FWIW - I do a version of the Idea Validator mentioned there at services.withstartups.com
I think the validation methods mentioned are pretty valid. The one major problem I have found is that there is a very small/distinct set of people who even understand what the validation is all about, and get the idea of developing a quick MVP. And these people are usually savvy/skilled enough to do a quick validation themselves. The opposite end of the spectrum are people who cannot do this, but then they also do not understand that this is not a quick & cheap website making service.
Still, you get to talk to a lot of people. So if you like to bounce ideas (I do), it is an interesting business.
Even with a specialized social network (like cofounderslab.com) - I would say finding a co-founder is extremely tough and needs equal dollops of luck & hard work. The worse part is that if you do not find the right person, not only will you not make any progress but will also be wasting your own time/motivation/resources.
So yes, I would say do not look at a co-founder as a user acquisition person at this stage (especially if you have zero traffic). Learn the basics of marketing & conversion - they are not tough at all. Take your startup to a position where potential co-founders would atleast be interested in investing their time. Or combine this with a paid intern as you mentioned.
I do work with startups a bit, so if you want to brainstorm this with someone - feel free to send me an email. deepak at withstartups dot com
Not exactly what you are looking for, but we are trying to incorporate this issue into our course structure at www.codeyelp.com (not released yet). Even if you do not want to enrol, this type of end-to-end deployment video should be released soon.
I would actually be happy if people even went through the 3 steps. More often it will just be: Can't identify with someone's problem - blame the victim.
Side note: The poster's username is 'negativity' after all :-)
Long read but very interesting, almost like a crime thriller. I think it is pretty obvious that privacy is dead. Any average computer user will leave scents - and a good expert needs to only pick one of these to unravel the whole story.
Looks interesting. I was actually looking for something like this. Only 30 questions though? Is it more like your experience of building a community site or actionable advise in building one now? Will probably buy it anyway, but would like to know beforehand. Thanks
Thanks. It's kind of a range of related things. There's also another bundle of questions I'm working on as a part two. Probably a free or low cost addon to this.
"By that standard, practically any online service or platform these days is a social network!" Yes, but to me, this is the correct standard anyway. Two reasons: a) My time is limited: Anytime I spend on something like Medium is time away from Facebook. They are all competing for that limited time I have for being involved in a social network. and b) All these services generally also mean a different set of friends for the me. There is some overlap but almost all my social networks have a different group of followers/recommenders etc. The more time I invest in building one set of friends, the less I do in another - and this is a sticky investment, one that can easily prove make or break for any social network.
I was going to start on Ghost but then just used Medium. Curious to know why people would choose Ghost over Medium considering that you will have to host that yourself?
This whole trend of 'Must.Fail.Harder' (the page tag) looks very nice in almost all motivational posts. It misses a very important point though. Success moves you one step forward, failure keeps you at the same step. Sure, now you know more about that particular step, but really you are not "saving cost and time". Should failure be looked as a disaster? Of course not, learn from it and move forward. But let us not act as if failing was the best thing that could happen. The best case scenario was Winning!
Really, I don't quite get this sudden trend to show everything in an infographic. Personally, it is harder to read, harder to store. A simple table would work fine.
I think the validation methods mentioned are pretty valid. The one major problem I have found is that there is a very small/distinct set of people who even understand what the validation is all about, and get the idea of developing a quick MVP. And these people are usually savvy/skilled enough to do a quick validation themselves. The opposite end of the spectrum are people who cannot do this, but then they also do not understand that this is not a quick & cheap website making service.
Still, you get to talk to a lot of people. So if you like to bounce ideas (I do), it is an interesting business.