So in the end they did not manage to find product-market fit and did not get to profitability but still managed to return some funds to the investors via acquisition.
Interesting article as I never thought about it from this perspective. I would be curious what then actualy happened to the IP. Whas it actualy used or thrown away? Sometim…
So in the end they did not manage to find product-market fit and did not get to profitability but still managed to return some funds to the investors via acquisition.
Interesting article as I never thought about it from this perspective. I would be curious what then actualy happened to the IP. Whas it actualy used or thrown away? Sometimes it's easier to build some features from scratch rather than integrating an existing product with all of it's tech debt into whatever you are building. Saw this issue first hand.
I guess this is quite the hard lesson that could tell you - you need a VERY long runway for problem discovery & don't rush into building a company".
Then on the other hand you could see the other companies that suvived (surviver bias?) and say that you should start to discover the problem later or learn how to discover problems?
What % of stumbling upon the problem is due to pure luck (eg. just happend to be interested in the right thing at the right time, meeting the right person)?
Hey Saso - Thanks for the comment. Savvy's IP is being integrated into the acquirer's solution (you can read more in the press release linked above). To your point, acquirers typically assess whether it makes more sense to build de novo vs. acquire a product. Having differentiated, well-architected technology is an advantage. This was an important part of due diligence.
On your second question, while luck can certainly contribute to discovering a problem, I think the best startups / founders are exceptional at problem-seeking. They learn how to look for compelling problems: focus on the right people (customers, not "experts"), ask probing questions, question assumptions, limit bias in their research, and develop a sense for problem depth. This disciplined problem orientation requires no luck and is different than what you might expect a "technologist" to do, which is to imagine a unique future world and build a great technology solution. I'd focus on problems, not solutions.
I think it is still worth emphasising that to truly discover if a problem realy worth solving takes a lot of time and good chunk of funds on its own (unless you strike lucky on the first try). Especialy if you want to do it full time and go deep. Of course there would be variation in the seed funding needed depending on the industry.
And also I would say luck plays a bigger role than we realise and I agree that the ony thng we can do is be systematic and persistent at it while realising that you don't know when you'll strike the right thing.
In any case, glad that you shared this story. I think the internet is too ful of unicorn company stories and most people will not strike that big. Most will likely need to sort it out like you guys did or have a worse situation. It is helpful to see how others handled it.
So in the end they did not manage to find product-market fit and did not get to profitability but still managed to return some funds to the investors via acquisition.
Interesting article as I never thought about it from this perspective. I would be curious what then actualy happened to the IP. Whas it actualy used or thrown away? Sometimes it's easier to build some features from scratch rather than integrating an existing product with all of it's tech debt into whatever you are building. Saw this issue first hand.
I guess this is quite the hard lesson that could tell you - you need a VERY long runway for problem discovery & don't rush into building a company".
Then on the other hand you could see the other companies that suvived (surviver bias?) and say that you should start to discover the problem later or learn how to discover problems?
What % of stumbling upon the problem is due to pure luck (eg. just happend to be interested in the right thing at the right time, meeting the right person)?
Hey Saso - Thanks for the comment. Savvy's IP is being integrated into the acquirer's solution (you can read more in the press release linked above). To your point, acquirers typically assess whether it makes more sense to build de novo vs. acquire a product. Having differentiated, well-architected technology is an advantage. This was an important part of due diligence.
On your second question, while luck can certainly contribute to discovering a problem, I think the best startups / founders are exceptional at problem-seeking. They learn how to look for compelling problems: focus on the right people (customers, not "experts"), ask probing questions, question assumptions, limit bias in their research, and develop a sense for problem depth. This disciplined problem orientation requires no luck and is different than what you might expect a "technologist" to do, which is to imagine a unique future world and build a great technology solution. I'd focus on problems, not solutions.
I think it is still worth emphasising that to truly discover if a problem realy worth solving takes a lot of time and good chunk of funds on its own (unless you strike lucky on the first try). Especialy if you want to do it full time and go deep. Of course there would be variation in the seed funding needed depending on the industry.
And also I would say luck plays a bigger role than we realise and I agree that the ony thng we can do is be systematic and persistent at it while realising that you don't know when you'll strike the right thing.
In any case, glad that you shared this story. I think the internet is too ful of unicorn company stories and most people will not strike that big. Most will likely need to sort it out like you guys did or have a worse situation. It is helpful to see how others handled it.