Comment by zerotolerance
6 days ago
Did he need it to prove a business viable if there were already players in the market? No. Do you ever need to validate that people would switch providers of a commodity product or service if presented with a cheaper option? Also no. What did he learn then, that he can create a partial solution that people might pay for initially (no data on renewals) but will ultimately have to actually hire people to build a real product which will eat at his differentiator (price). Wait until he decides he actually has to spend money on marketing.
The good news is that with each of these we get to "validate" that having an idea still isn't worth much without the ability to actually execute.
As a business owner I can tell you that price is not the only factor people look at when choosing to engage with a business. I've tried the whole "cheapest offer in the market" thing and its backfired terribly. The main insight I've gained is that customers have a perceived value of a product that aligns with things like branding, marketing, previous experiences, and perceived popularity. People are willing to pay more for these things.
yes exactly, branding, marketing and market share matters.
He validated that he could get customers. The comment says he started generating revenue so he had real customers.
If he had been unable to get customer he would have known it was not worth building a real product.
That's like saying Canva and Figma didn't need to prove there was a market because PowerPoint and Photoshop existed.
It's the opposite, right? When a dominant incumbent exists, you have to prove that there is a market for an alternative that can compete with more mature, established software.