Spire Magazine: a teenage (mis)adventure

September 3, 2011 | Leave a comment

My high school yearbook entryI wrote a piece over on Google+ about Spire Magazine, my first real Internet project:

I became the editor and publisher, roping in our friends with the promise that they could get free games if they reviewed them. We considered static text files or the web, but decided that neither had the possibilities for layout and design that we wanted. So instead, every month I would edit everyone’s articles and compile them down into Windows Help format: an encapsulated hypertext format that could easily be downloaded. (These days, I’m convinced I would have used epub.)

[...] One piece we ran several times was called “What do you do on the Internet?” Nowadays the answer would be “everything”, but back then usage was still emerging. So people like Nicholas Negroponte, G.B. Trudeau and Roger Ebert would reply with very specific examples. I wish I still had a copy of these early issues.

These experiences still color everything I do; you can read the whole post over here. What was your first Internet project?

“Basecamp was done almost entirely without risk.”

April 22, 2011 | 1 comment

I really like this quote from 37 signals:

Basecamp was done almost entirely without risk. It was completely self-funded. We treated it as a side-product and a side-project until it could pay the bills. And only then did we make it the main focus of the company.

I absolutely hate risk. I think it’s a misnomer that entrepreneurs somehow are in love with risk and making big gambles and taking big bets. I think that’s probably true for some. It’s certainly not true for me. And I think it’s certainly not true for a large constituency of other successful entrepreneurs.

I think the act of putting yourself in a position where you’re not forced to take on all this risk and bet everything is the hallmark of running things well.

The comments are worth a read too. In particular, I agree with the assertion that if your job doesn’t allow you to have site projects, you should get a new job.

Some things to consider if you’re deciding whether to be a tech entrepreneur

April 12, 2011 | 1 comment

Ubiquitous computingI was taken by Status.net founder Evan Promodou’s post the other day:

Hackers make things; entrepreneurs make things that make things.

This is a pretty succinct explanation of the difference between an entrepreneur and a hacker, and, I must confess, not one I fully understood when we originally set out to build Elgg. (It was implicitly present in my previous projects, and certainly has been in my projects since.)

In short, it’s not enough to build something amazing. Being an entrepreneur is about creating the framework and the platform to let your products take flight in a sustainable way that can grow in value over time. The idea that you should create something that “scratches an itch” – solves a problem that you have – is a myth when considered in isolation. Certainly, building a sustainable, growable enterprise is full of risk, long hours and hard work, so building something that you feel passionate about is a good idea. But it’s also important to feel passionate about the act of building a business, and to understand the implications of taking this task on. Business-building is at least as complex and nuanced as putting together a complex piece of software or a far-reaching web application. It can be more rewarding – for one thing, it makes you more likely to get paid – but it’s a very different task.

Leaders vs developers

Let’s say you’re writing a utility program as a personal project, with some friends. You’ve probably got a good idea of what you think it needs to do, and you’ll write it based on those assumptions. Later on, you might open source it or release it via an app store or the web, and you’ll make changes based on user feedback and bug reports. Ultimately, you and your friends are the gatekeepers for the utility: what you say goes. If you’re selling it, you don’t need to report back to anyone about how well you did.

In contrast, CEOs need to represent company value, and a company board will hold them to doing that (perhaps alongside an advisory board, which in many cases is a good idea as a kind of social proof). In a startup this means not just managing the products, but also having awesome people skills to help your team stay motivated and on-track, being a responsive customer support representative, overseeing marketing, actually getting out and selling your wares, and forming the structure of the company so that all of the above can be done efficiently and in a way that’s fair to everyone involved. Above all, you’ve got to be informed, decisive, empathic, persuasive and a great communicator. And you’ve got to put the needs of your team and the needs of your company first.

In short, being a great leader is not always the same skillset as being a great developer. And neither is necessarily the same as being a great businessperson.

None of which is to say that developers can’t be tech CEOs. Actually, assuming they also have these other skills, they can be great tech company leaders: for one thing, they know what developers need to thrive. The details-orientated, engineering mindset that development demands is also well suited to building a company, as long as this is accompanied by those empathic people skills and a willingness to learn. And in fact, the best developers are informed, decisive, empathic, persuasive, selfless and great communicators.

Consider this, though: Patrick Mackenzie’s Bingo Card Creator is one of the best examples of independent entrepreneurship out there. It’s a great business, and people get a lot of value out of the product – but it’s hardly an engineering challenge. Would you be happy doing the same?

Keep away

Be careful out there

Even when you’re right for the job and have designed a sustainable product, it’s just plain hard to make a business work. The kind of suck-it-and-see entrepreneurship we’ve seen from the likes of Twitter – where companies release grand services and think of the business model later – are the preserve of people with a lot of money behind them. You may be able to get some investment backing, but Twitter had Evan Williams, who had previously sold Pyra Labs to Google; at Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg didn’t come from a wealthy family, but was lucky enough to have great connections at Harvard and a friend in Eduardo Saverin. Even with a solid business model, the risks are large, and software entrepreneurs are disproportionately from wealthy, upper-middle-class backgrounds. (The first round of funding for new companies is often expected to be from friends and family. Could you ask yours for money to start a new venture? I wouldn’t want to.) It’s tough out there, and you’re unlikely to make money in the first few months. You need to be willing to spend money to sustain yourself, without taking unnecessary risks – for example, if you’re in the US, health insurance is not optional, and you always need to have enough money to pay off your debtors and close the company down. Some companies have had really creative solutions to this initial seed funding problem: my favorite is AirBnB’s Obama O’s.

Finally, let’s say you manage to create a sustainable, growing business with awesome products, loyal customers and a happy, dedicated team. Unfortunately, there are lots of entities out there – both people and organizations – who will see you as prey. Some companies exist entirely to make profits through litigation, or by scooping up the assets of failing businesses. Some people see themselves as having a bigger picture view and seek to control a company, perhaps for nefarious reasons, or perhaps through an honest belief that they could do better. These dangers sound cynical, but they’re real, and you need to be able to fend them off.

Know the risks and do it anyway

Why am I posting this? I get worried. I speak to a lot of developers who want financial independence from a day-to-day job, or worse, want to get rich quick, without any realistic ideas about what’s involved or the kinds of things they’ll have to do. The rewards – both emotional and monetary – are potentially great, and I do believe I’ll be starting more companies in the future. This isn’t meant to be a put-off: I definitely urge the entrepreneurial developers reading this who have an idea burning at them to follow it through and put it out there. Nonetheless, it’s not a decision to take lightly, and that’s something that I’m not sure the current set of angel incubators emphasize enough. Do it, but do it with your eyes and ears open.

Launch48 Edinburgh: an inspiring start

November 1, 2010 | 4 comments

IMG_0358I was invited to attend Launch48 Edinburgh as both a speaker and a mentor, and can’t imagine a more inspiring way to spend a weekend. My talk – on creating a startup from scratch with no budget and a two-person team, and the lessons I’ve taken away from that experience – was recorded, and I’ll try and post it here when it appears online. However, what I really want to talk about is the event itself, and the incredible teams that participated.

Launch48 has a simple, if daunting, premise: build a technology business, including model, marketing plan and prototype, in two days. Four ideas were picked out of a set of quick-fire pitches; the resulting teams were kept lean by the sheer speed of the event, and an array of mentors kept them on their toes, often encouraging them point-blank to reassess their ideas.

I’m enormously impressed with the results. Even when the teams didn’t manage to create a viable prototype, the talent on display was unquestionable. These are motivated, smart people who deserve to go places.

Compare the Universities launched as a straight-up catalogue of British university courses, which you can filter by A-level results and location (with more to follow). I was disappointed that the business model was based on universities buying sanctioned profile pages; I think this kind of service comes into its own when the information is impartial and crowd-sourced. Nonetheless, the idea has legs – it was the only business at the event with a name that could double as an elevator pitch – and the existing players in the market are uninspiring.

Social Catalogue were trying to bite off more than they could probably chew in a weekend, but the idea was interesting: connect people with niche shopping experience who love to shop with people who need particular products. It was fascinating to see their idea change over the weekend; it started as Local Catague, a way to find local retailers. The crowdsourcing aspect developed organically, with input from all the mentors. I wish more thought had been put into the technical aspects, for example the search and metadata aspects of shopping discovery, but it’s a neat premise that deserves further thought.

I want to buy and use Zzzappa – if they’d only release it for my Android phone. Their automated personal assistant software will call your smartphone (or any other phone, for a per-call charge) and read out a set of information you dictate. Think of it as the alarm clock as a platform; be woken up, or alerted at any time (in the car, maybe?), with a set of calendar events, to-do items, messages and other data drawn in from their API. Most impressively, they built it and it works; the first 200 US users will receive free wake-up calls for five days.

Finally, run2see managed to build two mobile apps (for iPhone and Windows Phone 7) and gave an entertaining, fact-filled product demonstration. In some ways, theirs was the most polished pitch, and the application looks like the kind of thing I’d definitely want if I was a runner: a set of downloadable routes with points of interest included, assessed for safety and available on an a la carte basis. There was talk of expanding the app for cyclists, which is something I would definitely use.

Each team should be proud of themselves. In some ways, I wish I’d participated as a team-member rather than a mentor – the air at the University of Edinburgh Business School was thick with creativity. Maybe next time. Either way, it’s an exercise I’d encourage anyone with an entrepreneurial interest to think about: could you create a viable business – not just the technology, but the business model and execution plans – in 48 hours? It’s harder than you think, but definitely worth a try.

Image by Dan Monsieurle, released under a Creative Commons license.