nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is it difficult to start a tech company.

[Deleted User]

How difficult is it to start a tech company? and make it successful?.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

For Forks Sake

The Tetrarch wrote: »

How about setting up a public relations company to improve Trump's image?

Mission : Impossible

Ubbquittious

The Tetrarch wrote: »

How about setting up a public relations company to improve Trump's image?

Maybe build a pocket sized cold-fusion reactor first just to get you warmed up for the challenge

10000maniacs

It all depends on the idea. If the idea is original and people like it, then here is where the good look kicks in. You need good luck even if you have a great idea.

ednwireland

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I was in a company who were in business 10 years and had 5 staff. The economy hadn't recovered and they crashed after being unable to sell.

worked in an internet startup late 90s early 00 went bust in 01. ran my own sole trader company for a few years closed in th 08 crash. worked since the for a niche tech company and we were sold last year twice got a few quid out of the first sale. (nothing to write home about but nice to get !)

Brendan Flowers

10000maniacs wrote: »

It all depends on the idea. If the idea is original and people like it, then here is where the good look kicks in. You need good luck even if you have a great idea.

This is something I would completely disagree with it. You dont need to have an original idea to start a company. In fact if another company is doing the same thing and are profitable, its actually reaffirming the potential of the business. More important then an original idea in my opinion is to be able to execute an idea brilliantly.

As for the OP's question, is it difficult to start a tech company? How long is a piece of string? Because I could throw together a website in a couple of hours and put some articles on it. Separately I could also spend the next 2 years working on a prototype of a SaaS and then start licensing it to companies. Both could be considered tech startups, but with very different costs, amount of time required, etc

riclad

Many tech companys make no profit,
the goal is once you have a large no of users google or facebook will buy the company.or just make an app ,theres a free version ,for extra features theres a paid version.
the usp of zoom was its free ,its easy to use,.you dont need to be a tech expert to use it.no one is going to make a new version of twitter.
its hard to think of an original idea that is not already on the app store.
no one knows what will be the next tik tok or zoom that will get millions of users.chrome and firefox work fine, its hard to think of a reason to use
edge browser,

ApplyLiberally

mariaalice wrote: »

How difficult is it to start a tech company? and make it successful?.

Why tech?

How difficult is it to start a fashion company?
Surely it's just picking fabrics, cutting them in different shapes and colours and a bit of sewing.

completedit

Very hard now. It was probably a bit easier in the wild west days of the internet but again that's probably an illusion.

Plenty of opportunities in the decades ahead but the chances of actually creating a company that becomes successful are so unlikely. I heard it compared before that nobody born in the lower classes in the 1700's thought that they would one day rise to become part of the Aristocracy but today we have this illusion that we can all become part of the 1% if we just work hard enough and keep hustling. Thought it was interesting. Okay not everyone thinks they can become the next Zuck or Musk but there is that sort of feeling that if you just work at it enough, greatness awaits.

bnt

I took part in an “incubator” conference a few years ago, as a technical adviser to the starter-uppers: the #1 thing I took away was “know your market”. It doesn’t matter how wonderful you think your product or technology is, if you can’t find the people who (a) really need it and (b) are willing to pay real money for it. So many tech things these days fall under the heading of “it’s nice, but I don’t need it enough to pay for it”. :rolleyes:

Ush1

ApplyLiberally wrote: »

Why tech?

How difficult is it to start a fashion company?
Surely it's just picking fabrics, cutting them in different shapes and colours and a bit of sewing.

You would need massive amounts of marketing to stand out.

arccosh

mariaalice wrote: »

Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, and the like basically any information-sharing platform have made their founders billionaires in a very short time, so could someone found a system that could replace them.

Twinstatube

touts

mariaalice wrote: »

How difficult is it to start a tech company? and make it successful?.

Very easy to start a tech company or any company for that. Tech may be slightly easier as there are groups like Techstars who do everything possible to get people to start tech companies.

But successful. Well that's the real difficulty. Any muppet can set up a company. Half the millennials in the country seem to have some side hustle going as an influencer or some such. But being a success. That's a very different story. That takes a great idea and then years of hard work and persistence. And still after all that your luck and timing have to be right.

jimmycrackcorm

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

This industry moves so fast it's really hard to tell. That's why you need a name that's cutting-edge, like CutCo, EdgeCom, Interslice.

To be sucessful you only need to have a non-tech company and simply rename to include blockchain.

Aongus Von Bismarck

I've moved out of traditional banking, and now work for an investment firm who invests on behalf of clients interested in cleantech, renewable technologies, and bioengineering.

We don't do seed capital investments, so the companies we see have already reached some sort of product development stage. Even then it's obvious how difficult it is to succeed in creating a viable business. There's a huge amount of luck involved, and most of the successful companies will have been founded by people who are already successful. There's also a huge bias towards investment in companies created by graduates of elite universities.

A lot of these early-stage businesses struggle with believing in their core idea, and decide to pivot their product so it includes the latest buzzword or topic de jour. The European investment landscape is filled with former businesses who decided that blockchain was something they needed to include, for example. That has almost completely gone away at this stage, and you'll see a lot of presentations including the word infodemic at the moment. Altruism as well.

Advice - you almost certainly won't be creating a unicorn tech company. Areas to focus on - sustainable agriculture, trades (plumbing!), and services related to heritage and nostalgia.

For Forks Sake

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

This industry moves so fast it's really hard to tell. That's why you need a name that's cutting-edge, like CutCo, EdgeCom, Interslice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercom_(company)

Meh, close enough

kyote00

I have an idea for a spell check app. Think I will talk to EI tomorrow

cms88 wrote: »

Well in my experience the likes of Enterprise Ireland etc will just trow money at anything that's even remotely ''tech''. I've seen it myself businesses that have no cusomets etc just an 'idea'' yet have been able to go on for a few years just based on gtants etc

Capt'n Midnight

You have to figure a way to convert a billion dollar industry into a one worth a few millions.

Or be a member of the Chumocracy.

Brendan Flowers

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You have to figure a way to convert a billion dollar industry into a one worth a few millions.

This in my opinion is a very ill informed notion. Why does someone need to build a company worth a few million for it to be a success? If a person was to start up a company that gave them a salary slightly higher than their current job, with less working hours, would that not be a success? Even if they had a salary slightly less than their current job but less hours meaning a better quality of life, again how is that not a success...

A big reason so many tech start-ups fail is because, while the person (or people) involved in creating it might be geniuses when it comes to coding, they lack the business know-how. They get caught up in the idea that they need to be the next Zuckerburg/Dorsey, want to be funded with 5 and 6 figure sums and then think by throwing money around they'll be a success and create a company worth millions.

smacl

irishgrover wrote: »

I've been involved in a number of different tech startups in a number of different countries (US and Ireland) in the 90's. It was very very hard work and an incredibly great crack.
I made 1.2million when I was 26 , I lost 1.16milion when I was 27 .
I also got badly burned (6 figures) when I was 32 and had a mortgage and 2 small kids.
None of these companies still exist. Some were bought out by bigger companies, some went bankrupt.
I gave up being a risk-taker when child #3 and #4 arrived. I am now a boring corporate whore but I can pay my mortgage. Am turning 50 this year, I think there might be one more mad bastard risk-taking effort left in me.

Similar enough story though slightly smaller figures. Set up my first company in '89 and second with my then GF later wife in '98 (both software). Sold the 2nd company for just under a million but had debts that ate up a good chunk of that. First company is still going strong, very small at just three people but profitable enough. I really enjoy the craic and do well enough but haven't exactly made a fortune either. No plans on growing the company as 30+ years in I'm well aware that I'm pretty crap at management and have no interest in taking on any more stress. Have had decent enough offers to sell the company but would miss the craic and reckon I'm well past the stage where I could work for anyone else. Mid 50s and could retire whenever I want to, but again no plans to do so.

To the OP, give it a go. Personally, I'd advice get a couple of co-directors where you've got people passionate about sales and marketing as well as the tech and someone with a level head and into finances. Co-directors, like yourself, can live off bread and water for the first year and will most likely have to

Having employees is like having children, lovely and all that but they're a shocking drain on the finances. If you work long hours for a pittance for the first year and are good at listening to what your paying clients want to buy rather than being too concerned about what you want to sell them, you have every chance of making a go of it. If you do, set up a directors pension on day 1, no matter how small it starts out.

PhilOssophy

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

This in my opinion is a very ill informed notion. Why does someone need to build a company worth a few million for it to be a success? If a person was to start up a company that gave them a salary slightly higher than their current job, with less working hours, would that not be a success? Even if they had a salary slightly less than their current job but less hours meaning a better quality of life, again how is that not a success...

A big reason so many tech start-ups fail is because, while the person (or people) involved in creating it might be geniuses when it comes to coding, they lack the business know-how. They get caught up in the idea that they need to be the next Zuckerburg/Dorsey, want to be funded with 5 and 6 figure sums and then think by throwing money around they'll be a success and create a company worth millions.

This! You are not a failure if your company doesn't make millions. If you make more than you'd make listening to some bs merchant finger waving and ordering you and everybody else around, that is a success.

smacl

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

This is something I would completely disagree with it. You dont need to have an original idea to start a company. In fact if another company is doing the same thing and are profitable, its actually reaffirming the potential of the business. More important then an original idea in my opinion is to be able to execute an idea brilliantly.

What I've seen with a number of succesful startups is that the owners are already coming from the industry they're selling to and are well connected to their potential new client base. Very few people take cold calls any more, aside from a good product or service you need to figure out how exactly you're going to access your market. Building and nurturing a client base from scratch is a big ask.

smacl

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

This in my opinion is a very ill informed notion. Why does someone need to build a company worth a few million for it to be a success? If a person was to start up a company that gave them a salary slightly higher than their current job, with less working hours, would that not be a success? Even if they had a salary slightly less than their current job but less hours meaning a better quality of life, again how is that not a success...

Apart from myself, I've a number of friends with small companies, never seen it work out as less working hours though can be more flexible working hours. Money aside, IMO you really have to enjoy the work. Early retirement is certainly on the cards, but those I know in this situation seem to prefer to keep working.

[Deleted User]

I have an idea for an app its a bit niche but if anyone wants to try it would be very handy.

An app tells you when the local bottle bank and clothes bank is full and where the nearest one with space is, so you could check it before you go out and not arrive and find them all full.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Pretty much all the big tech entrepreneurs come from upper-middle or upper class backgrounds and have parents who are mathematicians or scientists or whatever. They have a lot of support behind them, both financial and intellectually. That kind of stuff does matter. I’m not saying it’s impossible for anyone else but they have a lot socioeconomic capital there.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Even money and connections don't guarantee success. Look at Google Plus. It was a better product than Facebook (at least in my opinion) and had Google's weight and resources behind it and it still flopped.

How so? I’m not a Facebook cheerleader but nobody who bigged up Google Plus at the time could ever give a convincing reason why I should switch. But I tried it out anyway out of curiosity and to not be a stick in the mud and was unmoved for various reasons.

AlmightyCushion

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How so? I’m not a Facebook cheerleader but nobody who bigged up Google Plus at the time could ever give a convincing reason why I should switch. But I tried it out anyway out of curiosity and to not be a stick in the mud and was unmoved for various reasons.

The circles were the big difference for me. Circles were basically their name for groups. You could create different circles and add your friends into them. Then when you post something you can choose what circles to share it with.

So, if you put up pictures of your kids you might not want to share that with the hundreds of people you are friends with so you could just share it with your 'family' circle and 'close friends' circle and only people in those circles could see it. For something college related, you could just share it with your 'college' circle.

You could also click on a circle and view just the posts from those people so instead of having one big news feed with posts from every person you are friends with you could have multiple different feeds. It just seemed like such a great idea and very handy for a busy social network.