What is stopping startups?

    Hurray, 2008 was a breakthrough in Russian start-up construction. Finally, it went down - 2-3 announcements per week. - But is it a breakthrough? In my opinion, no. 95% of all new projects are copies of successful western services.
    Not being a web development guru (this can be seen from the Purchaser I discovered ) I will allow myself to express an opinion based only on my own experience. On Habré three thousand active users, and how many have a self-sustaining (at least) site? - Shoemaker without shoes. But a personal blog is also an investment, even on the seedy one can trade links. I think that two interconnected reasons interfere with the domestic creators of startups: myths that are pushing the wrong way, and inconsistency.

    The problem is that investors climbed into the Internet. Financial injections are not bad for us web developers. Bad for startups, because the investor is willing to invest only in proven schemes in the western segment. And this leads to copying (yes, creative), which does not lead to good, although you can “pump” any money with money, sorry, ahuilko. Therefore, 2008 is an attack by the clones, although it continues to this day.

    The Internet bubble was blown away, but left several myths that really hinder the development of Runet:

    1. "Web 2.0 is poorly monetized" - an obvious myth, because:
    - People write themselves, moderate themselves, etc., so the cost of filling the resource is reduced .
    - Social networks promote themselves, which means that the cost of advertising is sharply reduced.
    Of course, there are problems with monetization, or rather, the effectiveness of advertising. But this is observed both on television and on the radio. I think the myth arose because certain expectations of investors did not materialize: the old methods of pairing stopped working, but the new ones had not yet been invented.
    So it’s more honest to say that it is difficult to get superprofits on Web 2.0 projects.

    2. “The engine needs to be written from scratch” - this is one of the most harmful myths of startup construction, which has ruined a lot of projects. The fact is that any innovation is difficult for people to perceive, use skills develop slowly. Compare such communication formats as mail, a blog and a forum: any Internet user can send an email, write about half of the forum, and even fewer people can use a blog. Therefore, if you write "your engine", then even with perfect usability, most of the audience will close the browser in 30 seconds.

    3. “An investor is needed for a startup” - this is true, but investments are needed temporary, not financial.
    Why do you need money Kish? Do the project in your free time, and where experts are needed - ask friends. Even if your idea is the reality show “Burning a Million Dollars”, you can print firewood on a printer and shoot it on a digital camera. A startup needs experience, and it can only be earned at the cost of “difficult mistakes”.

    To illustrate what was said above, an example is as follows: You can
    implement the “Bookmarking Service” (for example, now 2003) on the free forum engine. Community of collectors of interesting links - please. Well, tags will not have other features, but the essence is not in them. Implementing is technically simple. It is more difficult to fill and promote, but without an investor it is possible.

    I think that we need to go to the “big startup” in a consistent way, from simple to complex.
    Startup-start-up-ceasefire, about this chain:

    1. A thematic resource, for example, a personal blog
    2. Several blogs and splogs (despicable moneymaking)
    3. A collective project (this can already be called a startup)
    4. A project involving investments, a real startup.

    Something like this. And what bothers you?

    Also popular now: