Hmm, there's definitely a BIG lag between when you do work (engineering, marketing, etc), and when you see results (revenue). Like months. You really have to be self-driven and have some faith that the work you're doing now will pay off down the road.

There's a quote, "Do nothing, and nothing happens", and it's super true in the early days, before you hire people. If you don't work, your company makes literally no progress whatsoever. This is motivating. Like, everything relies on you, so show up and get it done!

I think a lot of VC-backed companies only get 1-2 years of seed money to try their idea. It took us 1.5 years to make our first dollar, and another year after that to get to profitability. If we were venture backed, we might not have had enough traction to raise our next round, and would have had to call it there.

Similarly, I don't love the "lean startup" approach of trying a bunch of stuff quickly. If you pick a good starting point (big market, competitive differentiators, etc.), and spend years at it, you're bound to have some success. Just due to the sheer fact that you're willing to commit more of your lifetime to solving that problem than anyone else is. That's what worked for us at least.

> Similarly, I don't love the "lean startup" approach of trying a bunch of stuff quickly. If you pick a good starting point (big market, competitive differentiators, etc.), and spend years at it, you're bound to have some success. Just due to the sheer fact that you're willing to commit more of your lifetime to solving that problem than anyone else is. That's what worked for us at least

This is what my thinking has shifted to as well. Play long term games instead of trying to make a quick buck.

If you're trying to do something very innovative, I understand why the lean startup method is advised so you don't waste a lot of time. But if you're going into an existing market, I'm not sure it's the best approach.