secret" are just hyperbole, nothing more.

[benmathes]

I worked at RockYou.com in its heyday, which was when we had the #1 app on facebook, Superwall.

Superwall used exactly one of the strategies outlined in this article: Fix one of the pain points on a platform. The platform was Facebook, the pain point was sharing images and videos with your friends.

Facebook decided that sharing images and videos with your friends was a good idea, perhaps because they saw our success with it.

Superwall died. Rockyou pivoted into something totally different. A couple down-rounds of funding (I think).

"Take on the pain points of a platform" is usually referred to as "Don't try to beat the platform at being the platform".

[coryl]

Eh, that's the catch with building on platforms. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[larrys]

"The classic startup article fallacy."

Also classic medium.com type article or for that matter many things that end up on HN. Someone says something (many times you don't even know who they are) and then there is a comment frenzy of people feasting on said article.

One of my first thoughts was who is "Sangeet Paul Choudary" and why should I pay attention to anything he is saying? What is unique about his perspective vs. anyone elses?

"Without looking at the losers, you have no idea what characteristics of the "winning" startup was actually the most important. "

Agree 100%. Same as "Steve Jobs did X and that's why" w/o knowing all the people who did X that achieved squat. No control group. Or (as you pointed out with regards to "luck") being Steve Jobs in the right place at the right time.

[sarahcuda]

The classic HN reader fallacy.

Listen to someone because of who they are (especially within HN) rather than what they have to say.

[Geekette]

Agreed. Timing also plays a vital part.

However, I generally find articles like these, which state the obvious with the benefit of hindsight do not really impart any new knowledge, thus are a waste of time.

[biggfoot]

Within the bounds of that article, the author's points are fairly valid. I mean he hasn't emphasized piggybacking as the one ring to rule them all.

For a new startup these are good lessons to learn from. Of course, there is always a danger in building your business atop a competitor platform but if your timing and execution is such that the parent platform can't outdo you right away you can do a decent amount of business.

[diminish]

we, humans tend to believe that we do better because of purposeful action, or reason and exclude luck as a non-intelligent way to act on our environment. growth always has many dynamics and still appears like luck, magic, alchemy or connections. all these posts are attempts to raise it to the level of actionable knowledge.

[bosnian]

I don't think the intent is to say that this is the only way it works. It's probably just to show these are the common patterns while piggybacking. The luck bit goes without saying.