Pmarchive

Very important talk. Not sure when the phrase was popularized, but my introduction to it was in Marc Andreessen's blog post [1]. This entire series of posts in his blog are worth reading, by the way. Marc calls this "The only thing that matters", and it is definitely true.

I like this video because of the emphasis on the role our psychology plays in the search for product-market fit. Understanding people/users well - what they mean when they say "this is interesting" is really important. Systematic de-biasing of our own mind is an important idea in this talk.

Richard Feynman's famous conclusion to his report on the shuttle Challenger accident said "Nature cannot be fooled"-similarly, markets/users cannot be fooled. Either a product or service solves their problem or it doesn't. Anything in between needs to questioned carefully and observed (in an unbiased way) closely. Feynman also says "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool". Same idea as Peter's -- and a very important one!

I wish more founders talked about "what product-market fit feels like" (once they found it) - because only with enough samples, new startup founders can better understand whether they have achieved pm-fit. However, I wish video shouldn't be mistaken for thinking: "my Show HN post tanked, so I don't have pm-fit". I think it is worthwhile trying to understand what he means. It is quite clear when you really solve a problem that someone else has.…

So the above is obviously written through a VC lens. Through an entrepreneur's lens - who also survived the dot-com bust (at etoys.com) and has since run several failed and now successful businesses - I'd add the following:

The most valuable advice in this post reminds me of Marc A's awesome blog entry. Quote:

"Companies that have a retention problem usually have a winning problem. Or rather, a "not winning" problem."

http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_big_companies_part2.html

In my opinion winning is, ultimately, measured by how much cash you can generate. We stopped thinking about an exit a long time ago while in the deepest darkest part of the valley of the shadow of startup death. We were forced to do it because we ran out of money and no one cared about us. Then we started focusing completely on our customers and our income statement. As soon as we did that, amazing things started happening.

Cash, in this case and in this climate, is king. Or net income to be specific. If you're able to generate large amounts of cash and keep a lot of it, not a heck of a lot else matters. From my perspective the only problems that really remain is giving your team a great quality of life and serving your customers.

Cash takes away issues like the board bugging you, investors breathing down your neck or (worst case) wanting to play CEO, hiring problems, retention problems, funding, what business are we in problems, product problems (you're obviously killing it, so do more of that!),…

Another oldie but goodie in the career planning vein:

https://pmarchive.com/guide_to_career_planning_part0.html

This is Marc Andreessen's guide to career planning, and I've found it exceptionally useful. In particular, he backs off from the narrow "decide what track you want to be on" approach to frame the problem as developing a set of skills that will make you more valuable to any enterprise you choose to be a part of. Then while you do that, watch for the most valuable opportunities to apply those skills.

The other great thing about Marc Andreessen's guide is that it acknowledges the role of risk and opportunity in how your career will shape out. So instead of tracking yourself into a path based on how the world looks today, you stay alert to how the world is changing, and then use the downtime to improve yourself. Despite being a guide for "high-potential people who are not interested in work/life balance", it feels like it puts less pressure on individuals than feeling like there's a set of steps you must hit to be on your chosen track.

I saw this same advice on Marc Andresen's blog a long time ago: http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_career_planning_part2.html

One third strategy I've seen but unfortunately don't quite have the temperament for is:

3. Become the best at one very specific thing.
Unlike becoming the best at something hugely popular, there's a lot less competition once you niche down far enough. I've seen people do this with as youtuber analysts of a specific video game, as creators of art using an unusual medium, as bloggers with freemium content focused on a specific niche and with marketers who specialize in both an acquisition channel and an industry.

What's appealing about this is that after becoming #1 in a niche, it's often possible to use the success there to springboard into a larger territory, learn new skills and then enter either path #1 or path #2 with a significant advantage.

I think I can provide some context. When I was working as engineer in an R&D group for a large corporation, I typically have to email a lot of vendors and buy a sample to test it out for solving some internal. Ghosting usually happens when:

1. Your product doesn't meet the spec and/or doesn't work as advertised

2. Your product is good but I wasn't able to get the budget cleared to actually move forward.

3. There is budget now but stuck internally in political/procurement hell after my handover to the project manager or procurement person.

4. All good, but project cancelled.

TLDR - Moby Dick theory of enterprise procurement. [1]

I try my best to let the salesperson know whats up but after the handover I lose contact.

[1] https://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part5.html

I think it's applicability first, then trust second.

Applicability - The platform has to get me to some goal faster, easier, better than if I got at it alone. The goal can be anything. Ex. If I need to build messaging within my app I'll use Twilio, if I need distribution/users, I'll list on iOS/Android.

Trust - It's all the signal that platform has staying power. Great APIs and docs means they care and are investing in developers, years in existence, community, amount of end users, pass history of doing what they say relative to roadmap, etc. I think it's weighing all these tings before you start to build.

maybe related, I think this is the best article on "platform" , Marc Andreessen 2007 - https://pmarchive.com/three_kinds_of_platforms_you_meet_on_the_internet.html