> <i>I'm not the world's best designer by any means, nor am I "classically trained" in design as they say, but I like my results</i><p>Don't we all. There should be a rule that says "any non-designer can draw something that he himself can't improve upon".<p>I'm certainly not arguing in favor of hiring for the sake of hiring, and freelance-everything is how I see the future.<p>But saying anyone can do anything if they just think about it hard enough is a bit of a stretch. "Jack of all trades, master of none" is real. An actual designer will save you lots of time.<p>Additionally, there is value in dialogue; having someone to talk to about specific problems helps immensely. And who's going to take time to talk with you about minute details of your product if they're not somehow compensated for it?<p>(Service idea: a Q/A site where people could ask questions about their products as they're building them. Does this exist already? Some subreddit maybe?)
I enjoyed clicking through the "more about me" link at the bottom of the article and seeing a big picture of Gabriel next to the text: "We're always hiring!"<p>A couple people have started picking at the blanket statements in the article, and, granted, none of them are universally true. The point about DIY design irked me a bit, too. With that said, I think the kernel of this article is absolutely right: too many startups are far too intent on raising a bunch of money to hire a ton of people because they think that's what growth is about. (And because running a big organization, even one that doesn't have a customer base to speak of, is a fantastic ego trip.)
>The wrong person can negatively impact your startup.<p>Of course this is true however the opposite is not only true, it's more common. Otherwise, companies would fire more people than they hire.<p>>People also tend to underestimate the time it will require post-hiring and post-ramp-up to manage your hire(s).<p>Categorically true. Hiring is a massive time sink. Recruitment companies are an exceptionally inefficient attempt at a solution which is why more and more early stage startups are recognising the value of hiring an inhouse recruiter.<p>>And finally, hiring takes money. It increases your burn rate significantly.<p>Whilst true, just like the first point, the opposite is also true. Hiring the right people can have an immediate, positive impact on cash flow.<p>I do tend to agree with the overall premise that more staff != success and I think that's certainly true of early stage companies.
> I'm now three years into DuckDuckGo, and still haven't hired.<p>What? According to the company webpage, they have 20 employees. [1] This post seems purposefully disingenuous, just to make a point.<p>1: <a href="https://duck.co/help/company/hiring" rel="nofollow">https://duck.co/help/company/hiring</a>
This is the key sentence:<p><i>"We need to build x, y and z, ASAP." Before you've figured out distribution? What evidence do you have that x, y and z, once built, will make customer acquisition any easier?</i><p>Find the right path, then scale it up. Which yegg (Gabriel Weinberg) did, later that year [1].<p>One could disagree with him and say that hiring people allows you to find the right path quicker, which may or may not be true.<p>1: <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html" rel="nofollow">https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html</a>
Can anyone talk to how well this has held up over time for them? A quick search on LinkedIn suggests only 2 employees. (<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?f_CC=1476706" rel="nofollow">https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?f_CC=1476706</a>) Is this really the case?