VibeBuilders.ai Logo
VibeBuilders.ai

All Resources

Finally Launched My First App Without Any Coding Experience
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
Consistent_Access844This week

Finally Launched My First App Without Any Coding Experience

About Myself I am a structural engineer that are taught to design buildings in the day and I have been dreaming forever to build a SaaS business to get out of the rat race. However, as a structural engineer, coding is definitely not something I am capable of doing (I have some simple knowledge, but its no way close to building an app) The Journey As I've mentioned, I always wanted to build a SaaS business because in my mind the business model is most attractive to me, where you only need to build once and can sell to millions. So I started off searching and exploring on the internet and my first ever "SaaS" was from Wordpress. I am buying plugin from other user and then pluggin into my own Wordpress website. It was a project management tool SaaS. I was so excited about the website and can't even sleep well at night because I'm just so hype about it. But, the reality is because this is my first ever business, I totally didn't realise about the importance of UI UX or my business differentiation, thinking that everyone will be as excited as I am. Then, I went deeper and deeper into the journey (I can write more about this in another post if anyone is interested) and finally landed on Flutterflow to create my first ever app. No Code Journey Thanks to no code builder, I never thought that a non-coder like me can ever create an app and got accepted by the App Store/Play Store. Since that I am using a low-code builder, for any specific requirement that I need that are not covered natively, I will just talk to ChatGPT and boom I pretty much got most of the answer I needed. About The App As someone that always try to keep track of my expenses, I never able to find an app that are simple and interesting enough for me to continue on the journey. I realise that I could have incorporate AI into this journey and hence there go, I created an AI Money Tracker. Let me introduce Rolly: AI Money Tracker - a new AI expense tracker where you can easily record your transactions just by chatting with our bot Rolly and it will automatically record and categorise the transaction into the most suitable category (you can also create any of your own category and it will also take care of it in consideration). I am not sharing the app link here to avoid getting ban, but feel free to search up Rolly: AI Money Tracker on either App Store on Play Store. My Learnings As someone that can't code and never imagine that I could create a production app by myself and publish it on to the App Store and Play Store. Since I am not making any money yet and just at the beginning of my entrepreneur journey, I can't give any substantial advice, all I can say is just my own learnings and feelings. My advice is if you have a dream of building a business, just go for it, don't worry about all the problems that you can think of to convince yourself not making the start at all. From my point of view, as long as you're not giving up everything (eg, putting yourself in huge debt etc), why don't just go for it and you've got nothing much to lose. You'll only lose if you never even get started. And also, I believe that creating an app is always the easiest step out of the entreprenuership journey, marketing and distribution is the key to success. Even though you've spent days and nights on it and it might mean everything to you, the truth is people don't really cares and you'll need to market for it. I am still in journey to learn how to do marketing, content, building a business and everything. I think this is just a very beginning of my journey and hopefully there's more interesting one to share further down the road.

Technical founders - is "bulling" your way through learning right for a startup? [I will not promote]
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
JustZed32This week

Technical founders - is "bulling" your way through learning right for a startup? [I will not promote]

Sup, This is a question for technical founders. \--a little backstory-- I am starting a company in AI field that creates something nobody has ever done before. 7 months in. \--- How most software companies are created - you have an improvement idea, then you have a thousand or so problems to solve to make that improvement happen, and for each one that you don't know, you go to Stackoverflow or ChatGPT to look for solutions for that problem. Which involves next-to-no upfront preparation because for vast majority of traditional software you can solve it on-the-go - "traditional" software is very easy compared to, say, mechanical, pharma or AI engineering. However, for more advanced disciplines - can you just "Google" it on-the-go? I'm a solo founder, and 8 months in, creating a foundational model, BECAUSE I did not know things upfront, I've wasted at least 3 months doing something which was mostly technically unviable in the first place. Out of 14000 lines of code that I've done (including tests), I had to scrap 10000 recently. Imagine the scale of it. Obviously I didn't even know how ML works when I've started. Major fuck-up. How do you operate in industries which you've done before? How do you determine that it's time to start creating you big technological leaps instead of continuing to learn? Cheers. Edit: No need to push me on business topics. I know how to create value very well. It's only a tech question, and I'm only asking because - well - to deliver my value, I need to do a lot of novel tech.

Hot Take: Not all your startups need AI forced into them
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
bitorsicThis week

Hot Take: Not all your startups need AI forced into them

I'm a final year Computer Engineering student, hence applying for jobs all around. There's this particular trend I've noticed with startups that are coming up these days. That is, even for the absolute basic stuff they'll use 'AI', and they'll think they built something 'revolutionary'. No. You're breaking your product in ways you don't realise. An example, that even some well established companies are guilty of: AI Chatbots You absolutely don't need them and it's an entire gimmick. If you really wanna implement a chatbot, connect the user to an actual person on your end, which I think is not possible if you're at a 'startup' stage. You'll need employees who can handle user queries in real time. If the user really is stuck let them use the 'Contact Us' page. A really close relative of mine is very vocal about the frustration he faces whenever he tries to use the AI Chatbot on any well known e-com website. The only case for AI Chatbot that makes sense is when it's directing the customer to an actual customer support rep if none of the AI's solutions is working for the customer. Even then, implementing a search page for FAQ is extremely easy and user friendly. Another example: AI Interviewer I recently interviewed for a startup, and their whole interviewing process was AI'zed?!?! No real person at the other end, I was answering to their questions which were in video format. They even had a 'mascot' / 'AI interviewer' avatar designed by an AI (AI-ception???). This mascot just text-to-speech'ed all the questions for me to rewind and hear what I missed again. And I had to record video and audio to answer these questions on their platform itself. The entire interview process just could've been a questionnaire, or if you're really concerned on the integrity of the interviewee, just take a few minutes out of your oh-so-busy schedule as a startup owner. Atleast for hiring employees who would make the most impact on your product going ahead. I say the most impact, because (atleast as a developer) the work done by these employees would define how robust your product is, and/or how easily other features can be integrated into the codebase. Trust me, refactoring code later on would only cost you time and money. These resources would rather be more useful in other departments of your startup. The only use case for an AI Interviewer I see is for preparing for an actual interview, provided that feedback is given to the user at the earliest, which you don't need to worry about as a startup owner. So yeah, you're probably better off without integrating AI in your product. Thank you for reading. TLDR; The title; I know AI is the new thing and gets everyone drooling and all, but for the love of God, just focus on what your startup does best and put real people behind it; Integrating AI without human intervention is as good as a broken product; Do your hiring yourself, or through real people, emphasizing on the fact that the people you hire at an early stage will define your growth ahead;

I fell into the builder's trap and need help getting out
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
stellarcitizenThis week

I fell into the builder's trap and need help getting out

Hi r/startups, First-time technical founder here. Two years ago, I decided to leave the 9-5 grind and build something meaningful. Now, I have (what I believe is) a brilliant technical solution but no clear business case. I’m seeking a cofounder with product and marketing expertise to help pivot my project into a viable business - or start a new one. Details below. About Me 36yo, born in Berlin and moved to San Francisco 8 years ago Master's in Software Engineering with 15 years of experience Worked with early-stage startups in Berlin and a venture studio in SF Spent the past years leading a team of 12 shipping enterprise software The tech I've built An AI engine that makes it easy for developers to automate their workflows. It works with code, issues, PRs and integrates with 3rd party systems like error trackers, wikis, ticketing systems, etc. It takes natural language instructions, fulfills them autonomously and responds with a result. The functionality is served as a platform, with an API and an SDK. On top of it, I've built a CLI and a web application with productivity tools for developers. Who and what I'm looking for My main goal is to leave my current job and build a company around a problem that matters to me, ideally with considerable equity. I’m looking for: A cofounder with product and marketing expertise who sees potential in my tech and can help turn it into a successful business—or someone with a strong business case who needs a technical founder. Mentorship from someone experienced in dev tool startups or as a successful solo founder. I’d love to learn from your journey and would be happy to offer my technical expertise or collaborate on projects in return. Happy to answer any questions or provide more details. Cheers!

I spent 6 months on building a tool, and got 0 zero users. Here is my story.
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0.667
GDbuildsGDThis week

I spent 6 months on building a tool, and got 0 zero users. Here is my story.

Edit Thank you all so much for your time reading my story. Your support, feedback, criticism, and skepticism; all helped me a lot, and I couldn't appreciate it enough \^\_\^ TL;DR I spent 6 months on a tool that currently has 0 users. Below is what I learned during my journey, sharing because I believe most mistakes are easily avoidable. Do not overestimate your product and assume it will be an exception to fundamental principles. Principles are there for a reason. Always look for validation before you start. Avoid building products with a low money-to-effort ratio/in very competitive fields. Unless you have the means, you probably won't make it. Pick a problem space, pick your target audience, and talk to them before thinking about a solution. Identify and match their pain points. Only then should you think of a solution. If people are not overly excited or willing to pay in advance for a discounted price, it might be a sign to rethink. Sell one and only one feature at a time. Avoid everything else. If people don't pay for that one core feature, no secondary feature will change their mind. Always spend twice as much time marketing as you do building. You will not get users if they don't know it exists. Define success metrics ("1000 users in 3 months" or "$6000 in the account at the end of 6 months") before you start. If you don't meet them, strongly consider quitting the project. If you can't get enough users to keep going, nothing else matters. VALIDATION, VALIDATION, VALIDATION. Success is not random, but most of our first products will not make a success story. Know when to admit failure, and move on. Even if a product of yours doesn't succeed, what you learned during its journey will turn out to be invaluable for your future. My story So, this is the story of a product, Summ, that I’ve been working on for the last 6 months. As it's the first product I’ve ever built, after watching you all from the sidelines, I have learned a lot, made many mistakes, and did only a few things right. Just sharing what I’ve learned and some insights from my journey so far. I hope that this post will help you avoid the mistakes I made — most of which I consider easily avoidable — while you enjoy reading it, and get to know me a little bit more 🤓. A slow start after many years Summ isn’t the first product I really wanted to build. Lacking enough dev skills to even get started was a huge blocker for so many years. In fact, the first product I would’ve LOVED to build was a smart personal shopping assistant. I had this idea 4 years ago; but with no GPT, no coding skills, no technical co-founder, I didn’t have the means to make it happen. I still do not know if such a tool exists and is good enough. All I wanted was a tool that could make data-based predictions about when to buy stuff (“buy a new toothpaste every three months”) and suggest physical products that I might need or be strongly interested in. AFAIK, Amazon famously still struggles with the second one. Fast-forward a few years, I learned the very basics of HTML, CSS, and Vanilla JS. Still was not there to build a product; but good enough to code my design portfolio from scratch. Yet, I couldn’t imagine myself building a product using Vanilla JS. I really hated it, I really sucked at it. So, back to tutorial hell, and to learn about this framework I just heard about: React.React introduced so many new concepts to me. “Thinking in React” is a phrase we heard a lot, and with quite good reasons. After some time, I was able to build very basic tutorial apps, both in React, and React Native; but I have to say that I really hated coding for mobile. At this point, I was already a fan of productivity apps, and had a concept for a time management assistant app in my design portfolio. So, why not build one? Surely, it must be easy, since every coding tutorial starts with a todo app. ❌ WRONG! Building a basic todo app is easy enough, but building one good enough for a place in the market was a challenge I took and failed. I wasted one month on that until I abandoned the project for good. Even if I continued working on it, as the productivity landscape is overly competitive, I wouldn’t be able to make enough money to cover costs, assuming I make any. Since I was (and still am) in between jobs, I decided to abandon the project. 👉 What I learned: Do not start projects with a low ratio of money to effort and time. Example: Even if I get 500 monthly users, 200 of which are paid users (unrealistically high number), assuming an average subscription fee of $5/m (such apps are quite cheap, mostly due to the high competition), it would make me around $1000 minus any occurring costs. Any founder with a product that has 500 active users should make more. Even if it was relatively successful, due to the high competition, I wouldn’t make any meaningful money. PS: I use Todoist today. Due to local pricing, I pay less than $2/m. There is no way I could beat this competitive pricing, let alone the app itself. But, somehow, with a project that wasn’t even functional — let alone being an MVP — I made my first Wi-Fi money: Someone decided that the domain I preemptively purchased is worth something. By this point, I had already abandoned the project, certainly wasn’t going to renew the domain, was looking for a FT job, and a new project that I could work on. And out of nowhere, someone hands me some free money — who am I not to take it? Of course, I took it. The domain is still unused, no idea why 🤔. Ngl, I still hate the fact that my first Wi-Fi money came from this. A new idea worth pursuing? Fast-forward some weeks now. Around March, I got this crazy idea of building an email productivity tool. We all use emails, yet we all hate them. So, this must be fixed. Everyone uses emails, in fact everyone HAS TO use emails. So, I just needed to build a tool and wait for people to come. This was all, really. After all, the problem space is huge, there is enough room for another product, everyone uses emails, no need for any further validation, right? ❌ WRONG ONCE AGAIN! We all hear from the greatest in the startup landscape that we must validate our ideas with real people, yet at least some of us (guilty here 🥸) think that our product will be hugely successful and prove them to be an exception. Few might, but most are not. I certainly wasn't. 👉 Lesson learned: Always validate your ideas with real people. Ask them how much they’d pay for such a tool (not if they would). Much better if they are willing to pay upfront for a discount, etc. But even this comes later, keep reading. I think the difference between “How much” and “If” is huge for two reasons: (1) By asking them for “How much”, you force them to think in a more realistic setting. (2) You will have a more realistic idea on your profit margins. Based on my competitive analysis, I already had a solution in my mind to improve our email usage standards and email productivity (huge mistake), but I did my best to learn about their problems regarding those without pushing the idea too hard. The idea is this: Generate concise email summaries with suggested actions, combine them into one email, and send it at their preferred times. Save as much as time the AI you end up with allows. After all, everyone loves to save time. So, what kind of validation did I seek for? Talked with only a few people around me about this crazy, internet-breaking idea. The responses I got were, now I see, mediocre; no one got excited about it, just said things along the lines of “Cool idea, OK”. So, any reasonable person in this situation would think “Okay, not might not be working”, right? Well, I did not. I assumed that they were the wrong audience for this product, and there was this magical land of user segments waiting eagerly for my product, yet unknowingly. To this day, I still have not reached this magical place. Perhaps, it didn’t exist in the first place. If I cannot find it, whether it exists or not doesn’t matter. I am certainly searching for it. 👉 What I should have done: Once I decide on a problem space (time management, email productivity, etc.), I should decide on my potential user segments, people who I plan to sell my product to. Then I should go talk to those people, ask them about their pains, then get to the problem-solving/ideation phase only later. ❗️ VALIDATION COMES FROM THE REALITY OUTSIDE. What validation looks like might change from product to product; but what invalidation looks like is more or less the same for every product. Nico Jeannen told me yesterday “validation = money in the account” on Twitter. This is the ultimate form of validation your product could get. If your product doesn’t make any money, then something is invalidated by reality: Your product, you, your idea, who knows? So, at this point, I knew a little bit of Python from spending some time in tutorial hell a few years ago, some HTML/CSS/JS, barely enough React to build a working app. React could work for this project, but I needed easy-to-implement server interactivity. Luckily, around this time, I got to know about this new gen of indie hackers, and learned (but didn’t truly understand) about their approach to indie hacking, and this library called Nextjs. How good Next.js still blows my mind. So, I was back to tutorial hell once again. But, this time, with a promise to myself: This is the last time I would visit tutorial hell. Time to start building this "ground-breaking idea" Learning the fundamentals of Next.js was easier than learning of React unsurprisingly. Yet, the first time I managed to run server actions on Next.js was one of the rarest moments that completely blew my mind. To this day, I reject the idea that it is something else than pure magic under its hood. Did I absolutely need Nextjs for this project though? I do not think so. Did it save me lots of time? Absolutely. Furthermore, learning Nextjs will certainly be quite helpful for other projects that I will be tackling in the future. Already got a few ideas that might be worth pursuing in the head in case I decide to abandon Summ in the future. Fast-forward few weeks again: So, at this stage, I had a barely working MVP-like product. Since the very beginning, I spent every free hour (and more) on this project as speed is essential. But, I am not so sure it was worth it to overwork in retrospect. Yet, I know I couldn’t help myself. Everything is going kinda smooth, so what’s the worst thing that could ever happen? Well, both Apple and Google announced their AIs (Apple Intelligence and Google Gemini, respectively) will have email summarization features for their products. Summarizing singular emails is no big deal, after all there were already so many similar products in the market. I still think that what truly matters is a frictionless user experience, and this is why I built this product in a certain way: You spend less than a few minutes setting up your account, and you get to enjoy your email summaries, without ever visiting its website again. This is still a very cool concept I really like a lot. So, at this point: I had no other idea that could be pursued, already spent too much time on this project. Do I quit or not? This was the question. Of course not. I just have to launch this product as quickly as possible. So, I did something right, a quite rare occurrence I might say: Re-planned my product, dropped everything secondary to the core feature immediately (save time on reading emails), tried launching it asap. 👉 Insight: Sell only one core feature at one time. Drop anything secondary to this core feature. Well, my primary occupation is product design. So one would expect that a product I build must have stellar design. I considered any considerable time spent on design at this stage would be simply wasted. I still think this is both true and wrong: True, because if your product’s core benefits suck, no one will care about your design. False, because if your design looks amateurish, no one will trust you and your product. So, I always targeted an average level design with it and the way this tool works made it quite easy as I had to design only 2 primary pages: Landing page and user portal (which has only settings and analytics pages). However, even though I knew spending time on design was not worth much of my time, I got a bit “greedy”: In fact, I redesigned those pages three times, and still ended up with a so-so design that I am not proud of. 👉 What I would do differently: Unless absolutely necessary, only one iteration per stage as long as it works. This, in my mind, applies to everything. If your product’s A feature works, then no need to rewrite it from scratch for any reason, or even refactor it. When your product becomes a success, and you absolutely need that part of your codebase to be written, do so, but only then. Ready to launch, now is th etime for some marketing, right? By July 26, I already had a “launchable” product that barely works (I marked this date on a Notion docs, this is how I know). Yet, I had spent almost no time on marketing, sales, whatever. After all, “You build and they will come”. Did I know that I needed marketing? Of course I did, but knowingly didn’t. Why, you might ask. Well, from my perspective, it had to be a dev-heavy product; meaning that you spend most of your time on developing it, mostly coding skills. But, this is simply wrong. As a rule of thumb, as noted by one of the greatests, Marc Louvion, you should spend at least twice of the building time on marketing. ❗️ Time spent on building \* 2 people don’t know your product > they don’t use your product > you don’t get users > you don’t make money Easy as that. Following the same reasoning, a slightly different approach to planning a project is possible. Determine an approximate time to complete the project with a high level project plan. Let’s say 6 months. By the reasoning above, 2 months should go into building, and 4 into marketing. If you need 4 months for building instead of 2, then you need 8 months of marketing, which makes the time to complete the project 12 months. If you don’t have that much time, then quit the project. When does a project count as completed? Well, in reality, never. But, I think we have to define success conditions even before we start for indie projects and startups; so we know when to quit when they are not met. A success condition could look like “Make $6000 in 12 months” or “Have 3000 users in 6 months”. It all depends on the project. But, once you set it, it should be set in stone: You don’t change it unless absolutely necessary. I suspect there are few principles that make a solopreneur successful; and knowing when to quit and when to continue is definitely one of them. Marc Louvion is famously known for his success, but he got there after failing so many projects. To my knowledge, the same applies to Nico Jeannen, Pieter Levels, or almost everyone as well. ❗️ Determining when to continue even before you start will definitely help in the long run. A half-aed launch Time-leap again. Around mid August, I “soft launched” my product. By soft launch, I mean lazy marketing. Just tweeting about it, posting it on free directories. Did I get any traffic? Surely I did. Did I get any users? Nope. Only after this time, it hit me: “Either something is wrong with me, or with this product” Marketing might be a much bigger factor for a project’s success after all. Even though I get some traffic, not convincing enough for people to sign up even for a free trial. The product was still perfect in my eyes at the time (well, still is ^(\_),) so the right people are not finding my product, I thought. Then, a question that I should have been asking at the very first place, one that could prevent all these, comes to my mind: “How do even people search for such tools?” If we are to consider this whole journey of me and my so-far-failed product to be an already destined failure, one metric suffices to show why. Search volume: 30. Even if people have such a pain point, they are not looking for email summaries. So, almost no organic traffic coming from Google. But, as a person who did zero marketing on this or any product, who has zero marketing knowledge, who doesn’t have an audience on social media, there is not much I could do. Finally, it was time to give up. Or not… In my eyes, the most important element that makes a founder (solo or not) successful (this, I am not by any means) is to solve problems. ❗️ So, the problem was this: “People are not finding my product by organic search” How do I make sure I get some organic traffic and gets more visibility? Learn digital marketing and SEO as much as I can within very limited time. Thankfully, without spending much time, I came across Neil Patel's YT channel, and as I said many times, it is an absolute gold mine. I learned a lot, especially about the fundamentals, and surely it will be fruitful; but there is no magic trick that could make people visit your website. SEO certainly helps, but only when people are looking for your keywords. However, it is truly a magical solution to get in touch with REAL people that are in your user segments: 👉 Understand your pains, understand their problems, help them to solve them via building products. I did not do this so far, have to admit. But, in case you would like to have a chat about your email usage, and email productivity, just get in touch; I’d be delighted to hear about them. Getting ready for a ProductHunt launch The date was Sept 1. And I unlocked an impossible achievement: Running out of Supabase’s free plan’s Egres limit while having zero users. I was already considering moving out of their Cloud server and managing a Supabase CLI service on my Hetzner VPS for some time; but never ever suspected that I would have to do this quickly. The cheapest plan Supabase offers is $25/month; yet, at that point, I am in between jobs for such a long time, basically broke, and could barely afford that price. One or two months could be okay, but why pay for it if I will eventually move out of their Cloud service? So, instead of paying $25, I spent two days migrating out of Supabase Cloud. Worth my time? Definitely not. But, when you are broke, you gotta do stupid things. This was the first time that I felt lucky to have zero users: I have no idea how I would manage this migration if I had any. I think this is one of the core tenets of an indie hacker: Controlling their own environment. I can’t remember whose quote this is, but I suspect it was Naval: Entrepreneurs have an almost pathological need to control their own fate. They will take any suffering if they can be in charge of their destiny, and not have it in somebody else’s hands. What’s truly scary is, at least in my case, we make people around us suffer at the expense of our attempting to control our own fates. I know this period has been quite hard on my wife as well, as I neglected her quite a bit, but sadly, I know that this will happen again. It is something that I can barely help with. Still, so sorry. After working the last two weeks on a ProductHunt Launch, I finally launched it this Tuesday. Zero ranking, zero new users, but 36 kind people upvoted my product, and many commented and provided invaluable feedback. I couldn't be more grateful for each one of them 🙏. Considering all these, what lies in the future of Summ though? I have no idea, to be honest. On one hand, I have zero users, have no job, no income. So, I need a way to make money asap. On the other hand, the whole idea of it revolves around one core premise (not an assumption) that I am not so willing to share; and I couldn’t have more trust in it. This might not be the best iteration of it, however I certainly believe that email usage is one of the best problem spaces one could work on. 👉 But, one thing is for certain: I need to get in touch with people, and talk with them about this product I built so far. In fact, this is the only item on my agenda. Nothing else will save my brainchild <3. Below are some other insights and notes that I got during my journey; as they do not 100% fit into this story, I think it is more suitable to list them here. I hope you enjoyed reading this. Give Summ a try, it comes with a generous free trial, no credit card required. Some additional notes and insights: Project planning is one of the most underestimated skills for solopreneurs. It saves you enormous time, and helps you to keep your focus up. Building B2C products beats building B2B products. Businesses are very willing to pay big bucks if your product helps them. On the other hand, spending a few hours per user who would pay $5/m probably is not worth your time. It doesn’t matter how brilliant your product is if no one uses it. If you cannot sell a product in a certain category/niche (or do not know how to sell it), it might be a good idea not to start a project in it. Going after new ideas and ventures is quite risky, especially if you don’t know how to market it. On the other hand, an already established category means that there is already demand. Whether this demand is sufficient or not is another issue. As long as there is enough demand for your product to fit in, any category/niche is good. Some might be better, some might be worse. Unless you are going hardcore B2B, you will need people to find your product by means of organic search. Always conduct thorough keyword research as soon as possible.

Anyone finding that they just don't NEED to add more Employees anymore? (I will not promote)
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0.6
wilschroterThis week

Anyone finding that they just don't NEED to add more Employees anymore? (I will not promote)

A friend of mine who was looking for work asked me if we were hiring and I responded "You know, it's weird but all of our growth goals don't seem to map back to hiring people anymore." This isn't about the economy or growth goals. It's a really fascinating shift in focus and costs for startups. My gut reaction is that I HATE the idea of not creating more jobs. In my career I've hired thousands of people, and I've always prided myself on job creation. We just sold a company that employed 200 people last year, and I'm proud of the work we were able to create. What's interesting is that I simply don't feel like we NEED to like we used to. As we're looking at all of our growth goals, for the first time I'm not assigning FTEs to them. Nearly everything we're doing is actually reducing the need for more humans, not adding them - and we're not even trying to reduce the need. Obviously the timing of AI has had a major impact. Product - Our team is shipping more code than ever before, and even our designers who have never touched code are shipping final code. If we doubled the size of the team, it would make no difference (this is a big deal considering the historical cost here). Marketing - So many aspects of our marketing are getting automated and streamlined, to the point where even a single FTE can create a massive amount of reach across channels. Support - Our Success team is able to effectively respond to tickets in a fraction of the time, which essentially doubles their capacity without adding any more staff. Management - With less staff we need less managers, which are a big expense, but it also means reporting and decisions are more streamlined, which is a positive. But it also means those positions simply don't get created like they used to. I think this is a big deal for the younger startups because it translates into needing less capital (or none!) which provides for more ownership and agency. Clearly we still need some folks to build out the core team, but that's very different than a massive staffing line item. Anyone else here finding the same trend? Opposite? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I'd love to hear how other Founders are processing this.

How I made a high tech salary in my first selling month
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
Ok_Negotiation_2587This week

How I made a high tech salary in my first selling month

For over 7 years I worked as a full-stack developer, helping other companies bring their ideas to life. But one day, I thought “Why not try making my own dream come true?”. That’s when I decided to quit my job and start my own journey to becoming an entrepreneur. At first, it wasn’t easy. I didn’t make any money for months and had no idea where to start. I felt lost. Then, I decided to focus on something popular and trending. AI was everywhere, and ChatGPT was the most used AI platform. So I looked into it and I found the OpenAI community forum where people had been asking for features that weren’t being added. That gave me an idea. Why not build those features myself? I created a Chrome extension and I worked on some of the most requested features, like: Downloading the advanced voice mode and messages as MP3 Adding folders to organize chats Saving and reusing prompts Pinning important chats Exporting chats to TXT/JSON files Deleting or archiving multiple chats at once Making chat history searches faster and better It took me about a week to build the first version, and when I published it, the response was incredible. People loved it! Some even said things like, “You’re a lifesaver!” That’s when I realized I had something that could not only help people but also turn into a real business. I kept the first version free to see how people would respond. Many users have been downloading my extension, which prompted Chrome to review it to determine if it qualified for the featured badge. I received the badge, and it has significantly boosted traffic to my extension ever since. After all the positive feedback, I launched a paid version one month ago. A few minutes after publishing it, I made my first sale! That moment was so exciting, and it motivated me to keep going. I already have over 4,000 users and have made more than $4,500 in my first selling month. I’ve decided to release 1-2 new features every month to keep improving the extension based on what users ask for. I also created the same extension for Firefox and Edge users because many people have been asking for it! I also started a Reddit community, where I share updates, sales, discount codes, and ideas for new features. It’s been awesome to connect with users directly and get their feedback. Additionally, I’ve started working on another extension for Claude, which I’m hoping will be as successful as this one. My message to you is this: never give up on your dreams. It might feel impossible at first, but with patience, hard work, and some creativity, you can make it happen. I hope this inspires you to go after what you want. Good luck to all of us!

What questions to ask to evaluate an offer from start up?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
xcitechThis week

What questions to ask to evaluate an offer from start up?

Hello! I am presently working working as a Data Scientist with a medium sized company. Last year my boss left the company to start his own. Very recently his non-solicitation clause expired, and he asked me to join his startup. While I know almost everything about the product idea, and the technical aspect of the startup - I have very less information on more critical points like funding, equity sharing, etc. He has made a verbal unofficial offer, and I have asked for a week to prepare my list of questions for him for me to be able to evaluate his offer. Since I have no knowledge of the startup scene, I would like some help regarding the questions I should put forward to him. Mentioned below are what I know so far and the offer: The company was started by two people, both working full time on it. I would be the third person on the team. The startup aims to introduce AI in a field which has lagged behind in the introduction of technology by at least 2 decades. The big players in this field are conservative, but now they are opening up towards embracing new technology. Personally I have confidence in their idea, and feel this will be a sustainable and profitable company. The offered salary is about 60% of what I make right now. The equity offered is 2%. I do not know the details of the funding they have received so far or the equity split. Any pointers in helping me frame my questions for the evaluation of the offer would be very helpful! Thank you

Zero To One [Book Review]
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0.5
AlmostARockstarThis week

Zero To One [Book Review]

If you don't feel like reading - check out the video here ##Introduction The more I read into Peter Thiel's background, the more ridiculous it seems.. He’s been involved in controversies over: Racism, Sexism, and, [Radical Right wing libertarianism.] (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-21/the-strange-politics-of-peter-thiel-trump-s-most-unlikely-supporter) He’s built a tech company that helps the NSA spy on the world. He supported Donald Trumps presidential campaign. He’s funding research on immortality And to top it off, he helped bankrupt online media company and blog network Gawker by funding Hulk Hogan’s sex tape lawsuit - after a report of his rumoured Homosexuality rattled his chain… Zero to One clearly reflects his unique attitude and doesn't pull any punches with a genuinely interesting point of view, that has clearly worked in the past, to the tune of almost 3 billion USD. But at times, his infatuation with the All American attitude is a little much…and, quite frankly, he’s not the kind of guy I could sit and have a pint with…without grinding my teeth anyway. The content is adapted from Blake Masters' lecture notes from Thiel's 2012 Stanford Course. This definitely helped keep the book concise and fast paced, at least compared to other books I’ve reviewed. The type of content is also quite varied, with a good spread from completely abstract theories — like the Technology vs. Globalisation concept, where the book get's it's title — to practical examples such as the analysis of personalities in chapter 14, "The Founders Paradox" covering Elvis Presley, Sean Parker, Lady Gaga and Bill Gates to name a few. ###Pros Monopolies To most people a monopoly is a negative thing. But while perfect competition can drive down costs and benefit the consumer - competition is bad for business. In fact, in Thiel's opinion, every startup should aim to be a monopoly or, as he puts it: Monopoly is the condition of every successful business. I like his honesty about it. While I’m not sure about the morality of encouraging monopolies at a large scale, I can see the benefit of thinking that way when developing a startup. When you're small, you can’t afford to compete. The best way to avoid competition is to build something nobody can compete with. The concept is summed up nicely at the end of chapter 3: Tolstoy opens Anna Karenina by observing: ‘All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.’ Business is the opposite. All happy companies are different: each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: they failed to escape competition. Pareto The Pareto Law, which you might remember as the 80/20 rule in Tim Ferris’ The Four Hour Work Week, is often used synonymously with the power law of distribution, and shows up everywhere. Thiel refers to it in his section on The Power Law of Venture Capital. If Tim Ferris recommends identifying and removing the 20% of things that take 80% of your effort - Thiel recommends finding the 20% of investments that make 80% of your return. Anything else is a waste. Soberingly, he also suggests that the Pareto Law means: ...you should not necessarily start your own company, even if you are extraordinarily talented. But to me this seems more like a venture capitalists problem, than an entrepreneurs problem - Personally, I believe there’s far more benefit in starting up your own company that purely profit. ###Cons Man and machine? Content-wise, there is very little to dislike in this book. As long as you accept that the book is written specifically for startups - where anything short of exponential growth is considered a failure - it’s exceptionally on point. However, there are a couple sections dotted throughout the book where opinion and wild speculation began to creep in. Chapter 12 is a good example of this entitled: Man and Machine. It’s a short chapter, 12 pages in total, and Thiel essentially preaches and speculates about the impact of better technology and strong AI. I like to dog ear pages with interesting or useful content so I can come back later, but this entire chapter remains untouched. America, fuck yeah! It would be really difficult for a personality as pungent as Theil's to go entirely unnoticed in a book like this, and indeed it breaks through every now and then. I only had a feint idea of Thiel's personality before I read the book, but having read up on his background, I’m actually surprised the book achieves such a neutral, if pragmatic, tone. Pretty early on in the book however, we are introduced to Thiel's concept of Economic Optimism and quite frankly the whole of chapter 6 should have been printed on star spangled, red white and blue pages. I’m not necessarily against the egotistic American spirit but when Thiel writes, in relation to European Pessimism: the US treasury prints ‘in god we trust’ on the dollar; the ECB might as well print ‘kick the can down the road’ on the euro I can smell the bacon double cheese burgers, with those tiny little American flags from here. Ooh Rah! ###TL;DR (a.k.a: Conclusion) Overall, however, I really did enjoy this book and I can see myself coming back to it. Peter Thiel IS controversial, but he has also been undeniably successful with a career punctuated by bold business decisions. The ideas in the book reflect this mind set well. Yes, he backed Trump, be he also (sadly) backed the winner.

160 of Y Combinators 229 Startup Cohort are AI Startups with and 75% of the Cohort has 0 revenue
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
DemocratizingfinanceThis week

160 of Y Combinators 229 Startup Cohort are AI Startups with and 75% of the Cohort has 0 revenue

Y Combinator (YC), one of the most prestigious startup accelerators in the world, has just unveiled its latest batch of innovative startups, providing key insights into what the future might hold. Y Combinators Summer 2023 Batch In a recent post by Garry Tan, YC's president, Tan offers a nostalgic look back at his first YC Demo Day in 2008, where he, as a budding entrepreneur, pitched his startup. Now, fifteen years later, he's at the helm, proudly launching the 37th Demo Day, this time for the Summer 2023 batch. Tan proudly declares this batch as one of YC's most impressive yet, emphasizing the deep technical talent of the participants. From a staggering pool of over 24,000 applications, only 229 startups were chosen, making this one of the most competitive batches to date. This batch marks a number of firsts and solidifies several rising trends within the startups landscape. 75% of these companies began their YC journey with zero revenue, and 81% hadn't raised any funding before joining the accelerator. YC's decision to focus on early-stage startups this round signals their commitment to nurturing raw, untapped potential. A Return to Face-to-Face Interaction After three years, YC has brought back the in-person Demo Day format, allowing startups, investors, and mentors to connect directly. While the virtual format has its merits, there's an unmistakable magic in the YC Demo Day room, filled with anticipation, hope, and innovation. AI Takes Center Stage Artificial Intelligence is the standout sector in the Summer 2023 batch. With recent advancements making waves across various industries, there's arguably no better time to launch an AI-focused startup, and no better platform than YC to foster its growth. This signals a clear trend in the startup investing and venture capital space: AI is just getting started. Of the entire Summer 2023 batch, 160 out of the entire 229 Summer 2023 batch that are utilizing or implementing artificial intelligence in some capacity. This means over 2 out of every 3 startups accepted is focused on artificial intelligence in some capacity. Some of the startups include: Quill AI: Automating the job of a financial analyst Fiber AI: Automating prospecting and outbound marketing Reworkd AI: Open Source Zapier of AI Agents Watto AI: AI-powered McKinsey-quality reports in seconds Agentive: AI-powered auditing platform Humanlike: Replace your call center with voice bots that sound human Greenlite: AI compliance team for fintech and banking atla: AI assistants to help in-house lawyers answer legal questions Studdy: An AI Match tutor Glade: League of Legends with AI-generated maps and gameplay and literally over 100 others. As you can see, there's a startup covering nearly every sector of AI in the new batch. YC By The Numbers YC continues to grow as a community. The accelerator now boasts over 10,000 founders spanning more than 4,500 startups. The success stories are impressive: over 350 startups valued at over $150 million and 90 valued at more than $1 billion. The unicorn creation rate of 5% is truly unparalleled in the industry. To cater to the ever-growing community, YC has added more full-time Group Partners than ever. This includes industry veterans such as Tom Blomfield, co-founder of billion-dollar startups GoCardless and Monzo, and YC alumni like Wayne Crosby (Zenter) and Emmett Shear (Twitch). YC Core Values YC's commitment to diversity is evident in the demographics of the S23 batch. They've also spotlighted the industries these startups operate in, with 70% in B2B SaaS/Enterprise, followed by fintech, healthcare, consumer, and proptech/industrials. Garry Tan emphasizes three core tenets for YC investors: to act ethically, to make decisions swiftly, and to commit long-term. He underlines the importance of the YC community, urging investors to provide valuable introductions and guidance to founders. The Road Ahead With YC's track record and the promise shown by the Summer 2023 batch, the future of the startup ecosystem looks promising. As always, YC remains at the forefront, championing innovation and shaping the next generation of global startups. Original Post: https://www.democratizing.finance/post/take-a-peek-into-the-future-with-y-combinators-finalized-summer-2023-batch

The Drawing of the Three - Once you look through the veil, nothing is the same again. (I will not promote)
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0.333
Tim-SylvesterThis week

The Drawing of the Three - Once you look through the veil, nothing is the same again. (I will not promote)

Originally published Nov 5, 2024 In my last post, I talked about assembling a series of filters to use to view the startup landscape, which led me to a few conclusions about what opportunities I should pursue. What did I see through those filters? What I saw through the moire pattern of those two lists overlaid by one another is what I think will be the third great monetization strategy for the internet, matching the pattern of: web1 => Ad monetization web2 => Subscription monetization web3 => For AI, neither of those work anymore, which demands something new. But what? Well that’s the important part, isn’t it? Should I just up and tell you? Yawn. The climax of a movie is at the climax, if they tell you the crux at the beginning, it’s a lot less fun (usually). The standard bearer for web1 and ads was Google (with countless followers), and essentially every website adopted that model for their first pass at content monetization. Google has been… let’s call it fairly successful… so it’s not a bad way to look at things. How many websites live and die by selling advertising? The standard bearers for web2 and subscriptions were Salesforce (for B2B SaaS) and Netflix (for B2C SaaS), with countless followers, to the extent that SaaS has been the dominant startup monetization thesis for the last 15+ years. It’s more old and tired by now than most American politicians, but how many websites live and die by people entering payment details for a monthly or annual subscription? Evidence proves those models for web1 and web2 worked well enough that countless businesses depend on them, and countless fortunes have been made and lost surfing the waves, or crashing against the shorelines, of ads and subs. But it’s also apparent (to me, at least) that now that AI is the dominant startup thesis, neither ads nor subs are going to prevail in an AI-centered world, and for one simple reason: Those monetization strategies are for humans, and AI bots are not humans. Changing Environments Require Changing Strategies Every so often, there’s a fundamental shift that demands everything in the ecosystem adapt to a new habitation strategy to survive. We’ve seen this repeatedly across Earth’s ecology (for instance, introducing free oxygen to the atmosphere, producing respiration while destroying all the life forms that existed before oxygen permeated the atmosphere), and across human society (for example, how nuclear bombs changed war, and how drones are changing it again, for less violent examples, consider the adoption of computers and the subsequent adoption of smartphones). Now the ecosystem of the internet has changed irrevocably, opening up countless new and interesting niches to occupy. Humans may see an ad and buy something stupid (or, occasionally, not-stupid), but an AI won’t unless its programmed to. And subscriptions are designed for humans to consume content at a human rate, not for an AI that can choke down an entire database of content (whatever it may be) at whatever speed the servers can manage. Changing conditions require changing strategies. It was clear to me that: The introduction of AI bots to the internet ecosystem was, is, and will be massively disruptive for a very long time The internet population of bots already exceeds humans and is growing faster than the human population The two dominant monetization strategies are not relevant to bots That disruption of expectations across the ecosystem demands a third strategy, a new strategy to handle a massive change in an existing system. And that strategy needs to accommodate, support, and monetize the new demands from the vast armies of new participants in the internet ecology. Therefore, a method that converts bots from an expense into a revenue source would become a dominant monetization strategy, and therefore whoever owns that strategy will be a dominant player in the internet ecosystem. Set the realization of semi-practical, semi-useful AI against a backdrop of technology cycles that have, in the distant past (in internet terms) produced ads and subs, and more recently produced enormous investment into fintech and crypto, I started to see a path that felt like it would grow over time to become a new monetization strategy that works in the AI ecosystem. Sun Tzu had a couple drinks, saw a couple things… There’s at least, and possibly only, two things I know about fighting: You cannot fight the tide, and it’s much harder to fight an uphill battle. If my whole thesis on this go-around was to go with the flow, and that trickle of insight was leading me from my overlook along a roaring flow of cash coursing through a valley filled with AI startups, where exactly would it lead me? Most rivers lead to the sea eventually, but they can take winding paths, and sometimes the quickest route from the mountain to the sea isn’t to follow the river, but to understand where the river leads and go there instead. Getting a view from on high can save you a lot of time on your journey. But before I get to where the path has led (or is leading) that will explain the objective I’ve identified, and the deliverables I have to produce to reach it, let’s talk about a few of the steps on the path I’ve been taking that highlight the process I followed. I figure if I explain the steps I’m taking, as I’m taking them, it may be easier for people who haven’t trod this route before to follow me and understand how to carve their own course towards their own objectives. And maybe the real treasure will be the friends we make along the way. (I will not promote)

For anyone working on LLM / AI startups
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
juliannortonThis week

For anyone working on LLM / AI startups

My company (which I will not promote) wrote this blog post in compliance with rule #7 :) Introduction to fine-tuning Large Language Models, or LLMs, have become commonplace in the tech world. The number of applications that LLMs are revolutionizing is multiplying by the day — extraction use cases, chatbots, tools for creatives and engineers. In spite of this, at its core, the LLM is a multi-purpose neural network, dozens of layers deep, designed to simply predict one word after the next. It predicts words by performing billions of matrix multiplication steps based on so-called parameter weights, which are discovered during the model training process. Almost all open-source, open-weight models are trained on a massive amount of text from every conceivable genre and topic. How, then, do researchers and engineers create novel specialized applications? The answer is fine-tuning. In this post, we will demystify the process of fine-tuning and discuss the tradeoffs of other approaches to customizing an LLM. The history of fine-tuning In the ancient days of LLMs, by which we mean five years ago, the primary approaches to customizing an LLM was identical to the approaches to customizing any other deep learning model. A machine learning engineer would have two options: Retrain the entire LLM. This would mean discarding the trained weights and instead only using the open source model’s architecture to train it on a specialized dataset. As long as the amount and diversity of the specialized data is comparable to what the original model was trained on, this can be the ideal method of customizing a model. However, of course, this is a massive waste of resources due to the computational power required and the difficulty of collecting such a massive dataset. Even if an organization could provision enough GPUs, the cost of training modern-day models could cost up to $190 million. Retrain the last few layers of the LLM while keeping the rest of the weights frozen. This is a more efficient method in terms of time and computational power required because it significantly cuts down the number of parameters that need to be trained. However, for most tasks, this leads to subpar quality. Of course, almost everyone chooses to retrain the last few layers. And where there is only one option, the research community saw an opportunity to step in. Soon, the LLM space saw an enormous amount of activity in fine-tuning, which leads us to today. Modern approaches to fine-tuning Most fine-tuning approaches today are parameter-efficient. Deep neural networks are composed of matrices and vectors (generally called tensors), which are at their core arrays of floating point numbers. By training a small subset of these tensors, while the rest of the LLM’s weights are kept frozen, practitioners achieve good enough results without having to retrain the entire model. Generally, this method requires at least a hundred or so handcrafted examples of input-output pairs for fine-tuning. This is called supervised learning. The modern fine-tuning landscape involves an unsupervised learning step afterwards. Given a set of inputs, a practitioner gathers the various possible outputs from the LLM and casts votes among them. This preference data is then used to further train the LLM’s weights. Usually, this approach is used for LLM alignment and safety, which defends the application from malicious uses, outputs embarrassing to the organization, and prompt injection attacks. Fine-tuning’s relationship to prompt engineering A natural question arises: why fine-tune instead of crafting a well-considered system prompt? Wouldn’t that be easier and more efficient? The answer is no, it wouldn’t. Here’s why: Advanced techniques make prompt engineering obsolete: \[redacted\]'s product uses soft-prompting and other techniques to train the input layer itself. This obviates the need for prompt engineering entirely, which lets organizations avoid the time-consuming trial-and-error process to get the prompt just right. Prompt engineering has been a stopgap measure in the early days of LLM applications to convey the practitioner’s intent to the LLM. It is not the long-term solution for LLM application development. The system prompt is precious: the limited budget for system prompt length is better used for up-to-date information, e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). Even as context windows increase in size with each new open-source model, the system prompt is the least efficient place to provide the LLM model with verbose instructions and examples. The longer the prompt, the slower the application: an LLM must attend to the entire system prompt for each token generated. This pain becomes more acute in the chatbot case, where the length of the conversation so far is also counted toward the system context. The longer the conversation, and the longer your beautifully-crafted system prompt, the slower the bot becomes. Even in cases where the model allows for system prompts that are millions of tokens long, doubling the size of the context will quadruple the latency. This means adding a few hundred words to the system prompt may result in several seconds of additional latency in production, making a chatbot impossible to use. Edge case handling: the number of edge cases that the system prompt would need to consider and emphasize to the LLM is too large. The instructions would have to be too nuanced and long to cover them all. However, fine-tuning on a dataset that considers these edge cases would be more straightforward. Do I need to fine-tune the LLM in my production application? Every LLM application in production must be fine-tuned often, not just once at the beginning. Why fine-tune? The world in which the application exists is constantly evolving. New prompt injection attacks are being discovered every day, new ways of embarrassing a chatbot are emerging constantly. This data can be used to further train an LLM model, which protects the application from new failure modes and reputational risk. Like any software, LLM models are constantly improving. Smarter and faster models are open-sourced all the time. For a new model to get deployed to production, it must first be finetuned on the specific dataset of the organization building the application. Fine-tuning does not add latency to LLM applications. Rather than a solution that sits in the middle of the LLM and the rest of the application, fine-tuning leverages the power of the LLM itself to increase the quality of the output. In fact, fine-tuning allows for shorter system prompts, which speeds up the average response generation time.

How a founder built a B2B AI startup to serve with 65+ global brands (including Fortune500 companies) (I will not promote)
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
Royal_Rest8409This week

How a founder built a B2B AI startup to serve with 65+ global brands (including Fortune500 companies) (I will not promote)

AI Palette is an AI-driven platform that helps food and beverage companies predict emerging product trends. I had the opportunity recently to sit down with the founder to get his advice on building an AI-first startup, which he'll be going through in this post. (I will not promote) About AI Palette: Co-founders: >!2 (Somsubhra GanChoudhuri, Himanshu Upreti)!!100+!!$12.7M USD!!AI-powered predictive analytics for the CPG (Consumer Packaged Goods) industry!!Signed first paying customer in the first year!!65+ global brands, including Cargill, Diageo, Ajinomoto, Symrise, Mondelez, and L’Oréal, use AI Palette!!Every new product launched has secured a paying client within months!!Expanded into Beauty & Personal Care (BPC), onboarding one of India’s largest BPC companies within weeks!!Launched multiple new product lines in the last two years, creating a unified suite for brand innovation!Identify the pain points in your industry for ideas* When I was working in the flavour and fragrance industry, I noticed a major issue CPG companies faced: launching a product took at least one to two years. For instance, if a company decided today to launch a new juice, it wouldn’t hit the market until 2027. This long timeline made it difficult to stay relevant and on top of trends. Another big problem I noticed was that companies relied heavily on market research to determine what products to launch. While this might work for current consumer preferences, it was highly inefficient since the product wouldn’t actually reach the market for several years. By the time the product launched, the consumer trends had already shifted, making that research outdated. That’s where AI can play a crucial role. Instead of looking at what consumers like today, we realised that companies should use AI to predict what they will want next. This allows businesses to create products that are ahead of the curve. Right now, the failure rate for new product launches is alarmingly high, with 8 out of 10 products failing. By leveraging AI, companies can avoid wasting resources on products that won’t succeed, leading to better, more successful launches. Start by talking to as many industry experts as possible to identify the real problems When we first had the idea for AI Palette, it was just a hunch, a gut feeling—we had no idea whether people would actually pay for it. To validate the idea, we reached out to as many people as we could within the industry. Since our focus area was all about consumer insights, we spoke to professionals in the CPG sector, particularly those in the insights departments of CPG companies. Through these early conversations, we began to see a common pattern emerge and identified the exact problem we wanted to solve. Don’t tell people what you’re building—listen to their frustrations and challenges first. Going into these early customer conversations, our goal was to listen and understand their challenges without telling them what we were trying to build. This is crucial as it ensures that you can gather as much data about the problem to truly understand it and that you aren't biasing their answers by showing your solution. This process helped us in two key ways: First, it validated that there was a real problem in the industry through the number of people who spoke about experiencing the same problem. Second, it allowed us to understand the exact scale and depth of the problem—e.g., how much money companies were spending on consumer research, what kind of tools they were currently using, etc. Narrow down your focus to a small, actionable area to solve initially. Once we were certain that there was a clear problem worth solving, we didn’t try to tackle everything at once. As a small team of two people, we started by focusing on a specific area of the problem—something big enough to matter but small enough for us to handle. Then, we approached customers with a potential solution and asked them for feedback. We learnt that our solution seemed promising, but we wanted to validate it further. If customers are willing to pay you for the solution, it’s a strong validation signal for market demand. One of our early customer interviewees even asked us to deliver the solution, which we did manually at first. We used machine learning models to analyse the data and presented the results in a slide deck. They paid us for the work, which was a critical moment. It meant we had something with real potential, and we had customers willing to pay us before we had even built the full product. This was the key validation that we needed. By the time we were ready to build the product, we had already gathered crucial insights from our early customers. We understood the specific information they wanted and how they wanted the results to be presented. This input was invaluable in shaping the development of our final product. Building & Product Development Start with a simple concept/design to validate with customers before building When we realised the problem and solution, we began by designing the product, but not by jumping straight into coding. Instead, we created wireframes and user interfaces using tools like InVision and Figma. This allowed us to visually represent the product without the need for backend or frontend development at first. The goal was to showcase how the product would look and feel, helping potential customers understand its value before we even started building. We showed these designs to potential customers and asked for feedback. Would they want to buy this product? Would they pay for it? We didn’t dive into actual development until we found a customer willing to pay a significant amount for the solution. This approach helped us ensure we were on the right track and didn’t waste time or resources building something customers didn’t actually want. Deliver your solution using a manual consulting approach before developing an automated product Initially, we solved problems for customers in a more "consulting" manner, delivering insights manually. Recall how I mentioned that when one of our early customer interviewees asked us to deliver the solution, we initially did it manually by using machine learning models to analyse the data and presenting the results to them in a slide deck. This works for the initial stages of validating your solution, as you don't want to invest too much time into building a full-blown MVP before understanding the exact features and functionalities that your users want. However, after confirming that customers were willing to pay for what we provided, we moved forward with actual product development. This shift from a manual service to product development was key to scaling in a sustainable manner, as our building was guided by real-world feedback and insights rather than intuition. Let ongoing customer feedback drive iteration and the product roadmap Once we built the first version of the product, it was basic, solving only one problem. But as we worked closely with customers, they requested additional features and functionalities to make it more useful. As a result, we continued to evolve the product to handle more complex use cases, gradually developing new modules based on customer feedback. Product development is a continuous process. Our early customers pushed us to expand features and modules, from solving just 20% of their problems to tackling 50–60% of their needs. These demands shaped our product roadmap and guided the development of new features, ultimately resulting in a more complete solution. Revenue and user numbers are key metrics for assessing product-market fit. However, critical mass varies across industries Product-market fit (PMF) can often be gauged by looking at the size of your revenue and the number of customers you're serving. Once you've reached a certain critical mass of customers, you can usually tell that you're starting to hit product-market fit. However, this critical mass varies by industry and the type of customers you're targeting. For example, if you're building an app for a broad consumer market, you may need thousands of users. But for enterprise software, product-market fit may be reached with just a few dozen key customers. Compare customer engagement and retention with other available solutions on the market for product-market fit Revenue and the number of customers alone isn't always enough to determine if you're reaching product-market fit. The type of customer and the use case for your product also matter. The level of engagement with your product—how much time users are spending on the platform—is also an important metric to track. The more time they spend, the more likely it is that your product is meeting a crucial need. Another way to evaluate product-market fit is by assessing retention, i.e whether users are returning to your platform and relying on it consistently, as compared to other solutions available. That's another key indication that your solution is gaining traction in the market. Business Model & Monetisation Prioritise scalability Initially, we started with a consulting-type model where we tailor-made specific solutions for each customer use-case we encountered and delivered the CPG insights manually, but we soon realized that this wasn't scalable. The problem with consulting is that you need to do the same work repeatedly for every new project, which requires a large team to handle the workload. That is not how you sustain a high-growth startup. To solve this, we focused on building a product that would address the most common problems faced by our customers. Once built, this product could be sold to thousands of customers without significant overheads, making the business scalable. With this in mind, we decided on a SaaS (Software as a Service) business model. The benefit of SaaS is that once you create the software, you can sell it to many customers without adding extra overhead. This results in a business with higher margins, where the same product can serve many customers simultaneously, making it much more efficient than the consulting model. Adopt a predictable, simplistic business model for efficiency. Look to industry practices for guidance When it came to monetisation, we considered the needs of our CPG customers, who I knew from experience were already accustomed to paying annual subscriptions for sales databases and other software services. We decided to adopt the same model and charge our customers an annual upfront fee. This model worked well for our target market, aligning with industry standards and ensuring stable, recurring revenue. Moreover, our target CPG customers were already used to this business model and didn't have to choose from a huge variety of payment options, making closing sales a straightforward and efficient process. Marketing & Sales Educate the market to position yourself as a thought leader When we started, AI was not widely understood, especially in the CPG industry. We had to create awareness around both AI and its potential value. Our strategy focused on educating potential users and customers about AI, its relevance, and why they should invest in it. This education was crucial to the success of our marketing efforts. To establish credibility, we adopted a thought leadership approach. We wrote blogs on the importance of AI and how it could solve problems for CPG companies. We also participated in events and conferences to demonstrate our expertise in applying AI to the industry. This helped us build our brand and reputation as leaders in the AI space for CPG, and word-of-mouth spread as customers recognized us as the go-to company for AI solutions. It’s tempting for startups to offer products for free in the hopes of gaining early traction with customers, but this approach doesn't work in the long run. Free offerings don’t establish the value of your product, and customers may not take them seriously. You should always charge for pilots, even if the fee is minimal, to ensure that the customer is serious about potentially working with you, and that they are committed and engaged with the product. Pilots/POCs/Demos should aim to give a "flavour" of what you can deliver A paid pilot/POC trial also gives you the opportunity to provide a “flavour” of what your product can deliver, helping to build confidence and trust with the client. It allows customers to experience a detailed preview of what your product can do, which builds anticipation and desire for the full functionality. During this phase, ensure your product is built to give them a taste of the value you can provide, which sets the stage for a broader, more impactful adoption down the line. Fundraising & Financial Management Leverage PR to generate inbound interest from VCs When it comes to fundraising, our approach was fairly traditional—we reached out to VCs and used connections from existing investors to make introductions. However, looking back, one thing that really helped us build momentum during our fundraising process was getting featured in Tech in Asia. This wasn’t planned; it just so happened that Tech in Asia was doing a series on AI startups in Southeast Asia and they reached out to us for an article. During the interview, they asked if we were fundraising, and we mentioned that we were. As a result, several VCs we hadn’t yet contacted reached out to us. This inbound interest was incredibly valuable, and we found it far more effective than our outbound efforts. So, if you can, try to generate some PR attention—it can help create inbound interest from VCs, and that interest is typically much stronger and more promising than any outbound strategies because they've gone out of their way to reach out to you. Be well-prepared and deliberate about fundraising. Keep trying and don't lose heart When pitching to VCs, it’s crucial to be thoroughly prepared, as you typically only get one shot at making an impression. If you mess up, it’s unlikely they’ll give you a second chance. You need to have key metrics at your fingertips, especially if you're running a SaaS company. Be ready to answer questions like: What’s your retention rate? What are your projections for the year? How much will you close? What’s your average contract value? These numbers should be at the top of your mind. Additionally, fundraising should be treated as a structured process, not something you do on the side while juggling other tasks. When you start, create a clear plan: identify 20 VCs to reach out to each week. By planning ahead, you’ll maintain momentum and speed up the process. Fundraising can be exhausting and disheartening, especially when you face multiple rejections. Remember, you just need one investor to say yes to make it all worthwhile. When using funds, prioritise profitability and grow only when necessary. Don't rely on funding to survive. In the past, the common advice for startups was to raise money, burn through it quickly, and use it to boost revenue numbers, even if that meant operating at a loss. The idea was that profitability wasn’t the main focus, and the goal was to show rapid growth for the next funding round. However, times have changed, especially with the shift from “funding summer” to “funding winter.” My advice now is to aim for profitability as soon as possible and grow only when it's truly needed. For example, it’s tempting to hire a large team when you have substantial funds in the bank, but ask yourself: Do you really need 10 new hires, or could you get by with just four? Growing too quickly can lead to unnecessary expenses, so focus on reaching profitability as soon as possible, rather than just inflating your team or burn rate. The key takeaway is to spend your funds wisely and only when absolutely necessary to reach profitability. You want to avoid becoming dependent on future VC investments to keep your company afloat. Instead, prioritize reaching break-even as quickly as you can, so you're not reliant on external funding to survive in the long run. Team-Building & Leadership Look for complementary skill sets in co-founders When choosing a co-founder, it’s important to find someone with a complementary skill set, not just someone you’re close to. For example, I come from a business and commercial background, so I needed someone with technical expertise. That’s when I found my co-founder, Himanshu, who had experience in machine learning and AI. He was a great match because his technical knowledge complemented my business skills, and together we formed a strong team. It might seem natural to choose your best friend as your co-founder, but this can often lead to conflict. Chances are, you and your best friend share similar interests, skills, and backgrounds, which doesn’t bring diversity to the table. If both of you come from the same industry or have the same strengths, you may end up butting heads on how things should be done. Having diverse skill sets helps avoid this and fosters a more collaborative working relationship. Himanshu (left) and Somsubhra (right) co-founded AI Palette in 2018 Define roles clearly to prevent co-founder conflict To avoid conflict, it’s essential that your roles as co-founders are clearly defined from the beginning. If your co-founder and you have distinct responsibilities, there is no room for overlap or disagreement. This ensures that both of you can work without stepping on each other's toes, and there’s mutual respect for each other’s expertise. This is another reason as to why it helps to have a co-founder with a complementary skillset to yours. Not only is having similar industry backgrounds and skillsets not particularly useful when building out your startup, it's also more likely to lead to conflicts since you both have similar subject expertise. On the other hand, if your co-founder is an expert in something that you're not, you're less likely to argue with them about their decisions regarding that aspect of the business and vice versa when it comes to your decisions. Look for employees who are driven by your mission, not salary For early-stage startups, the first hires are crucial. These employees need to be highly motivated and excited about the mission. Since the salary will likely be low and the work demanding, they must be driven by something beyond just the paycheck. The right employees are the swash-buckling pirates and romantics, i.e those who are genuinely passionate about the startup’s vision and want to be part of something impactful beyond material gains. When employees are motivated by the mission, they are more likely to stick around and help take the startup to greater heights. A litmus test for hiring: Would you be excited to work with them on a Sunday? One of the most important rounds in the hiring process is the culture fit round. This is where you assess whether a candidate shares the same values as you and your team. A key question to ask yourself is: "Would I be excited to work with this person on a Sunday?" If there’s any doubt about your answer, it’s likely not a good fit. The idea is that you want employees who align with the company's culture and values and who you would enjoy collaborating with even outside of regular work hours. How we structure the team at AI Palette We have three broad functions in our organization. The first two are the big ones: Technical Team – This is the core of our product and technology. This team is responsible for product development and incorporating customer feedback into improving the technology Commercial Team – This includes sales, marketing, customer service, account managers, and so on, handling everything related to business growth and customer relations. General and Administrative Team – This smaller team supports functions like finance, HR, and administration. As with almost all businesses, we have teams that address the two core tasks of building (technical team) and selling (commercial team), but given the size we're at now, having the administrative team helps smoothen operations. Set broad goals but let your teams decide on execution What I've done is recruit highly skilled people who don't need me to micromanage them on a day-to-day basis. They're experts in their roles, and as Steve Jobs said, when you hire the right person, you don't have to tell them what to do—they understand the purpose and tell you what to do. So, my job as the CEO is to set the broader goals for them, review the plans they have to achieve those goals, and periodically check in on progress. For example, if our broad goal is to meet a certain revenue target, I break it down across teams: For the sales team, I’ll look at how they plan to hit that target—how many customers they need to sell to, how many salespeople they need, and what tactics and strategies they plan to use. For the technical team, I’ll evaluate our product offerings—whether they think we need to build new products to attract more customers, and whether they think it's scalable for the number of customers we plan to serve. This way, the entire organization's tasks are cascaded in alignment with our overarching goals, with me setting the direction and leaving the details of execution to the skilled team members that I hire.

Showing 49-72 of 1945 resources