As the Dot Com Boom got underway in the late 90s one of the star performers of the period was Sun Microsystems. It seemed every garage startup and every funky web outfit wanted to be kitted out with Sun hardware. Server rooms were filled with farms of E10Ks. Any serious developer worth their salt required a Sparc Workstation with a 21” monitor to get any work done. All of which were running Solaris operating systems of course. Sun's stock price peaked at $241 USD in 2000 at the height of the Dot Com Boom.
That was just the hardware and OS stack. The application stack was just as (if not more) expensive. A plethora of new “Dot Com” IDE products were brought out by the established development tool vendors such as Borland's JBuilder. Version control was managed by Rational's Clearcase product and RDMS' would be Oracle systems. Not only were these tools pricey - at one stage I remember the Dot Com I was working for being quoted $100k to “upgrade” their Clearcase License to support multiple geographic locations - but also often required full-time administrators.
These “Startup 1.0” ventures could burn through a million dollars pretty quickly, even for a small outfit. The fixed costs in setting up were significant (a Server room, all those E10Ks running Solaris, Rational tools, Oracle servers and full-time admins) and so too were the marginal costs per developer, i.e. a Sparc Workstation with 21” Monitor, IDE license, plus often a second Windows workstation for mainstream applications such as Office and Mail (Perhaps not coincidently VMWare was born during this period).
Sure there existed cheaper alternatives to the above stack, but the funny thing was companies that wanted to attract the top talent felt they had to have the top infrastructure for them to play with. The price of this startup infrastructure tended not to be an issue – after all that's why they needed that initial round of $5M venture capital investment upfront before they could get started coding.
Having worked through this period for a couple of Dot Com's, I'm still not entirely sure what came first in this Chicken and Egg conundrum: Did startups require large initial rounds of VC funding because of the high infrastructure costs or were the infrastructure costs high because VC funding was readily available in large amounts in the late 90s?
Startup 2.0 - “FOSS DIY”
The Dot Com Bust well and truly burnt the investment community. Investment capital was all but non-existent for IT startups.
Entrepreneurs being Entrepreneurs however, kept on inventing and dreaming up brave new frontiers of the web. During this period (most of the 2000s) the Web 2.0 world slowly took shape as startup ventures like MySpace, Facebook and LinkedIn rose from the ashes.
For many of us involved in startups during this period it can be summarised by one word: Bootstrapping. Without large amounts of upfront investment available on the basis of a hastily contrived business plans and power point decks we were on our own. Now it was the founders own money (as either hard cash or opportunity cost through forgone earnings) going into starting the business resulting in a real focus on cost reduction and savings. Spending your own money is no where near as much fun as spending other people's.
Into this “investment vacuum” entered a rapidly maturing Free Open-Source Software (FOSS) industry. Whilst FOSS had been around for decades, I believe it was this post dot-com period of bootstrapping startups that really helped bring it to maturity.
Unlike the big capital investments of the Startup 1.0 days, with FOSS we could now get a “Startup 2.0” running for next to nix capital investment. Readily available Linux distributions ran on commodity PC hardware not high end rack mount servers. The rise of AMD to counter Intel's dominance in the PC market helped drive the commoditisation of this market. Unlike the Startup 1.0 days Sun hardware was now mainly the realm of the Enterprise customer and was coming under increased attack from IBM and an up-and-coming precocious company called Dell.
Startup 2.0 web servers were hosted by the free Apache HTTP Server and Tomcat Java Application Servers. Postfix ran our mail. Bugzilla managed our projects and Subversion kept track of our code repositories. Open-Office, a FOSS Sun Star-Office spin-off, created and managed our documents, Thunderbird provided our mail client and Mozilla (which would later evolve into Firefox) browsed the web for us.
Importantly, internet connectivity was becoming both cheaper and and bandwidths getting bigger. We no longer had to go purchase software packages physically from a store. We downloaded it for free over FTP from the closest mirror site.
Startups could be bootstrapped very cheaply. The main outlay was in servers. No longer rack mount Sun Sparc servers, it was now dirt cheap PCs, often self-assembled, that ran Linux. For under $10K you could get 2 or 3 decent servers up and running.
A developer “workstation” was now a sub $1,000 PC, also running Linux. The rise of FOSS IDEs such as Eclipse meant that there existed a serious free alternative to the expensive enterprise IDEs leftover from the Startup 1.0 days.
Whilst Startup 2.0 required very little cash in terms of fixed or marginal costs, what it did require was skills and time – the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) part of the deal. FOSS software needed to be downloaded, installed, configured and managed. Many IT startups at this stage contained through necessity an initial team with a hybrid of web designer, programmer and Linux sys admin skills. Cash was sparse but what we could freely invest was our time and skills.
The problem was that ever hour spent setting up a FOSS stack and administering it was an hour less time your could spend building whatever product or service your startup was meant to be offering to the world.
Startup 3.0 - “In The Cloud”
A couple of weeks back I started up a new venture – getconnectedto.me a “social network hub” to centralise online contact details. I discovered that there has never been as easy or cheap a time to start a new IT venture.
For $50 per annum I created a single user account on Google Apps to host email (and other services) for this domain. Google Apps allows me to use Google AppEngine to host my site. Google AppEngine comes with generous free quotas so until my site becomes (hopefully) busy enough to switch over to billed resource usage. Like the Amazon EC3 platform, it provides a zero fixed cost and negligible marginal cost deployment platform. You can get a hell of a lot of CPU cycles and page hits for the $10,000 or so you would have spent on commodity hardware in the Startup 2.0 bootstrapping days.
What really hit home to me was that in this “Startup 3.0” phase an Entrepreneur should always evaluate what infrastructure can be outsourced to a cloud hosted Software-As-A-Service style offering. What was a interesting to me was that the answer is “pretty much everything”.
A case in point was when I started to setup a Subversion repository for my project. As this is currently a single person venture I mainly wanted Subversion for version control rather than for team code management. My initial thought was to just set up Subversion Server on my MacBook which was backed up wirelessly to the Time Capsule in the house. Having done this before, I was confident that it should take no more than 30 minutes to set up using Macports, a Linux style OSS package manager for the OS-X operating system.
Several hours later I realised I had gone down a rather deep rabbit hole. For those interested in the rabbit hole details, see below, otherwise skip ahead...
Having recently upgraded to Snow Leopard I found that Macports was now broken. I went and installed the Xcode optional package for Snow Leopard and was able at least get Macports operational. The next problem I found was that standard port packages such as Apache Server suddenly would no longer compile. After much research (a fancy word for “googling”) I eventually bit the bullet and decided to wipe away my existing Macports installation and restart from scratch. Success – Apache installed ok. I then found more compile errors when installed Subversion server – errors in it's dependent components. More Googling, err I mean “researching” led me to a forum fix that involved hacking the Macports configuration files.
At this point I woke up and decided enough was enough. What the hell was I doing? I am meant to be creating a “social networking hub” website, not spending most of a productive day stuffing around with Macport configuration files.
Five minutes of googling and I had found and selected an online Subversion repository service called CodeSpaces. For $3 per month I could have a basic private repository with ample backed up storage for my projects.
Let's just stop and go over that last sentence again, in particular this bit - “$3 per month”.
That is just ridiculous. That is so cheap it is as good as free to me. Let's say it would have taken me 2 days to setup Subversion Server on Macports and assume 1 day every 12 months worth of administration overhead to manage (upgrade, backup etc.). To keep the math trivial I'll say the opportunity cost of my time is $1,000 per day. In the first year the opportunity cost of setting up Subversion myself locally would be $3,000. Versus $36 for a hosted Subversion offering – and that includes backup.
The penny dropped. Startup 2.0 – FOSS DIY is dead. Time is money. Spend time making something new and valuable to your customers. Stop spending time on setting up infrastructure for your startup venture. Outsource absolutely everything you can to a cloud service.
The Startup 3.0 office is an internet connection and a laptop. If I could move my IDE into the cloud I wouldn't even need that high spec a laptop. Guess what? Last month Microsoft announced it was working on creating a Cloud based version of Visual Studio. Once the Eclipse Foundation teams up with a Cloud provider and creates a cloud based Eclipse service I'll go order a basic MacBook Air laptop and sell off my high end MacBook Pro on Ebay.
The Rise of the Microstarts
So, welcome to the brave new world of Startup 3.0. The good news is it's never been easier to get something created and launched to the world. The bad news is that what were previously low barriers to entry for others have been nuked – there are no barriers anymore. What does this mean for Startup 3.0? Personally I think we are seeing the rise of the “Microstarts” - online products and services created very quickly and cheaply by very small teams of people.
The quintessential Startup 1.0 company was Netscape. Folk-law has it that Netscape's pitfall was rewriting it's core product suite, a colossal engineering effort that occupied hundreds of developers over many years. In the end Microsoft ate into their dominant marketshare with Internet Explorer whilst they were off doing this rewrite and Netscape sold out to AOL in 1998.
In contrast, to me the poster boy Startup 3.0 company is Twitter. Founded in 2006, the first prototype of the software was written in 2 weeks by a small team. Even today with 20 million unique visitors to their service per day the company still runs with only around 50 employees.
Lightweight, fast, innovative services like Twitter are created to get something new out into the world and see where it goes. Minimal startup costs allow services that have unclear business models to be launched (the founders of Twitter doubted if it was "useful", they just knew that it was "cool and fun") .
If Startup 1.0 was “build it (expensively) and they will come” (they usually didn't), perhaps the Startup 3.0 mantra is “build it (cheaply), see if they come, then figure out how to monetize it”. When your Release 1 launch costs can be as low as $100 of cash outlay you can afford to be less focused on ROI or NPV and more focused on customer value propositions.
Or in startup speak - “building something really cool that people will enjoy using”.