Literally clicked to the comments to say exactly this. While I agree with the overall sentiment of the piece, this statement destroys the author's credibility.
Came here to say this. The author lost all credibility with me when including Ramit in the list as if he's actually paid any attention at all to what IWT says he'd realize that Ramit could have written the article he just published (and they would have been similarly condescending tones)
Hey, unrelated, but you might want to check how your home page's moving headline behaves on different window sizes. For me at about 850px and 1470px, the words that change at the start of the headline cause the content below to pop up and down every few seconds (FF on Win).
There are lots of great reasons to buy SaaS businesses. Failed product market fit, for example, does not mean that creators tried everything they could. If you're a marketer (or already have an audience) buying a product is a great idea.
Lots of people also sell good SaaS products because they have others that have taken off (I bought one last year from someone who got funding from YC on another project, for example).
"The market likes the product. In this case, the original owner can just hire people to do the work, so there's no reason to sell." is also flawed. Do you have any idea how many developers/creators hate the idea (and reality) of hiring and managing people? Plenty would prefer to cash in and go back to building and let someone else build a team.
I'd add that there's plenty of talented people who can easily build and execute an idea well, but struggle so badly with the business side.
Have been guilty of this myself and seen so many overconfident devs who think they can manage it once they "get there" despite the entirely different skillset that's required for the role. Someone who can do both at the same time is incredibly rare.
That attitude here on HN boggles my mind. Almost every person I talk to about this site IRL mentions it. It's a defining feature of the community that no one likes.
People click through search results really fast. "XYZ alternative" would be much more acceptable if it came after the real name, but putting "XYZ" as the very first word is guaranteed to cause confusion.
The result can be split two ways. Either the advertiser wasted money on a click because the consumer will seek out the true XYZ. Or the consumer will be satisfied with what they've clicked and choose to buy it.
Hopefully the metrics show that the latter is mostly happening.
It's only fraud if the advertiser counterfeits XYZ's brand on their website.
Generally, yes. But if a large fraction of people are getting confused in a specific context, then you can say "don't word it that way", even if the wording is true when you consider it in a vacuum.
If putting the other brand name first causes consumer confusion in certain places, that's a problem, even if they're not lying or even doing it on purpose.
Agreed but replace 'discord' with the platform that your users already know and hang out on. For us, in a non-technical niche, that's Facebook groups. For others it might be slack or discord - just know your market and go where they are.
