正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

How Can Scientists Best Become Founders? david friedberg answers a fan question from James Sinka - Boston & SF: "I think the biggest challenge that scientists face when trying to build businesses is shifting from a research and discovery mindset to a product and customer mindset." this can be...

theallinpod's profile picture

The All-In Podcast

573,909 subscribers

65,259 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术教育
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

5 条评论

james sinka 🍊 bio/acc - Lives in Boston 的头像
james sinka 🍊 bio/acc - Lives in Boston2 年前

@friedberg @friedberg thank you so much for the response @theallinpod !!! I'm a YC alum & science founder, I'm helping other scientists become founders, would you be open to discussing the Scientist v Founder transformation more in a public forum with me @friedberg ?

Non-Linear 的头像
Non-Linear2 年前

@friedberg @jamessinka Step 1: Never let them write code.

AyeSee 的头像
AyeSee2 年前

@friedberg @jamessinka They don't need to be and, ironically, the more they push for that, it's likely the tougher they will find the pursuit of their stated goal. Life is a journey; travel it well - the destination is less important than enjoying the ride!

objuankenobi 的头像
objuankenobi2 年前

@friedberg @jamessinka

Martha Johnson 的头像
Martha Johnson2 年前

@friedberg @jamessinka Opinion: They need to think in terms of being a customer & an advertiser. If I'm buying this product, why would I choose this instead of that? Sell it to yourself & become an instant marketer. I need this because it's safe, affordable, user friendly, with a free matching case.

相关视频

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."
2:15

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Founder Mode

39,005 次观看 • 6 个月前

Rahul Vohra on how to measure product/market fit Rahul Vohra is the founder and CEO of Superhuman. He was looking for a metric to measure product/market fit so that he and his team could optimize, and he came across the following methodology from Sean Ellis: Simply ask your users: “How would you feel if you could no longer use the product?” with three options: (1) not disappointed, (2) somewhat disappointed, or (3) very disappointed. It turns out that the benchmark for product/market fit across hundreds of venture-backed startups is 40% of respondents saying “very disappointed”. And as Rahul puts it: “If more than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you should focus on growing your company. If less than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you’ll probably struggle to grow.” 40% may not sound like a lot, but it’s an incredibly hard benchmark to beat. For example, Slack posed this to 731 customers early in the company’s history, and 51% said they would be very disappointed without Slack. One might expect a terrific product like Slack to have a score of 60-80%, but that wasn’t the case. Rahul’s explanation of why the response options are focused on disappointment rather than happiness is interesting too: “I think the reason behind that is that if you ask people how they feel about a product and you give them positive potential responses, I think it invites more bias. People are more likely to be polite. And it also doesn’t get to the heart of the matter which is: how necessary has your product become in people’s lives? If you’re trying to build a company that’s going to stand the test of time, you really do have to build a product that matters and that people ultimately come to depend on because it’s just so incredible at what it does. And that’s what this question gets to the heart of.”
4:39

Rahul Vohra on how to measure product/market fit Rahul Vohra is the founder and CEO of Superhuman. He was looking for a metric to measure product/market fit so that he and his team could optimize, and he came across the following methodology from Sean Ellis: Simply ask your users: “How would you feel if you could no longer use the product?” with three options: (1) not disappointed, (2) somewhat disappointed, or (3) very disappointed. It turns out that the benchmark for product/market fit across hundreds of venture-backed startups is 40% of respondents saying “very disappointed”. And as Rahul puts it: “If more than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you should focus on growing your company. If less than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you’ll probably struggle to grow.” 40% may not sound like a lot, but it’s an incredibly hard benchmark to beat. For example, Slack posed this to 731 customers early in the company’s history, and 51% said they would be very disappointed without Slack. One might expect a terrific product like Slack to have a score of 60-80%, but that wasn’t the case. Rahul’s explanation of why the response options are focused on disappointment rather than happiness is interesting too: “I think the reason behind that is that if you ask people how they feel about a product and you give them positive potential responses, I think it invites more bias. People are more likely to be polite. And it also doesn’t get to the heart of the matter which is: how necessary has your product become in people’s lives? If you’re trying to build a company that’s going to stand the test of time, you really do have to build a product that matters and that people ultimately come to depend on because it’s just so incredible at what it does. And that’s what this question gets to the heart of.”

Michael McGuiness

67,106 次观看 • 2 年前

Many startups find early pull, but only a few break out. Why? They stop at product/market fit and never find business model fit. Business model fit isn’t just about how much you charge for your product, but HOW you charge for it, and how you align customer value with your pricing. There’s a lot of advice out there about seat-based vs. usage-based vs. outcome-based pricing, but all of that is just noise. The search for business model fit is as specific to your company as the search for product market fit. You need to align your acquisition strategy and monetization strategy with your customer and product. It’s all one interconnected system. Take Slack for example: many associate Slack’s early success with its fun, creative design and fresh approach to communication. That’s what drew people to the product. But a big part of what made Slack a breakout success was business model fit. Freemium wasn’t just an acquisition tactic, it was essential to driving the revenue flywheel, viral expansion, and adoption in the enterprise. Obvious in retrospect, but controversial and against the grain of what others were doing at the time. The best founders don’t just chase product/market fit, they design a business model to make their product unstoppable. If that’s you, we want to meet you a16z speedrun 🧊 - link in replies
2:07

Many startups find early pull, but only a few break out. Why? They stop at product/market fit and never find business model fit. Business model fit isn’t just about how much you charge for your product, but HOW you charge for it, and how you align customer value with your pricing. There’s a lot of advice out there about seat-based vs. usage-based vs. outcome-based pricing, but all of that is just noise. The search for business model fit is as specific to your company as the search for product market fit. You need to align your acquisition strategy and monetization strategy with your customer and product. It’s all one interconnected system. Take Slack for example: many associate Slack’s early success with its fun, creative design and fresh approach to communication. That’s what drew people to the product. But a big part of what made Slack a breakout success was business model fit. Freemium wasn’t just an acquisition tactic, it was essential to driving the revenue flywheel, viral expansion, and adoption in the enterprise. Obvious in retrospect, but controversial and against the grain of what others were doing at the time. The best founders don’t just chase product/market fit, they design a business model to make their product unstoppable. If that’s you, we want to meet you a16z speedrun 🧊 - link in replies

Fareed Mosavat

24,820 次观看 • 11 个月前

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”
2:43

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Startup Archive

17,333 次观看 • 6 个月前

A popular liquid substance, Sukurdai, a product sold on the streets and sometimes in markets, often promoted as something that cleanses the human system. I want you to take your time and watch as our scientists explain exactly what it does to your body.
3:05

A popular liquid substance, Sukurdai, a product sold on the streets and sometimes in markets, often promoted as something that cleanses the human system. I want you to take your time and watch as our scientists explain exactly what it does to your body.

Dr. George

68,498 次观看 • 4 个月前

They want you to stop trusting scientists, and trust only them. But then they turn around and use research and data collected by those very same scientists to support their claims. Then they cherry-pick the findings and overstate the conclusions far beyond what the evidence actually shows. And when the scientific community pushes back, they say you can’t trust them—even though the entire narrative they’re pushing is built on their work. Hard to tell. Is it nearly the entire scientific community misleading people and politicizing science? Or is it the politicians who promised to find a “cause” of a complex neurodevelopmental condition by a set date and need to say something to fit their political narrative? And if you think most of us speaking out right now wouldn’t be saying the exact same thing if this kind of anti-science rhetoric were coming from a Democratic administration, then you’re the one letting politics cloud your judgment. Because this isn’t about left versus right. It’s about science versus pseudoscience. - Dr. Jessica Knurick
2:54

They want you to stop trusting scientists, and trust only them. But then they turn around and use research and data collected by those very same scientists to support their claims. Then they cherry-pick the findings and overstate the conclusions far beyond what the evidence actually shows. And when the scientific community pushes back, they say you can’t trust them—even though the entire narrative they’re pushing is built on their work. Hard to tell. Is it nearly the entire scientific community misleading people and politicizing science? Or is it the politicians who promised to find a “cause” of a complex neurodevelopmental condition by a set date and need to say something to fit their political narrative? And if you think most of us speaking out right now wouldn’t be saying the exact same thing if this kind of anti-science rhetoric were coming from a Democratic administration, then you’re the one letting politics cloud your judgment. Because this isn’t about left versus right. It’s about science versus pseudoscience. - Dr. Jessica Knurick

Dr. Jonathan N. Stea

26,177 次观看 • 10 个月前

How science works according to Nobel Prize winner Thomas Südhof: Very often, politicians think that you can tell scientists what they’re supposed to discover. You can’t! Scientists don’t know what they are going to discover. They have to try things. They have to have curiosity and ideas, but they also have to have the knowledge to try things. Very often, it leads to nothing; it’s a waste. But we didn’t know when we started it’s a waste. But when something does work. When something clicks, it is exciting and rewarding but it’s never just one click. You get a result on it, you’re hopeful, you build on it. Maybe it’s confirmed you’re even more hopeful. So it’s an incremental process. It is never one thing - boom we discovered a major thing, my god this is it. It is more like walking up a flight of stairs where each step counts and the higher up the stairs you go the better you can see what’s on top and become excited about what’s there and how you can use.
1:07

How science works according to Nobel Prize winner Thomas Südhof: Very often, politicians think that you can tell scientists what they’re supposed to discover. You can’t! Scientists don’t know what they are going to discover. They have to try things. They have to have curiosity and ideas, but they also have to have the knowledge to try things. Very often, it leads to nothing; it’s a waste. But we didn’t know when we started it’s a waste. But when something does work. When something clicks, it is exciting and rewarding but it’s never just one click. You get a result on it, you’re hopeful, you build on it. Maybe it’s confirmed you’re even more hopeful. So it’s an incremental process. It is never one thing - boom we discovered a major thing, my god this is it. It is more like walking up a flight of stairs where each step counts and the higher up the stairs you go the better you can see what’s on top and become excited about what’s there and how you can use.

Itai Yanai

36,419 次观看 • 1 个月前

Ben Horowitz explains the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video Source: UC Berkeley
1:50

Ben Horowitz explains the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video Source: UC Berkeley

Startup Archive

77,268 次观看 • 2 年前

Ben Horowitz on the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video source: UC Berkeley (2009)
1:50

Ben Horowitz on the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video source: UC Berkeley (2009)

Startup Archive

36,753 次观看 • 4 个月前

Howie CEO austin petersmith told us building an AI secretary is harder than it looks. For a product like this, he said "you have to put a pretty bad product into market in order to get a good one." Last year, they worked with customers to understand the patterns and mapping out the mindset of an executive assistant. Now, that product is available to everyone.
1:54

Howie CEO austin petersmith told us building an AI secretary is harder than it looks. For a product like this, he said "you have to put a pretty bad product into market in order to get a good one." Last year, they worked with customers to understand the patterns and mapping out the mindset of an executive assistant. Now, that product is available to everyone.

TBPN

11,051 次观看 • 10 个月前

One of the major leavers we have in web3 is using incentives to attract users. The issue is often teams use these mechanisms to retain users. This gives a false sense of product market fit. I think using incentives as user aquisition make sense. Similar to spending $5 on ads to acquire a user spending 5 tokens is god UA spend. Continuing to spend to retain I think is dangerous. Teams should try to turn off these mechanisms to see what their true baseline is. Otherwise you may think you have product market fit when you don't.
1:02

One of the major leavers we have in web3 is using incentives to attract users. The issue is often teams use these mechanisms to retain users. This gives a false sense of product market fit. I think using incentives as user aquisition make sense. Similar to spending $5 on ads to acquire a user spending 5 tokens is god UA spend. Continuing to spend to retain I think is dangerous. Teams should try to turn off these mechanisms to see what their true baseline is. Otherwise you may think you have product market fit when you don't.

paul.somi

11,800 次观看 • 1 年前

We live in a golden age of biology. So why are people still dying from disease? Because discovery and development move slower than they should. Today, we’re partnering with Incyte to change that. Kosmos is now the first agent that can compress months of drug development into weeks, from the earliest stages of scientific discovery through to FDA approval. Incyte will be the first company to deploy it across their pipeline. Work that used to take a team of scientists months now happens in weeks. Patients can't wait, and neither can we.
1:21

We live in a golden age of biology. So why are people still dying from disease? Because discovery and development move slower than they should. Today, we’re partnering with Incyte to change that. Kosmos is now the first agent that can compress months of drug development into weeks, from the earliest stages of scientific discovery through to FDA approval. Incyte will be the first company to deploy it across their pipeline. Work that used to take a team of scientists months now happens in weeks. Patients can't wait, and neither can we.

Sam Rodriques

7,030,922 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨 SCIENTISTS CREATED THE WORLD'S FIRST SELF REPLICATING SYNTHETIC LIFE FORM — AND PEOPLE ARE FREAKING OUT This sounds like the plot of a science fiction movie. It isn't. A team of scientists spent roughly 15 years and $40 million creating what they described as the world's first self replicating synthetic life form. Not discovered. Created. The organism's genetic code was designed on a computer. Its DNA was manufactured in a laboratory. And once activated, it began doing something that immediately captured the world's attention: It started making copies of itself. The scientists behind the project openly described DNA as the "software of life." Their goal wasn't just to study living organisms. It was to learn how to write the code from scratch. According to the researchers, this technology could eventually be used to create new medicines, faster vaccines, cleaner fuels, custom designed organisms, and countless products that currently come from nature. One scientist even predicted that future vaccines could potentially be designed in less than 24 hours using synthetic DNA processes. Supporters call it one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of the modern era. Critics say it raises questions humanity has never had to answer before. Because once scientists can create synthetic life... where exactly does the line get drawn? The lead researcher said the future isn't just about reading the genetic code of life. It's about learning how to write it. At what point does scientific advancement become scientists playing God?
3:51

🚨 SCIENTISTS CREATED THE WORLD'S FIRST SELF REPLICATING SYNTHETIC LIFE FORM — AND PEOPLE ARE FREAKING OUT This sounds like the plot of a science fiction movie. It isn't. A team of scientists spent roughly 15 years and $40 million creating what they described as the world's first self replicating synthetic life form. Not discovered. Created. The organism's genetic code was designed on a computer. Its DNA was manufactured in a laboratory. And once activated, it began doing something that immediately captured the world's attention: It started making copies of itself. The scientists behind the project openly described DNA as the "software of life." Their goal wasn't just to study living organisms. It was to learn how to write the code from scratch. According to the researchers, this technology could eventually be used to create new medicines, faster vaccines, cleaner fuels, custom designed organisms, and countless products that currently come from nature. One scientist even predicted that future vaccines could potentially be designed in less than 24 hours using synthetic DNA processes. Supporters call it one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of the modern era. Critics say it raises questions humanity has never had to answer before. Because once scientists can create synthetic life... where exactly does the line get drawn? The lead researcher said the future isn't just about reading the genetic code of life. It's about learning how to write it. At what point does scientific advancement become scientists playing God?

HustleBitch

16,030 次观看 • 1 个月前

Sam Altman on why you shouldn’t track absolute user growth in the early days of a startup “Nothing but a great product will save you; you can get everything else right and it still won’t work.” He points out that almost all startup founders get the following wrong: “It is more important to have a small number of users that love you than a lot of users that like you… Eventually what you want of course is a lot of users that really love your product, but that’s almost impossible to do.” In practice, you have two choices: Deep and Narrow: “You have a small number of users that really love you and then find out how to find more and more of those users and broaden the appeal of the product.” Shallow and Wide: “You can have a lot of people that sort of use the product once or twice and kind of like it and try to figure out how to get them more engaged over time.” “With high confidence, I can say that you want to start with a small number of users that really love you. Almost all great companies have products that start this way.” He argues that a good indicator of users loving your product is retention and frequency of use: “In fact, I think this is so important that you actually shouldn’t track absolute growth in number of users in the early days of a startup. You should just track how often they’re using it… That’s a good early indicator of users that love you—better still is them spontaneously telling their friends to buy your product.” Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!
1:41

Sam Altman on why you shouldn’t track absolute user growth in the early days of a startup “Nothing but a great product will save you; you can get everything else right and it still won’t work.” He points out that almost all startup founders get the following wrong: “It is more important to have a small number of users that love you than a lot of users that like you… Eventually what you want of course is a lot of users that really love your product, but that’s almost impossible to do.” In practice, you have two choices: Deep and Narrow: “You have a small number of users that really love you and then find out how to find more and more of those users and broaden the appeal of the product.” Shallow and Wide: “You can have a lot of people that sort of use the product once or twice and kind of like it and try to figure out how to get them more engaged over time.” “With high confidence, I can say that you want to start with a small number of users that really love you. Almost all great companies have products that start this way.” He argues that a good indicator of users loving your product is retention and frequency of use: “In fact, I think this is so important that you actually shouldn’t track absolute growth in number of users in the early days of a startup. You should just track how often they’re using it… That’s a good early indicator of users that love you—better still is them spontaneously telling their friends to buy your product.” Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!

Startup Archive

565,789 次观看 • 2 年前