Billions worth of value created by tech startups with designer co-founders?(designerfund.com)
designerfund.com
Billions worth of value created by tech startups with designer co-founders?
http://designerfund.com/infographic
18 comments
Went to go play soccer with engineers, designers and business folks as a team and come back to this...alas I guess you put out positive energy into the universe and it's natural to get negative too...why would you even say 'design is horseshit,' that's totally unproductive, polarizes people, and disrespects a LOT of people... who would post something saying 'engineering is horseshit'? Just doesn't make sense, and I'm an engineer too...why not collaborate and work together? Our disciplines and skills regardless of general titles are just means to hopefully create meaningful impact, drop the ego...of course I agree with you that a product/service that's useful is better than something that just looks like art, duh, so stop firing up an age-old tired conflict, I think we've evolved past bickering and being bullies by now...instead of welcoming peers who can create value with you... you're comments are what keep designers out of working with startups...
Also, we specifically use the word co-founder in the title and say: "Nearly every designer founder has a technical co-founder and some have technical backgrounds which furthers the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration" and we're encouraging more hyper productive designer-hacker dyads...I think the reality is that most of brilliant people here in Silicon Valley are scared to get out of their comfort zone and work on really hard unglamorous problems, especially those of the other %99, because the feedback loops we've created promote the beautiful novelties and vanity consumerism versus sustainable businesses with positive social impact, so again I agree with you...
"Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it looks. But of course, if you dig deeper, it's really how it works." Did you read previous comment citing Jesse Schell? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3359218 and specific skills we modern designers in tech need http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358880
Have you read the software design manifesto by Mitch Kapor http://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/1-kapor.html
Highly recommend exploring design ethnography and user research methods that focus on value discovery and value creation eg that's why places like IDEO thrive...
Also do you know we're related through Cookpad? I'm disappointed and surprised by our statements which seem at odds with your company values...
Also, we specifically use the word co-founder in the title and say: "Nearly every designer founder has a technical co-founder and some have technical backgrounds which furthers the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration" and we're encouraging more hyper productive designer-hacker dyads...I think the reality is that most of brilliant people here in Silicon Valley are scared to get out of their comfort zone and work on really hard unglamorous problems, especially those of the other %99, because the feedback loops we've created promote the beautiful novelties and vanity consumerism versus sustainable businesses with positive social impact, so again I agree with you...
"Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it looks. But of course, if you dig deeper, it's really how it works." Did you read previous comment citing Jesse Schell? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3359218 and specific skills we modern designers in tech need http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358880
Have you read the software design manifesto by Mitch Kapor http://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/1-kapor.html
Highly recommend exploring design ethnography and user research methods that focus on value discovery and value creation eg that's why places like IDEO thrive...
Also do you know we're related through Cookpad? I'm disappointed and surprised by our statements which seem at odds with your company values...
I'm guessing the purpose of the title "Design is horseshit" is to attract attention. It's not much different than saying "co-founders with a background in design create billions worth of value".
If you actually read the article the author basically says "Design enhances value, it does not create it." and there's nothing to argue about that - it's a fact. Another fact is that "programming enhances value, it does not create it".
In other words, the tools you use to create value are secondary to the actual value created. Talking about our tools we use is something we like to do. Too much talk about our tools, and too little thought on the end result, sometimes leads us to think that our tools are most important than the end result
If you actually read the article the author basically says "Design enhances value, it does not create it." and there's nothing to argue about that - it's a fact. Another fact is that "programming enhances value, it does not create it".
In other words, the tools you use to create value are secondary to the actual value created. Talking about our tools we use is something we like to do. Too much talk about our tools, and too little thought on the end result, sometimes leads us to think that our tools are most important than the end result
Because you didn't just "put positive energy into the universe". You hyped something in a way that was divisive.
We've been repeatedly explicit about NOT being divisive... you see Larry or Mark or other folks getting celebrated and you don't see the design community getting mad...how many design students even know about Mitch or Chad let alone the general public... Per previous comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358720 we posed a question and again are promoting collaboration and co-creation...
Saying "we are not being divisive" isn't enough to make you not divisive, unfortunately. It's in the nature of your message, and how people take it.
"Stop creating shitty startups that look amazing. A product or service that is indispensably useful yet looks like ass is infinitely more likely to be successful than a product that solves zero problems but looks like a work of art."
Why do you assume that focusing on design in a startup means that the startup will "solve zero problems"? Admittedly, I'm biased (my startup is in the current batch of The Designer Fund), but the fund is very focused not on "prettiness", but usability and interfaces that work and convert.
I think it's rather unfair that you look at the graphic which is celebrating companies with designers and then rant about design making shitty products. Design is CRUCIAL to a good product, because design isn't "prettiness", it's how people use it and how it works.
Which of those infographic cards would you call shitty? And why?
Why do you assume that focusing on design in a startup means that the startup will "solve zero problems"? Admittedly, I'm biased (my startup is in the current batch of The Designer Fund), but the fund is very focused not on "prettiness", but usability and interfaces that work and convert.
I think it's rather unfair that you look at the graphic which is celebrating companies with designers and then rant about design making shitty products. Design is CRUCIAL to a good product, because design isn't "prettiness", it's how people use it and how it works.
Which of those infographic cards would you call shitty? And why?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of those companies are solving relatively small problems compared to Google, Paypal or EBay. They're all video sharing, blogging or design specific sites, and the ones which are successful or important are not successful because of their design (eg. Youtube), or have designs which are painful to use (eg. Slideshare).
By all means celebrate companies with designers, but saying "designers created $billions of value" is a bit of a stretch when there are so many counter-examples.
By all means celebrate companies with designers, but saying "designers created $billions of value" is a bit of a stretch when there are so many counter-examples.
Yes I agree with your first sentence, that's the point we need more to designers to step up to the challenge...We didn't say what you quoted, we specifically say in order "billions worth of value created by tech startups with designer co-founders" and also say, "Nearly every designer founder has a technical co-founder and some have technical backgrounds which furthers the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration"... also see previous comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3359176 hopefully this is also a challenge to the next generation of designers to step up and ship something of consequence in collaboration with other brilliant folks from different background like great engineers who have been doing it for decades in deep tech... design+tech entrepreneurship is still in it's infancy... I do know that we need to be proactively driving new ideas and not be so reactive. “They have checkins, and group coupons, and native apps, and just got a valuation of thirty billion; WE need to have checkins! We need group coupons! Bring on the native apps!” I hope future designer-entrepreneurs can be more proactive and present a state that doesn’t yet exist. Addressing latent needs ESPECIALLY in emerging markets and coming up re-framed business models for the other 99% of the population.
Yes, I read your caveat, but the overall gist of your article is still that designers create billions of dollars of value. I just don't think there's enough evidence to warrant that implication - particularly when there are other startups which have butt-ugly, hard-to-use websites and make even more money.
I used the word "with" and didn't say they created it by themselves, obviously it takes a lot of people... Part of the gist is encouraging designers to believe they can and therefore try, hopefully in collaboration, especially since talent is getting stretched in our bubble here
I don't think you've addressed his criticism. A usable interface that works and converts still may solve no actual problem.
His concern isn't unreasonable. Look at the output of a lot of design schools and design agencies. The primary skills seem to be making things that look beautiful and appealing, without a whole lot of concern about end-user value.
That's unsurprising when you consider how many design-school people end up in advertising and marketing, the purpose of which is to manipulate consumer behavior without regard to actual value delivered. Indeed, a concern for end-user value is a positive handicap in that environment; I have friends who have had to eventually change careers because they started to think too much about the impact of what they did.
His concern isn't unreasonable. Look at the output of a lot of design schools and design agencies. The primary skills seem to be making things that look beautiful and appealing, without a whole lot of concern about end-user value.
That's unsurprising when you consider how many design-school people end up in advertising and marketing, the purpose of which is to manipulate consumer behavior without regard to actual value delivered. Indeed, a concern for end-user value is a positive handicap in that environment; I have friends who have had to eventually change careers because they started to think too much about the impact of what they did.
Wrote a brief response here: http://enriqueallen.tumblr.com/post/14480645124/design-both-...
Here's a couple excerpts:
“Focus on value creation. Design enhances value, it does not create it.” This statement represents the core contradiction and flaw in his argument which barely makes this discussion worth having. Let’s look at the word “creation” which is a fascinating word generally associated with “the action or process of bringing something into existence.” So if you re-write the sentence with this definition, it becomes, “focus on the action or process of bringing value into existence.” But what comes before an action or process whether conscious or subconscious in your DNA? Design. Borrowing from a Google definition, design means, “purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.” Therefore to create value one must design how to do it, thus making the rest his post null.
If you agree with the flawed logic of Jon then you must substitute the word “Design” with any discipline concerning the action or behavior of creating value. Thus making a series of useless posts like “Engineering is Horseshit” and so on. You don’t see the design community getting mad at engineers who spend weeks designing an optimal database sharding strategy for building things like a daily-deal aggregator which has 0 users and a growth rate of “Divide by Zero Error” and no viable user acquisition strategy. Of course entrepreneurs should focus on value creation and finding product market fit before spending an inappropriate amount of energy on other activities whether that be visual design or backend infrastructure. Any entrepreneur I invest in should know that elementary lesson from experience or reading the Lean Startup etc.
If you agree with the flawed logic of Jon then you must substitute the word “Design” with any discipline concerning the action or behavior of creating value. Thus making a series of useless posts like “Engineering is Horseshit” and so on. You don’t see the design community getting mad at engineers who spend weeks designing an optimal database sharding strategy for building things like a daily-deal aggregator which has 0 users and a growth rate of “Divide by Zero Error” and no viable user acquisition strategy. Of course entrepreneurs should focus on value creation and finding product market fit before spending an inappropriate amount of energy on other activities whether that be visual design or backend infrastructure. Any entrepreneur I invest in should know that elementary lesson from experience or reading the Lean Startup etc.
There are significant and notable cases where design is the major or one of the handful of value-driving engines of product (apple was a startup, people found value in design, jawbone, airbnb as a better experience in relation to VRBO, etc). It looks like your seemingly deriding view is of web app startups. To put this into perspective: we spend nearly 105K a year on Salesforce licenses on behalf of our company and clients. I personally think Salesforce is a particularly SHITTY, low value product because of the design. If competition gives me SF with a great UI, I find value I'm that and will pay handsomely. Value can be created by design explicitly.
I think there is a line in Founders at work that goes "Appearance starts where performance ends".
If you think that design == appearance, you must not spend time on the internet.
Man, how is being a apparatus working for you and the people around you?
What I see is 0.5 to 1 user per $1 of funding for post 2009 consumer companies.
Yeah lot of data private but working on surfacing as much as possible...wish we could do profit filter of course... main point is to showcase case studies for further exploration
Actually this is informative. What was important to me was the ability to see how many users they have, then relate it to their amount of funding. Thanks for sharing.
hey look. i'm skeptical about this whole "designer co-founder" thing in the general case. i think other people who know more than me are also skeptical. Things like this are interesting to explore, but I haven't seen any solid reasoning from the set of people pushing this, um, cause. I basically see a lot of designers who think they should have higher valuation on their contributions.
Lets see some articulate arguments and stop the hand-waving, yeah?
Lets see some articulate arguments and stop the hand-waving, yeah?
Did you read below the infographic? We laid out some reasoning...long story short it's about collaboration and multi-disciplinary skills necessary to ship, titles are actually not that important... Have you read the software design manifesto?... agree got to show with data and prove value of course, like the recent FAB funding round with strong emphasis on design
i read it, and read it twice more after you commented, and failed to parse any meaningful information. :/
Yeah sorry the article layout is actually sloppy, bad design, poor readability...will work on making more persuasive, data full examples in future and appreciate your candid feedback...but here were a couple assertions:
-First, as the the consumer tech market becomes more crowded, differentiated brand and experience design is becoming critical to both short-term and long-term success.
-Second, successful designer founders will attract the remaining distribution of aspiring entrepreneurial designers, theoretically shifting the supply of designers innovating rather than advertising sugar water.
-The third assertion is that designer founders have unique skills (not just visual) to understand human needs, make products that people actually want by driving new ideas and connecting things that aren’t obviously connected, and to communicate persuasively by visualizing a narrative of the future state of things.
-Furthermore, a startup with a designer founder who can lead and model design practices has a competitive advantage [2], especially when the designer is accompanied by technical and business co-founders. The critical mass of combined design, technical, and business skills enables product iteration to happen faster and at a higher resolution.
-Finally, later-stage companies have an appetite for designer founders who are capable of leading product innovation within their organization and are willing to acquire designer founded startups, which creates a virtuous cycle of wealth.
-Second, successful designer founders will attract the remaining distribution of aspiring entrepreneurial designers, theoretically shifting the supply of designers innovating rather than advertising sugar water.
-The third assertion is that designer founders have unique skills (not just visual) to understand human needs, make products that people actually want by driving new ideas and connecting things that aren’t obviously connected, and to communicate persuasively by visualizing a narrative of the future state of things.
-Furthermore, a startup with a designer founder who can lead and model design practices has a competitive advantage [2], especially when the designer is accompanied by technical and business co-founders. The critical mass of combined design, technical, and business skills enables product iteration to happen faster and at a higher resolution.
-Finally, later-stage companies have an appetite for designer founders who are capable of leading product innovation within their organization and are willing to acquire designer founded startups, which creates a virtuous cycle of wealth.
#1 "designer founders have unique skills (not just visual) to understand human needs" I disagree; I think the general case of all founders (technical, business, design) need this insight.
#2 "The critical mass of combined design, technical, and business skills enables product iteration to happen faster and at a higher resolution" i guess this is the crux -- nothing that I've seen stands out as supporting this argument, especially since I can't yet grant #1.
the remainder of your argument doesn't really make much sense to me.
#2 "The critical mass of combined design, technical, and business skills enables product iteration to happen faster and at a higher resolution" i guess this is the crux -- nothing that I've seen stands out as supporting this argument, especially since I can't yet grant #1.
the remainder of your argument doesn't really make much sense to me.
Re #1 got it, agree all founders should but great designers should be amazing at understanding human needs that's what they should be trained in and one of their primary jobs to focus on, hear a lot about empathy, so hopefully a designer co-founder will increase your probability of that critical mass of skill in house among other tangible skills...but why don't you agree with this one: "First, as the the consumer tech market becomes more crowded, differentiated brand and experience design is becoming critical to both short-term and long-term success."?...I didn't really write it as an "argument" but more as a research statement, hence why we're interviewing a lot of http://designerfounders.com not for profit- I'm passionate about intersection of design, tech entrepreneurship and education....and how we can better collaborate radically to create positive social impact, part of that is bringing folks together with seats at the table...
How are you defining value creation? Why are investment sizes listed, but not earnings, or even revenue?
Oh, that's right. It's 1999 all over again.
Oh, that's right. It's 1999 all over again.
> Oh, that's right. It's 1999 all over again.
I've read this same comment so many times over the last 4 years on hacker news my instinct is to downvote it automatically.
Sure you made a good point about the article mentioning capital raised, not revenue/profit.
But how does constantly comparing now or last year or 2008 or 2007 to the dotcom boom adding any value to this or any discussion?
I've read this same comment so many times over the last 4 years on hacker news my instinct is to downvote it automatically.
Sure you made a good point about the article mentioning capital raised, not revenue/profit.
But how does constantly comparing now or last year or 2008 or 2007 to the dotcom boom adding any value to this or any discussion?
You've also probably seen thousands of variants on "what ever happened to do no evil?" posted to myriad Google articles over the years, as well. Such is the nature of discussion. Sometimes the same idea in a slightly different context is unique enough to qualify for positive value. Does my comment qualify? I don't know.
I will just note that some of us lived through the dot com bust, and we remember quite clearly what the mentality was like, especially for insiders. For us, the environment today is damn near identical to what it was like then; we just had slower connections and hardware. When we post semi-snarky comments like this, we do it partly as a warning. Profits do matter. At some point, the kids will realize it.
I will just note that some of us lived through the dot com bust, and we remember quite clearly what the mentality was like, especially for insiders. For us, the environment today is damn near identical to what it was like then; we just had slower connections and hardware. When we post semi-snarky comments like this, we do it partly as a warning. Profits do matter. At some point, the kids will realize it.
I lived through the the dot-com bubble, and the environment today is nothing like it was then. No one is claiming now that there is a "new economy." Investors are not afraid to put their money in bonds, for fear they'll miss out on a new, transformative sort of growth in equities. LP money isn't flooding into new VC funds. VCs aren't funding MBAs with business plans.
dmix's instincts are right; saying it's 1999 all over again is just a facile put-down.
dmix's instincts are right; saying it's 1999 all over again is just a facile put-down.
We posed a "?"...our goal is to increasingly focus on impact: would love to show profit and positive social externalities... I hear you that it's frothy and too many me-too things going on that are targeting the tip of Maslow's hiearchy for the top <.5% of people
Alternatively, reliable numbers for those metrics are generally not available for private companies.
Public data that was available to use as 'proxies'/indicators of value: User base, company size, funding, and acquisition amount...of course we'd like to show profit...a couple companies like Blurb submitted profit eg revenue 58M in 2010
Does some type of meeting place exist for backend + UI/design founders to meet up? I'm having enormous trouble trying to find a design co-founder for my own startup they're a rare bird out in the wild. (I know this is a selfish post but I'm acutely feeling their worth)
At least someone on here actually appreciates the work of designer founders :) As a designer, I've felt the same-- it's definitely hard finding backend/UI designers who want to cofound with a designer.
One example is http://builditwith.me their tagline is "Connecting Designers and Developers". Good luck.
I don't think design alone, or technical skills alone are enough to get it done. Both are commodities. Anyone can throw up a spiffy iPhone app or web app with Node.JS in the backend. Not everyone, on the other hand has domain expertise, and can create a product with market fit, and sell it.
If you rely too much on your design skills, you'll end up creating something like Gowalla - something noone wants. if you rely too much on technological sexiness, you'll end up like SimpleGeo.. I bet they got 100,000+ lines of code altogether all for naught.
If you rely too much on your design skills, you'll end up creating something like Gowalla - something noone wants. if you rely too much on technological sexiness, you'll end up like SimpleGeo.. I bet they got 100,000+ lines of code altogether all for naught.
"If you rely too much on your design skills, you'll end up creating something like Gowalla" ...or you can build something like Kickstarter, which is a fantastic company, doing amazing things for others, and something that people want?
You can name plenty of companies with designer founders that haven't IPOed in the same breath that you name plenty of companies who had developer founders who haven't either. It's a bit unfair to say just because you rely on one aspect, you'll end up like a couple companies that have failed.
You can name plenty of companies with designer founders that haven't IPOed in the same breath that you name plenty of companies who had developer founders who haven't either. It's a bit unfair to say just because you rely on one aspect, you'll end up like a couple companies that have failed.
I dun understand your point?
For sure, it's about a critical mass of engineering, design and business skill...it's a constant re-balancing act as you iterate
The not-so-subtle implication that there is a causal relationship between design and success is totally unproven. In general, ascribing success to one factor is always a bad idea. And of course, success = funding is a different matter altogether.
In a practical sense, however, startups that are fundraising and which have design chops should use this type of data/meme to their advantage by talking about design as if it actually has a causal relationship with success. Use pattern matching to your benefit.
In a practical sense, however, startups that are fundraising and which have design chops should use this type of data/meme to their advantage by talking about design as if it actually has a causal relationship with success. Use pattern matching to your benefit.
Of course, stats 101...We put caveats below the infographic:
-we're not making the claim that tech startups with designer founders are statistically better in some way, instead we are highlighting interesting case studies to explore further
-Of course the designers featured here can’t possibly take all the credit for any success, it's all about team work and we're celebrating design together no matter what background you come from
-The goal is to raise awareness about the existence of designer founders and their diverse backgrounds with data in a fun way that has never been done before (not draw causal claims)
-Of course the designers featured here can’t possibly take all the credit for any success, it's all about team work and we're celebrating design together no matter what background you come from
-The goal is to raise awareness about the existence of designer founders and their diverse backgrounds with data in a fun way that has never been done before (not draw causal claims)
We were also pretty intentional about not really using the word 'success' too
I dont think the value of start-ups with a design co-founder gives us much more value than saying, designers are very beneficial for a product-oriented startup.
Im sure we can have similar calculations with value of startups with a single founder, with a business co-founder, startups that have their hackdays on friday ...
I don't want to marginalize design co-founders, I am looking for one for myself, but I dont like these sorts of conclusions and statistics
Im sure we can have similar calculations with value of startups with a single founder, with a business co-founder, startups that have their hackdays on friday ...
I don't want to marginalize design co-founders, I am looking for one for myself, but I dont like these sorts of conclusions and statistics
Re: I dont think the value of start-ups with a design co-founder gives us much more value than saying, designers are very beneficial for a product-oriented startup.
That's the simple point, you got it, we're saying yes they can be very beneficial for a product-oriented startup just like more engineering and business focused people are (you'd be surprised by how many people don't act like that)...then exploring stories about the value these people deliver... there's no conclusions, we put '?s'
That's the simple point, you got it, we're saying yes they can be very beneficial for a product-oriented startup just like more engineering and business focused people are (you'd be surprised by how many people don't act like that)...then exploring stories about the value these people deliver... there's no conclusions, we put '?s'
What qualifies someone as a designer? Going to design school? Using Illustrator in the course of business? Having "good taste?"
I've never had the word "designer" on a resume, but I kind of feel like I'd qualify. But not sure.
I've never had the word "designer" on a resume, but I kind of feel like I'd qualify. But not sure.
There's a world of difference between a visual designer and a UX designer, not to mention a software designer (==architect). Most of the people here are more like UX designers, which in the context of a founder, means a "product person".
So if you're a product person (clearly yes), you qualify IMO.
So if you're a product person (clearly yes), you qualify IMO.
Great point, that's a whole other discussion about what makes a 'great product person', that's almost more of a opaque term...
You can go to school or be self taught... definitely, 'designer' is more like a mindset and skillset that you have to have the confidence/respect to own(you can be a developer, designer, business person all in one but very rare you can be great at all of them)... intentional behavior changed and impact definitely help qualify like real artists ship...not all are equal and we're talking about a very rare breed... if you read below the infographic we layout some unique characteristics:
-Clearly every designer isn’t meant to be a founder and probably shouldn’t be, (especially as some believe we’re spreading talent thin across too many little “me too” startups but that’s a whole other discussion). To be clear, we don’t mean “designer as the prima donna pixel-pusher” that you might be picturing. We also don’t mean “designer as the I Took One Class Called UX Fundamentals In Business School.” We mean an honest-to-goodness, experienced, craft-driven, product-focused, reflective practitioner who has learned to design by designing, who views design as a way of thinking about solving hard problems and is capable of building usable products with more than just beautiful aesthetics.[3] The word ‘design’ is so loaded nowadays and hope that our Designer Founders info cards will begin to clarify the impact of designers with various backgrounds in the context of early stage tech startups.
-Designer founders we’ve observed are consistently multidisciplinary and have cross functional skills necessary to make product decisions. They are fluent in the full design stack ranging from user research, product design, interaction design, information architecture, graphic design, to communication design. They may not be experts in all sub-disciplines of design but can get by on their own in the early days of their startup and attract specialists when needed. In addition, they have a thorough enough working understanding of technology and business stacks including agile programing and data-based marketing methods. Designer founders can move up and down the design stack and horizontally to technology and business stacks to do what it takes to ship and use data to justify their decisions when needed. Thus they are capable of leading both their product and organization through the design cycles needed to innovate. There’s a difference between a designer who can design a dashboard in a car and a designer who can design a whole car and how to drive it. Designer founders need to be able to do both.
-Clearly every designer isn’t meant to be a founder and probably shouldn’t be, (especially as some believe we’re spreading talent thin across too many little “me too” startups but that’s a whole other discussion). To be clear, we don’t mean “designer as the prima donna pixel-pusher” that you might be picturing. We also don’t mean “designer as the I Took One Class Called UX Fundamentals In Business School.” We mean an honest-to-goodness, experienced, craft-driven, product-focused, reflective practitioner who has learned to design by designing, who views design as a way of thinking about solving hard problems and is capable of building usable products with more than just beautiful aesthetics.[3] The word ‘design’ is so loaded nowadays and hope that our Designer Founders info cards will begin to clarify the impact of designers with various backgrounds in the context of early stage tech startups.
-Designer founders we’ve observed are consistently multidisciplinary and have cross functional skills necessary to make product decisions. They are fluent in the full design stack ranging from user research, product design, interaction design, information architecture, graphic design, to communication design. They may not be experts in all sub-disciplines of design but can get by on their own in the early days of their startup and attract specialists when needed. In addition, they have a thorough enough working understanding of technology and business stacks including agile programing and data-based marketing methods. Designer founders can move up and down the design stack and horizontally to technology and business stacks to do what it takes to ship and use data to justify their decisions when needed. Thus they are capable of leading both their product and organization through the design cycles needed to innovate. There’s a difference between a designer who can design a dashboard in a car and a designer who can design a whole car and how to drive it. Designer founders need to be able to do both.
What got my attention was the amount of funding the fist line of companies got compared to their counterparts. SlideShare (3m!), Flickr acquired for 35m (!).
Does anyone know why Flickr sold? Why does about.me need 51 employees?
1. Asides YouTube, the acquisition amounts are not impressive.
2. How is value being calculated? Funds raised?
3. They do not even almost match up to Developer founded companies (Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc).
4. What is even the idea of the vs. argument? It takes a good idea, a big market and good execution to win big. Developers, Designers, Business people, all contribute to that success.
Does anyone know why Flickr sold? Why does about.me need 51 employees?
1. Asides YouTube, the acquisition amounts are not impressive.
2. How is value being calculated? Funds raised?
3. They do not even almost match up to Developer founded companies (Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc).
4. What is even the idea of the vs. argument? It takes a good idea, a big market and good execution to win big. Developers, Designers, Business people, all contribute to that success.
1) We acknowledge the outliers like Lotus and YouTube, at least others have been life changing even if it wasn't billion dollar exits
2) Did you read previous comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358703 Public data that was available to use as 'proxies'/indicators of value: User base, company size, funding, and acquisition amount...of course we'd like to show profit...a couple companies like Blurb submitted profit eg revenue 58M in 2010
3) It's not an us vs them comparison, again it's all about collaboration and multidisciplinary skills
4) Did you read previous comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358727 -Of course the designers featured here can’t possibly take all the credit for any success, and they shouldn't, it's all about team work and we're celebrating design together no matter what background you come from
-The goal is to raise awareness about the existence of designer founders and their diverse backgrounds with data in a fun way that has never been done before (not draw causal claims)
2) Did you read previous comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358703 Public data that was available to use as 'proxies'/indicators of value: User base, company size, funding, and acquisition amount...of course we'd like to show profit...a couple companies like Blurb submitted profit eg revenue 58M in 2010
3) It's not an us vs them comparison, again it's all about collaboration and multidisciplinary skills
4) Did you read previous comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358727 -Of course the designers featured here can’t possibly take all the credit for any success, and they shouldn't, it's all about team work and we're celebrating design together no matter what background you come from
-The goal is to raise awareness about the existence of designer founders and their diverse backgrounds with data in a fun way that has never been done before (not draw causal claims)
This acts as a cheerleader for companies with designer co-founders. That's great, I really appreciate the effort.
The problem is that many of the companies you highlight are -inconsequential-. If you're going to make a claim about how much impact these companies have made, you can't turn around and name a bunch of duds[1].
You start the list with mega successes (Android and YouTube are ubiqutous products that have made a huge impact on millions of people) and then finish up with failures and unproven startups. To be clear, I'm not saying anything about design cofounders. It's just that there's this weird implication in what you've communicated. You're sort of saying that all these companies are in the same league due to the skill of one of the founders. Something about that just doesn't sit right.
========================================
[1] -
Sold in a talent acquisition after product failed: Hunch, Gowalla
Sold before they ever did anything: About.me
Niche community product: Forrst, ColourLovers, Foodspotting
Unproven product: Path
The problem is that many of the companies you highlight are -inconsequential-. If you're going to make a claim about how much impact these companies have made, you can't turn around and name a bunch of duds[1].
You start the list with mega successes (Android and YouTube are ubiqutous products that have made a huge impact on millions of people) and then finish up with failures and unproven startups. To be clear, I'm not saying anything about design cofounders. It's just that there's this weird implication in what you've communicated. You're sort of saying that all these companies are in the same league due to the skill of one of the founders. Something about that just doesn't sit right.
========================================
[1] -
Sold in a talent acquisition after product failed: Hunch, Gowalla
Sold before they ever did anything: About.me
Niche community product: Forrst, ColourLovers, Foodspotting
Unproven product: Path
I hear you...this is only our first visualization (will probably do next one on a timeline etc, so you're point about league isn't really an issue)...this first piece is more about highlighting case studies we're examining (mega success and dud failures- I like all types of data)...hopefully this is also a challenge to the next generation of designers to step up and ship something of consequence in collaboration with other brilliant folks from different background like great engineers who have been doing it for decades in deep tech... design+tech entrepreneurship is still in it's infancy... I do know that we need to be proactively driving new ideas and not be so reactive. “They have checkins, and group coupons, and native apps, and just got a valuation of thirty billion; WE need to have checkins! We need group coupons! Bring on the native apps!” I hope future designer-entrepreneurs can be more proactive and present a state that doesn’t yet exist. Addressing latent needs ESPECIALLY in emerging markets and coming up re-framed business models for the other 99% of the population.
[deleted]
about.me has/had 5 employees, not 51.
how did forrst get $225k of funding?
and for that matter, what does forrst need $225k for, other than hookers and blow? it's basically a blog with a shiny template and no authors.
and for that matter, what does forrst need $225k for, other than hookers and blow? it's basically a blog with a shiny template and no authors.
I like how the Android card has "Chris White" listed, but Andy Rubin's dashing face.
The thing that bothers me about this is what bothers me about the term "designer" in general. The role of "designer" is by definition a person who doesn't get their hands dirty. It's one that depends on other people to make things happen.
I think that's a mistake in a startup for the same reason that it's wrong to have a role involving control of quality or security or innovation or customer satisfaction. Those things are pervasive concerns, and if you have one person or group responsible for them, then it means everybody else isn't.
I intensely value design activities and design thinking. And I value products that are well designed. But I think treating "designer" as a role is dangerous.
I think that's a mistake in a startup for the same reason that it's wrong to have a role involving control of quality or security or innovation or customer satisfaction. Those things are pervasive concerns, and if you have one person or group responsible for them, then it means everybody else isn't.
I intensely value design activities and design thinking. And I value products that are well designed. But I think treating "designer" as a role is dangerous.
"Anyone who makes a decision about how the product should be is a designer. Designer is a role, not a person. Almost every developer on a team makes some decision about how the product will be, just through the act of creating the product. These decisions are design decisions, and when you make them, you're a designer. For this reason, no matter what role on a development team, an understanding of the principles of design will make you better at what you do."...While I agree with Jesse Schell, what we are highlighting, the potential for designer founders, is not mutually exclusive with your concern...there are many ways to get design done eg Jared Spool lays out some types (I am by no means advocating for one size fits all), but I am saying that having a strong design leader may help your team (the best ones don't have to control every little detail, they empower others), it's like having an editor eg http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/technology/what-apple-has-.... my major issue with design thinking and make everyone a "designer" so easily is you lose a bar of quality, craft, and professionalism that you want everyone to aspire to be...just like you'd want your CTO to inspire other developers to work with him/her, you want a designer founder to do the same...great talent attracts other great talent... It makes sense that a prerequisite for a tech company is to have a founder with technical skills. The same heuristic should hold true if you want to consistently ship well designed products like Pinterest, AirBnB and Path. Why not have a co-founder with design skills who champions the user experience?
Since I currently have a co-founder with design skills who champions user experience, I'm for that.
I'm also all for inspiring leaders. But in the startup context, I think the job of "designer" is as dangerous as its technical equivalent "architect". As Schell points out, design is a pervasive concern, just like software architecture is. A CTO who fancies himself chief architect is likely to drive off good talent, because talented people want to solve whole problems, not mechanically execute somebody else's vision.
I think the same applies for the visible sorts of design just as much as it does for the under-the-hood design: if everybody cares (which requires feeling empowered to make things happen) you'll get a better product.
I'm also all for inspiring leaders. But in the startup context, I think the job of "designer" is as dangerous as its technical equivalent "architect". As Schell points out, design is a pervasive concern, just like software architecture is. A CTO who fancies himself chief architect is likely to drive off good talent, because talented people want to solve whole problems, not mechanically execute somebody else's vision.
I think the same applies for the visible sorts of design just as much as it does for the under-the-hood design: if everybody cares (which requires feeling empowered to make things happen) you'll get a better product.
Exalting designers as founders does not mean the designers are sitting in a throne ordering their minions to do the coding. I'd argue that any startup that has a "designer founder" today, that designer is getting their hands dirty with working with the code — perhaps not to the level of a true developer, but actually ideating and executing their vision. Why not encourage this? Does every startup need to just be a business/dev pair with a designer employee, or is it okay to someone who feels they're a designer first in the founder position?
My main issue here is with exalting "design" as if it were a separable activity from the rest of making something. Everybody at a startup should feel that they're a designer first. Because they are: each person's work should have a significant impact on the user experience.
Have you seen what you're describing work in a company with multiple software products and more thank 20 people?
The role of "designer" is by definition a person who doesn't get their hands dirty. It's one that depends on other people to make things happen.
Care to justify that statement with evidence?
Or do you think that only back-end code will make your hands dirty, and not research, requirements gathering, ensuring the product does what paying customers want and expect, customer support, analyzing, categorizing, prioritizing customer feedback, analyzing usage statistics to divine customer intent, creating and managing a/b tests, writing road maps, defining feature sets, managing development, html, css, wireframing, testing?
In companies I've worked with, the developers have been sheltered from most of the "real work" of turning their code into an actual business, but simultaneously believe that they are the only ones contributing value. It's cute.
Care to justify that statement with evidence?
Or do you think that only back-end code will make your hands dirty, and not research, requirements gathering, ensuring the product does what paying customers want and expect, customer support, analyzing, categorizing, prioritizing customer feedback, analyzing usage statistics to divine customer intent, creating and managing a/b tests, writing road maps, defining feature sets, managing development, html, css, wireframing, testing?
In companies I've worked with, the developers have been sheltered from most of the "real work" of turning their code into an actual business, but simultaneously believe that they are the only ones contributing value. It's cute.
Gladly.
What you're talking about goes well beyond the formal role of "designer". Consider, for example, what happens if you sign up with one of the many outsourced design firms. They won't do most of that. The good ones might do some user research. But that's not guaranteed; what they all promise to do is produce a very pretty document with a bunch photoshop mockups. Which an implementation team is expected to execute as written.
I definitely think developers should be active participants in all that work you describe. (I sure am.) Which is exactly why I encourage people not to have a formal "designer" role. If there's somebody who's officially responsible for X, then everybody else isn't. Design is a pervasive concern.
What you're talking about goes well beyond the formal role of "designer". Consider, for example, what happens if you sign up with one of the many outsourced design firms. They won't do most of that. The good ones might do some user research. But that's not guaranteed; what they all promise to do is produce a very pretty document with a bunch photoshop mockups. Which an implementation team is expected to execute as written.
I definitely think developers should be active participants in all that work you describe. (I sure am.) Which is exactly why I encourage people not to have a formal "designer" role. If there's somebody who's officially responsible for X, then everybody else isn't. Design is a pervasive concern.
Actually, the tagline is rather meaningless (I'm not offending anyone),
"Did you know about billions worth of value created by tech startups with XYZ co-founders?"
Replace XYZ with you choice and here you go.
"Did you know about billions worth of value created by tech startups with XYZ co-founders?"
Replace XYZ with you choice and here you go.
Agree see previous comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3359246
Goes back to our goal to raise awareness about the existence of designer founders and their diverse backgrounds with data in a fun way that has never been done before (not draw causal claims)
Goes back to our goal to raise awareness about the existence of designer founders and their diverse backgrounds with data in a fun way that has never been done before (not draw causal claims)
Why should someone apply to this fund? I don't see enough meat on this page to really know what'll happen.
The FAQ is just the "how to apply" section. Is this the fund's first round? Who was in the previous round? Success stories? Etc..
The FAQ is just the "how to apply" section. Is this the fund's first round? Who was in the previous round? Success stories? Etc..
I think what you're looking for is on the homepage if you scroll: http://designerfund.com/
Shows the overview, the mentors and people involved in the program, and at the bottom, what's involved in the fund.
Disclaimer: I'm in the current "batch" and have received a non-equity grant.
Shows the overview, the mentors and people involved in the program, and at the bottom, what's involved in the fund.
Disclaimer: I'm in the current "batch" and have received a non-equity grant.
Nope. Is this a program-style thing like YC which involves being present for a period of time? If I'm accepted will I be expected to move to SV for a period of time? Why would I want to apply as someone not from SV? Who are some people who are being funded? Any success stories? Etc..
"Build: Starting in March, designers co-work together at the spaces of partners on a bi-monthly basis as a motivation function pushing teams to iterate on product, refine their business, and get market traction." — solves your first two questions. You need to be in SV.
That said, it IS new, and it's too early for success stories and exits. I'll pass your critique along to Enrique to help improve the page — thanks for the critiques!
That said, it IS new, and it's too early for success stories and exits. I'll pass your critique along to Enrique to help improve the page — thanks for the critiques!
No, I read that and it didn't answer my question, which is why I asked it. "Partner" = ? Cofounder? Mentor? Etc.. Its not clear. Is everyone on that huge list in SV? Or are there mentors in NYC? Seattle? Austin? Etc..
Its just light on the details that someone would actually want before hitching an established business to it.
Its just light on the details that someone would actually want before hitching an established business to it.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-designer-fund/designer-fo...
Will add a meatier FAQ
Will add a meatier FAQ
Instagram's Mike Krieger actually wrote quite a bit of code at Meebo (he is listed solely as UX). But point taken.
He's also Stanford HCI and when I talked to him last at WarmGun seems to be doing a lot of front end work too
I'm tired of the useless back and forth over whether "design is horseshit." That's not only a falsehood, it's a simplistic falsehood. Reducing the work of something as broad and universal as "design" to "laying on the pretty" is definitely a one-two punch of reductio ab absurdum and strawman. And yongfook is smarter than that.
But.
I believe only one of the companies on this list is profitable, maybe two. And there's no way Behance produces billions of dollars of "value" all by itself, even with the potential of help from Pulse or Slideshare (MAYBE).
That has nothing to do with the fact that they prioritized design. That has nothing to do with the fact that they are led by designers.
It has everything to do with VC-driven startup culture which believes getting funding and getting bought is the way to go, rather than self-funding and creating a sustainable, profitable business.
It has everything to do with the idea that you DESERVE money NOW, for what you MAY do or MAY achieve in the future. And the belief that you WILL do or WILL achieve whatever you imagine, because your internal, imagined narrative is just like The Kung Fu Kid, complete with montage. If you make the bestest location checkin app people will flock to you! Cue riches!
But no. You end up bought because you can't sustain yourself.
It also has to do with the absolutely crippling belief that there can be free money with no strings. Startups are rarely bought because they are profitable and sustainable, they are bought for a million other reasons. And getting sold or going on IPO is the only way for 99% of VCs to get their payday, so once you accept VC, that is the track you are on.
Value is quantum: it only happens when you have a customer. Value is something you create for the customer, which they are willing to pay you for. If your customers won't pay for your services, that's the #1 sign that you don't, in fact, create value. Or if they will not pay you enough to cover your costs, ditto.
Most startups sadly put themselves in the position of having only one true customer -- the company that buys them.
But.
I believe only one of the companies on this list is profitable, maybe two. And there's no way Behance produces billions of dollars of "value" all by itself, even with the potential of help from Pulse or Slideshare (MAYBE).
That has nothing to do with the fact that they prioritized design. That has nothing to do with the fact that they are led by designers.
It has everything to do with VC-driven startup culture which believes getting funding and getting bought is the way to go, rather than self-funding and creating a sustainable, profitable business.
It has everything to do with the idea that you DESERVE money NOW, for what you MAY do or MAY achieve in the future. And the belief that you WILL do or WILL achieve whatever you imagine, because your internal, imagined narrative is just like The Kung Fu Kid, complete with montage. If you make the bestest location checkin app people will flock to you! Cue riches!
But no. You end up bought because you can't sustain yourself.
It also has to do with the absolutely crippling belief that there can be free money with no strings. Startups are rarely bought because they are profitable and sustainable, they are bought for a million other reasons. And getting sold or going on IPO is the only way for 99% of VCs to get their payday, so once you accept VC, that is the track you are on.
Value is quantum: it only happens when you have a customer. Value is something you create for the customer, which they are willing to pay you for. If your customers won't pay for your services, that's the #1 sign that you don't, in fact, create value. Or if they will not pay you enough to cover your costs, ditto.
Most startups sadly put themselves in the position of having only one true customer -- the company that buys them.
Focus on value creation. Design enhances value, it does not create it. Stop creating shitty startups that look amazing. A product or service that is indispensably useful yet looks like ass is infinitely more likely to be successful than a product that solves zero problems but looks like a work of art. Stop this cycle of creating beautiful novelties, getting your 15 minutes, then disappearing. Create value.
More below - sorry to self promote but it's relevant :)
http://yongfook.com/post/14295124427/design-is-horseshit