We spent a lot of time testing and discussing if it was the right call to make Gemini 3 our default model in Amp. We've never chosen a new model on launch day before, however we were very impressed with the performance and intelligence. There are some pretty low lows however, so it's not a perfect experience. We're monitoring it very closely.
> when Carson and others like him give themselves no credit for their success, then there is nothing we can learn from them.
That's the whole point of the post. There aren't any quick tips, todos or silver bullets I can give you that will help you. The post isn't meant to be ultimately affirming. It's just reality as I see it.
> Summary: Hey, I run an awesome company and look at my face on this magazine.
I'm sorry that's your takeaway. I've failed to communicate to you the reason I wrote it.
As humble as your position is, I'm trying to say that you should be proud of your success, because there is probably good reason for it. I'm not one to tell you whether you actually believe that or not, but I would suspect it to be true.
But, I do totally agree about "quick tips, todos, or silver bullets". Regardless of that, I'm sure there is something reasonable special about you that has driven you in particular to create at least three moderately successful businesses. Something we could probably learn from.
> I've heard the following advice frequently amongst non-tech entrepreneurs: aim your first exit for a million, then 10 million, then aim for the home runs.
This idea seems laughable to me. As if you can perfectly time and control those outcomes. Ha! :)
It is more to do with scale than the actual figures. In using sums like "million dollar", "10 million dollar" and then terms like "home run", "swing" etc. you're actually trying to define different scales of startup ideas that don't have a better terminology - but probably should.
There is a completely different risk profile in small businesses, then paid apps, then freemium products, then ad supported products. They are distinct, we just don't have a good way of communicating the differences.
One school of startup advice advises against raising money while another says to raise as much as you can. Rather than being in conflict, it is clear that they don't actually contradict each other but rather apply in different situations.
The don't-raise-money school that DHH et al preach is suitable for paid products and services, while an ad supported idea like a search engine or social network, or an idea with heavy R&D requirement requires that money is raised.
One million / 10 million / home run is a very imperfect way of classifying this distinction. The differences are all in the cashflow model - atm we refer to a flat cashflow model, a linearly increasing cashflow model, an exponentially increasing cashflow model and cashflow models that go negative for 2-3 years and then go either linear or exponential all as 'startups'.
Fair point - revenue is just a way to speak about size. Amongst my CEO friends, yearly revenue is used as the blunt measurement of the size of business.
I would say there's some validity to the fact that each step can build on the previous. I almost laugh when I think about how little I knew back in 2004 about the mechanics, tactics and financing of startups. However, that knowledge wasn't the limiting factor. It was the idea.
To me it is more about learning and doing better at each attempt. But yeah, "perfectly time and control" these things I doubt anyone actually seriously thinks they can do.
I'm lucky that I could refine my skills through those first three businesses. If Treehouse was my first big idea, I'd have no choice. I'd just have to do the best I could.
> What changed when you did treehouse vs those other smaller businesses? Was it the fact that you didn't need to worry about money in the short-term anymore (because of those small exits), or something else?
I didn't make quite enough from those exits to be financially independent, so I still need to make Treehouse work from a money perspective personally.
The simple thing that changed was the scope of the idea. It was world-changing scale - millions of potential lives affected.
Just keep doing the best you can. If you don't have what appears to be a world-changing idea right now, you still are providing value by creating jobs and offering value to your customers. I didn't know I was going to create Treehouse until it happened. Hindsight is always 20-20.
I'm curious, have you ever thought about why building a startup with more revenues and more "impact" seems to matter more than building smaller companies? I know this is a bit philosophical, but I'd be interested in hearing how you think about this.
