Founders are being taught wrong
Reflecting on this post: https://substack.com/home/post/p-128066422
I claim we would see more exciting, authentic software if teams aim to be small giants. The need for growth, or in Artifact's case, a presumable room to grow kills not only design but businesses.
I genuinely loved the Artifact app and found it refreshing regardless of the AI premise whatsoever.
There are obvious reasons why founders can't burn their time and money on building, but as Sari writes: "Founders are taught to possess enough faith that they can build something very big very fast."
IMO, founders are also taught to build the so-called MVP, raise funds, find users, and so forth. Moreover, many are taught to believe there's only one result to a venture: to become BIG, and less is some kind of a failure.
I wish more would find fame or satisfaction in smallness, and not just by the exit dream.
Originally posted on Twitter, but thought it worth sharing here as well.
I think there's something to be said for balancing the needs/advice of VCs and needs/advice of founders. VCs want fast progress and so it's expected out of their founders. That doesn't mean a particular founder has that need though, especially if they aren't taking outside funding. Unless your business is selling $1 for $0.90 or has very little revenue, you probably don't have to grow-or-bust if you don't want to.
Somehow founders started thinking founders should find fast PMF + hockeystick growth + run at a loss chasing growth when that's really what investors want out of their investments.
The fact companies choose "deliberately" to run in a loss mode is an astonishing phenomenon