Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Drop what you're doing and watch this. A 22 year old non-coder built an app that made $60K in its first month. Another non-coder built one in 3 days and crossed $180K in roughly 2 months. The lesson isn't "learn to code." It's almost the opposite. Watch this video....

91,015 görüntüleme • 12 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

18 Yorum

Mind Essentials profil fotoğrafı
Mind Essentials12 gün önce

"Who is this for and where do they already hang out?" might be more important now than "How do I build this?"

Vision Surge profil fotoğrafı
Vision Surge12 gün önce

Exactly. Building is getting cheaper and easier. Knowing exactly who has the problem and how to reach them is becoming the real advantage.

Deep Flow profil fotoğrafı
Deep Flow12 gün önce

The founder knowing those communities before building the product feels like a much bigger advantage than people realize.

Vision Surge profil fotoğrafı
Vision Surge12 gün önce

100%. Knowing the community means you already understand their problems, language, and what they're willing to pay for. That's a huge head start.

Muscle Surge profil fotoğrafı
Muscle Surge12 gün önce

The distribution part is the real lesson here. Building the app is becoming easier. Getting people to care is still hard

Vision Surge profil fotoğrafı
Vision Surge12 gün önce

And that's why distribution is becoming a skill worth learning on its own. A great product sitting in an empty room is still an empty business.

Flow State profil fotoğrafı
Flow State12 gün önce

The $100K+ agency quote to building it himself in 3 days is a pretty insane example of how much the economics of software have changed.

Vision Surge profil fotoğrafı
Vision Surge12 gün önce

And that's what makes this so interesting. The cost of building is collapsing, but finding something people actually want is still hard.

Sasha profil fotoğrafı
Sasha12 gün önce

This is why random vibe-coded apps usually go nowhere. Being able to build something doesn't mean anyone wants it.

Vision Surge profil fotoğrafı
Vision Surge12 gün önce

That's the trap. AI makes it easy to build first and ask questions later. The smarter move is finding the demand before writing the first prompt.

Library Path profil fotoğrafı
Library Path12 gün önce

The 3-day build is crazy, but I'm more interested in what happened after day 3. That's where the business actually started.

Vision Surge profil fotoğrafı
Vision Surge12 gün önce

Exactly. Day 3 gave him a product. The next two months turned it into a business. That's the part most AI demos leave out.

Zoltium profil fotoğrafı
Zoltium12 gün önce

This completely changes the value of knowing a niche really well. If you already understand the people and their problems, AI can fill in a lot of the technical gap.

Vision Surge profil fotoğrafı
Vision Surge12 gün önce

That's becoming a serious advantage. You can teach AI the technical stuff much faster than you can teach someone years of understanding a niche.

Wisdom profil fotoğrafı
Wisdom12 gün önce

The $60K number gets your attention, but the way he found those first users is the part worth studying.

Vision Surge profil fotoğrafı
Vision Surge12 gün önce

Yeah, that's the part I'd reverse-engineer. Where did the first 10 customers come from? That's probably more useful than studying the code.

unfair.so profil fotoğrafı
unfair.so12 gün önce

the human reviewing the diff still cares

👑AMIT EINSTEIN👑 profil fotoğrafı
👑AMIT EINSTEIN👑12 gün önce

Tv 📺

Benzer Videolar

From Eric Vishria on how the top AI founders are building products completely opposite of the SaaS era: "One of the things that is really different in the AI world versus the SaaS world, is that in the SaaS world, over and over again, you had people who really understood the customer. And the problem. And then they understood a domain. They understood what the technology was more or less capable of. But it wasn't a real question of if you could build something or not. For example, take Salesforce, Workday, and ServiceNow. CRM existed before Salesforce. HR management existed before Workday. Same thing with ServiceNow. So in every case, Salesforce followed Siebel. Workday followed Peoplesoft. ServiceNow followed Peregrine and Remedy, and others. So they were just kind of, cloud SaaS versions of the prior generation product. They just understood the customers. They understood the problem. And they were just like, here's a better version. And that evolved a little bit over time in SaaS land. But that's what it is. And so product development in that way was done by people who really understood the customer and the problems. And then just took advantage of the next wave. And this is almost diametrically opposite of product development in the AI era. When I look at the teams that are having the most success today, they have intimate knowledge of the models. They are right on the frontier of understanding which models are better at what, and why, and when. And what they're going to be good at and what they're not going to be good at. And what they're spending their time on, is figuring out how do I apply this capability of this model to this domain or to this user. So they're actually working inside out or technology out, versus customer problem in. And of course, they understand the customer problem. And a lot of times they have firsthand knowledge of it. But they're really close to the metal and capability, and they're applying it. And I think this is a really different way to develop products than in SaaS. I started my career as a product manager a long time ago, and it's almost the complete opposite of everything you learned. "Listen to the customer, understand it, then bring it back to the engineering and product teams." If you did that right now, ask a bunch of customers what they want out of AI, and you brought it back, for the most part, it may not be possible today with today's technology. Whereas the teams that are winning right now really understand the technology and are applying it out. And so I think this reversal matters. I think it's a big difference in terms of how companies are getting built. And maybe even the types of entrepreneurs that will be successful. I'm not sure. You're seeing some real change there. Look at the Bret Taylor's at Sierra. That's a super, super technical founder who really gets it. Brett and Clay really get it. You look at Michael and his co-founders at Cursor. They're super technical founders and they get it. They all really understand what these things can and can't do. And that's a pretty different dynamic relative to the way the best SaaS companies got built." Link in bio for the full conversation going deep on the current class of startups going from zero to $100m+ in ARR within 12 months.

The Peel

209,752 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Evan Spiegel on the lesson that killed his first startup and led to Snapchat: "We focused on building the perfect product for way too long before we got feedback. We worked for like eighteen months to build this perfect full-featured product, which was in direct contravention to how I was always taught to build things. Build a prototype, build an MVP, get it in front of people, learn as quickly as possible. But we had spent all this time building this perfect piece of software and we hadn't thought enough about distribution. While we built this great piece of software, our competitor at the time, Naviance, had secured distribution through all the different college counselors. What piece of software are you going to choose to help your kid get into college? The one recommended by the college counselors or the one from two kids at Stanford? I think it's a pretty easy choice. So we saw very early that we had no distribution advantage. Even if we loved our software, people weren't going to use it because we didn't have a scalable way to get it in people's hands. Around that time when we saw the emergence of the App Store on iPhone, it was very clear that was a distribution channel we could really use and benefit from. But we also needed to build things we could build quickly, things we really were going to use together with our friends so we could be the first early customers. Ultimately Peekaboo and Snapchat represented that." This is exactly the asymmetry Peter Thiel describes in Zero to One: superior distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. Thiel puts an even finer point on it: most businesses get zero distribution channels to work. Poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. Estée Lauder said: it's not enough to have the most wonderful product in the world. You must be able to sell it. Many founders over-index on product perfection and under-invest in distribution. The world is full of great products nobody knows about, and mediocre products with massive distribution that dominate markets. Evan Spiegel lived it. He built the better product, watched it lose, and then built something he could actually distribute.

David Senra

27,151 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce