Your only goal should be to solve a problem. Everything else will fall into place.
If you can’t do that then go work for someone who is solving a problem. Learn from them.
You can solve your own problems. Maybe it affects many others too. You can work in industry a bit and you’ll find dozens of problems. Maybe help one customer who has that problem, and go from there.
You need something to make progress. It’s 2026 and you can’t just have an idea and get paid.
These days unless you’re talking about something involving massive regulatory changes and you have deep connections (and access $$$), you need something you can show.
When you solve a problem you will make money. If you take that statement and instead try to attack it from a hundred angles, yngmi. My 2c.
There is no right way to make a startup profitable. Online sales will work for one, offline for another. One approach will work for one founder, another for another. There are thousands of factors, and you cannot know in advance which one will be right for your case. Some will test sales for a month and give up, while others will continue and find a channel (or not).
I wonder for every Dropbox how many similar products are there in the graveyard.
Technically I understand the market fit as the point where your unit economy starts making ends meet and showing positive dynamic. If for every dollar spent (on everything including and most importantly user acquisition) you can prove yourself that you get >1$ returns, your business model works.
And I doubt there is a simple strategy for that, or even a finite number of strategies, even complex ones that can guarantee you anything.
And I'm sure nobody truly knows "in advance that it'll succeed" whatever "it" is.
I don’t think most successful products were “validated” in advance in the way blog posts describe. What usually gets validated early is not demand, but whether the founders can consistently get someone to say yes.
Code, MVPs, and even competition are secondary. Distribution comes first, and it’s almost always messier and more manual than the advice suggests. Most validation looks like pushing something imperfect until either people start pulling it, or you give up.
In hindsight we call that validation. At the time, it mostly feels like guessing with feedback.
Validating your idea is pointless. There is always someone who will want what you make. Problem for the past 15 years has been advertising. It's all about having a ton of cash to burn on ads. Nothing else matters. Whether you make something unique or better or cheap has lost all its meaning and turned the principles capitalism on its head.
Your only goal should be to solve a problem. Everything else will fall into place.
If you can’t do that then go work for someone who is solving a problem. Learn from them.
You can solve your own problems. Maybe it affects many others too. You can work in industry a bit and you’ll find dozens of problems. Maybe help one customer who has that problem, and go from there.
You need something to make progress. It’s 2026 and you can’t just have an idea and get paid.
These days unless you’re talking about something involving massive regulatory changes and you have deep connections (and access $$$), you need something you can show.
When you solve a problem you will make money. If you take that statement and instead try to attack it from a hundred angles, yngmi. My 2c.
Start small. Grow.
There is no right way to make a startup profitable. Online sales will work for one, offline for another. One approach will work for one founder, another for another. There are thousands of factors, and you cannot know in advance which one will be right for your case. Some will test sales for a month and give up, while others will continue and find a channel (or not).
I made my validation thesis and frameworks that i used to run discovery open - https://aishwarya-48913.medium.com/startup-pivots-how-we-ite...
And the process of defining ICP, finding them here - https://aishwarya-48913.medium.com/founder-led-sales-for-us-...
I wonder for every Dropbox how many similar products are there in the graveyard.
Technically I understand the market fit as the point where your unit economy starts making ends meet and showing positive dynamic. If for every dollar spent (on everything including and most importantly user acquisition) you can prove yourself that you get >1$ returns, your business model works.
And I doubt there is a simple strategy for that, or even a finite number of strategies, even complex ones that can guarantee you anything.
And I'm sure nobody truly knows "in advance that it'll succeed" whatever "it" is.
I don’t think most successful products were “validated” in advance in the way blog posts describe. What usually gets validated early is not demand, but whether the founders can consistently get someone to say yes. Code, MVPs, and even competition are secondary. Distribution comes first, and it’s almost always messier and more manual than the advice suggests. Most validation looks like pushing something imperfect until either people start pulling it, or you give up. In hindsight we call that validation. At the time, it mostly feels like guessing with feedback.
Validating your idea is pointless. There is always someone who will want what you make. Problem for the past 15 years has been advertising. It's all about having a ton of cash to burn on ads. Nothing else matters. Whether you make something unique or better or cheap has lost all its meaning and turned the principles capitalism on its head.