Ask HN: (No) Microsoft based start-ups?
However, most of those I have seen are based on some open-source, free or otherwise non-MS based languages, technologies and products. For example, there are a lot of web apps running on Ruby, Python or PHP, using cloud services offered by Amazon, Heroku or Google App Engine, using open source databases, and a lot of mobile applications aimed at iPhone/Android (although, it's true, MS has no real mobile edge anymore), etc.
The thing is I don't really hear (or think) of Microsoft when I hear about start-ups. No start-up comes up and says it's using MS SQL Server, or Microsoft Cloud Services...or C#.
What's the deal with this? Is it just me, or is it true? Are there any start-ups that do use Microsoft products or languages? Any example cases?
If this is true, how dangerous would this be in the long term for Microsoft? And what recommendations would there be for people proficient with MS, but who want to begin a start-up.
I'm curious about what you think. Cheers!
TL;DR: I don't hear of any MS based start-ups. Why?
147 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 138 ms ] threadBizSpark aside, I think hosting costs/maintenance is much more. For a $20 512 Linode it would cost a hell of a lot more to run MVC.NET + MSSQL.
Even if they give you the licenses for free, it's much more expensive.
It's different to design a HA cluster that can sustain a minutes-long usage peak (due to a node going down for maintenance) than one that can sustain an hour-long outage of one of the nodes.
It all depends, in the end, on how the applications are designed to run - they are the ones that will decide how many servers you can take down at once. In any case, the shorter they are down, the better.
Consider a site with 3 front-facing web servers that are affected by a 0-day. If a server can be patched in 2 minutes, it will result in 6 minutes of 150% load on the servers not being maintained. If the patch takes an hour, you will have 3 hours of 150% workload. The internet user may not see the downtime, but you have to factor in the higher load. The best solution could be to use 4 or 5 servers instead of 3, but that would also increase your vulnerability window.
I have also found Windows programmers on average to be more expensive than LAMP developers, which is an important concern as you look to build a startup's team.
I'm not so much concerned with vendor lock-in so much as I would be concerned with the support of an open source community. The free resources and tools available for PHP, Python, Ruby, etc., are hard to beat. I'm not sure if the same breadth of resources exist for Windows.
I avoid the microsoft stack because I believe in the massive advantages open source brings, and because its better (imho).
open > closed
there are some good startups based on the MS stack, but they're generally startups done by people with money, connections, or extensive experience in the MS stack.
$469 is a significant percentage of the hardware cost. The last time I bought a bunch of servers, they were in the $2500 range.
We just started a few months back and are working on our first project.
I really like developing in .NET so this was a no brainer for me. Other people would disagree with me and want to focus on open source.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
Even with BizSpark the point of entry for open source sartups is much lower which probably accounts for most of it.
Either way, you can be successful and profitable with both, it's just a matter of finding what works for you.
With an MSDN subscription (which is free for me for 3 years through BizSpark) you can download virtually any MS software ever released. I'd be really surprised if they didn't have what you need.
I'd be more worried about a company like Oracle buying out a product like Java and screwing it up. At least you know where Microsoft stands.
If you're interested in the startup world, learn another software stack or three. Startups generally need people who learn new things quickly and use the best tool for the job. Flexibility is key; don't be a one-trick pony.
I usually latch on to people with extensive domain expertise outside of computing, just to see where things might lead, but that particular one felt very FAILy and the people too unreachable and bureaucratic (i.e. "fax the requirements to my office and I will tell the girl to embed them inside the spreadsheet" -- horrible.)
https://app.loopt.com/loopt/termsOfUse.aspx
The server infrastructure consists of over 4,500 web servers (running Windows Server 2003, IIS 6.0, ASP.NET and .Net Framework 3.5), over 1,200 cache servers (running 64-bit Windows Server 2003), and over 500 database servers (running 64-bit Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005) as well as a custom distributed file system which runs on Gentoo Linux.
#1: Startup founders use technology they know. Open source developers tend to be willing to trade more risk and effort for a more tailored and flexible end product. This is a similar personality profile to someone who's willing to put in a large amount of work to build a business and potentially get nothing for it. Microsoft builds run-of-the-mill, sure-thing products that will at least do something well, and they'll support it for you. Commercial software dictates their software model: take few risks and sell to broadest audience.
#2: Interoperability. Microsoft software works outstandingly well with other Microsoft software. Open source software tends to be built on open standards, and, again, if you have the source, it's always possible to hack it together. The open nature means less business risk when making software decisions. The way out is of a situation where software won't do what you need it to do is to use the source, even if only as a temporary patch.
#3: Automation. While things are getting better, it's still much easier to automate most open source software, since these products usually either have a CLI, an API, or even in the worst case scenario: source code.
#4: Even with BizSpark, licensing has limits on your companies' use of technology. Simple example: Do we go with a bunch of small boxes or a few large boxes? Licensing concern may drive your team to fundamentally flawed architecture decisions.
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx
It's a number of applications ranging from windows services to command line utils and websites. Using .NET I'm able to do all of that in C# and not have to switch mindsets when I jump back and forth between all the different facets of it. I can also easily re-use code/classes between distinct applications.
These days I can be found in just about every major Flash game that's coming out. In total I run on 2x dedicated and 1x vps, however I've been working my ass off on making things massively more efficient and could easily reduce my hosting.
Some fun stats:
- I do about 130 - 150 million events per day
- the biggest game by views = 30 million
- the biggest game by total events = 2.27 billion events
- I lag about 4 or 5 minutes behind real time
- I spend more on coffee then I do on licenses on my servers
Open source I'm using:
- MongoDB for my (alpha) level sharing API + an open source C# library for using it
- ClamWin
- FileZilla
- an open source C# markdown library
- an open source C# geoip library
It looks interesting though. Have you used both?
.Net might just attract personality types that are more risk averse, aka programmers more interested in a steady paycheck than the ups/downs/stress of the startup life.
Having said this, I find the Microsoft platform dead simple, the tools best of breed, and the new MVC framework to have opened up the platform considerably.
Yeah, the thing people also don't realize on this topic is you can use MS SQL Express - which is free - to avoid paying/licensing issues.
The limits are almost entirely around ui, ease of use type features, not performance or scalability. Aka, you don't get the fancy VisualStudio-esq UI so you can't do diagramming, or things that you want generally when you are developing. But you still get a barebones management tool that's better than most of the mySql variants I've played with.
For use on a webserver, yeah it's a solid option esp if you are already having to use MS SQL because of other business requirements by your client/company.
So it might influence us a bit, but we never know till we know other things that influence us a lot more.
For me it came down to what I could build most rapidly given my skillset. I had experience in Java and C#/.NET and my partner (my husband, not my co-founder) could mostly only help in C#/.NET. So it really was a question of getting something built in 3 months versus 6 (or maybe not at all if I got discouraged and it took too long to market). The licensing fees are the things that weigh on my mind, but if my business is successful, I will be able to pay them or even re-write the application using the profits.
I know better than to expect to converse about our MS technology with the HN crowd, though.
Be careful here though ...
> I know better than to expect to converse about our MS technology with the HN crowd, though.
Lots of positive posts, even in this thread!
If you run a small group of machines and you know what you are doing, Windows could be just fine for you. The worst that can happen is you succeed and need to migrate your software to another platform.
edit: actually the worst that could happen is that you hit a technical problem the closed nature of Windows prevents you from solving and you have to port before you become profitable.
It may well be that YC-funded startups consistently differ from the average startup. But that doesn't mean that such differences are due to fashion. The kind of people we fund are more consistent in knowing what they're doing than in being young. So if as a group they differ from the norm on technical matters, the more likely hypothesis is that the norm is lagging.
I'm comfortable assuming that the YC startups are above the average, but that doesn't mean they aren't also affected by the demographic that would most benefit and be able to participate in the YC program. In no way am I implying that YC would select someone younger for admission over someone more qualified - just that the nature of the program self-selects.
In my case, I'm still young but having a toddler puts me in a similar situation to a typical older entrepreneur. It would be incredibly difficult for me to take an X month block away from my family or to uproot my family. And a $10K investment doesn't mean to me what it does to a college grad, because I can make that in a couple of bonuses or consulting gigs. The thing I miss most in a program like YC is the mentorship, but for me it's not worth the aforementioned hardship.
It's not that I'm not interested in new technologies, I do tinker, but it's just a matter of priorities. Given that, you're probably right that the "norm" would be lagging in terms of using the newest and coolest technology. I don't think that equates to generally worse companies, just less fashionable, to tie back to the original point.
I'm not sure why. People talk about Clojure and Haskell and I'd bet good money that those are even less common for startups — heck, probably fewer people here can even read them. I don't personally like the Microsoft stack overall, but I do think some of the stuff they make is pretty compelling and it would be interesting to hear how it's used outside of a BigCo.
That could just be me, though.
OTOH, SharePoint extraction tools seems to me a very profitable model for the coming years.
just wanted to reply that ferrari.com is very slow, may be it is related to using MS stack
Having the ability and technical resources necessary to generate said patch, however, is a different problem.
Regarding cost, it's really not that bad -- especially if you qualify for the BizSpark program.
Yes, you can, many people do, but it's less common, which is why basing a startup on an MS stack is less common.
The other class of startups are those by relatively successful people who left their current job to start a company. More of the Spolsky model. Here you'll find a lot more MS-based stacks. Usually because they're familiar with it and with BizSpark the upfront cost is relatively cheap.
Of course these startups probably have different funding models, so you hear about them less on places like TechCrunch. Lastly, they are often more enterprise focused as their experience in industry has given them the ability to see gaps in the enterprise offerings (college students don't do enterprise focused startups) -- but they aren't exciting consumer technologies. But a companies like Topaz Bridge are still doing some interesting stuff.
People will (generally) use whatever tool they're familiar with, regardless of whether it is actually better for the job or not. Therefore it makes sense that the person's background will be a fairly large determining factor in what language they use. Someone (like me) that comes from a decade of developing "enterprise" .NET applications is most likely going to choose .NET. Someone with that same background is likely to be less concerned about the latest "cool" tech, and more interested in just getting the job done.
It also has a fair bit to do with resources. If you're running on little cash, it makes sense to use the cheapest tools and hosting available. Whilst, MS offer free version of all their tools, you still need to pay for hosting your app. That's the big turn off for many.
For us, it is a combination of my .NET experience, the fact that hosting price isn't a huge issue (our web design and .NET consultancy work covers our costs), and most importantly I DESPISE Linux with a passion. Queue here to flame me -->
Microsoft even has BizSpark - a network to provide resources to startups (we are one). All you can eat Microsoft software via MSDN.
"Price" is no longer an issue and Microsoft has made a point of building a solid startup ecosystem around their stack.
And price is no issue only if you fail. If you succeed and have to deploy dozens of servers, you will quickly feel the it in your wallet. You can't grow horizontally as cheaply as you can with any free (even free-as-in-beer) solution.
If you have to deploy dozens of servers on any platform you will quickly feel that in your wallet.
If you can read Portuguese, they did a very good presentation at FISL in Brazil a couple days back.
http://ignofisl.ig.com.br/2010/07/22/material-da-palestra-so...
Contrast this with the ruby stack you might be running MRI, YARV, Rubinius for your VM, and then for your web framework you might be running rack, sinatra, etc. Thus when someone makes their stack OpenBSD + YARV + Sinatra + Active Record it's newsworthy as the non-standardization likely created some kind of interesting issue they needed to solve. This stuff doesn't happen on the MSFT side of things. If someone says they are doing a MSFT start up the only real question about their stack is LINQ-to-SQL / ADO.NET entities / nhibernate. I already know that the rest of their stack is going to be Win2k(3|8)R2 + IIS + ASP.NET + SQL Server and it's going to be written in C#.
I was considering doing an Win2k8R2/F#/MVC/nhaml/LINQ-TO-SQL start up but my market isn't tech guys so any blogging I did about my unique stack would attract people who wouldn't be interested in the startup.
Secondly... SQL Server is by no means required in the stack. We are using MongoDB as our datasource in an ASP.Net MVC app. You can use ANY database.
Granted, we aren't in production yet... Will see how that goes :)
Similarly, you don't have to use ASPX/WebForms either; a lot of people I know are switching to MVC and not using any of the .net ms usercontrols on the front-end, instead going with open standards and using something like jQuery to handle a lot of the UI and web-service interaction. This is the approach I've taken in recent years, and it makes it a ton easier to create clients for other platforms like iPhone, Droid, etc.
We spent three weeks evaluating Rails, Flask and Django for the app, and the team had experience with all three tools. The risky move to a statically typed, compiled environment paid off because of a solid IDE and good surrounding tools.
Yes, you can use any DB - good point.
1. Many startup hackers are good enough customize Linux for their needs, but would lack that freedom under Windows.
2. Open source security model perceived as more reliable than MS's security through obscurity.
3. Performance. Not an expert here, but from anecdotal evidence of running Win7 vs Ubuntu10.04 on my desktop, and WinXP mobile vs Ubuntu UNR on my netbook, in both cases Linux can run more servers, background, and foreground processes simultaneously with no system degredation than Windows can. My netbook under UNR is especially amazing - slow and clunky under Win7, as responsive as a desktop under UNR. Does that carry over to servers too? (and can you run a headless Windows server?)
The recent article on Reddit's server costs brought up an interesting consideration about hardware maybe not being as cheap as it is reputed to be, at least not in the Amazon cloud, and that maybe choosing your technology stack based on its inherent performance is still a valid issue (eg, choosing Rails (or MS) for developer productivity and then throwing servers at it till it performs well enough may be more costly than perceived).
Can't say for sure since I haven't used MS products for web stuff in almost 10 years.
4. Vendor lock in, increasing licensing costs as you scale.
3. The performance differences are negligible in the general case. Startups write their own code so most of the performance differences are going to come from the code they write rather than underlying performance differences. In both cases, python vs. C# / .NET you can always drop down to C. I doubt that whatever their problems are they stem from language / compiler. Most sites are IO bound. IO bound applications are largely a factor of how many disks you have. The throughput for writing a file in PHP and C are identical on machines with less than 10 disks.
4. Licensing costs decrease drastically as you scale on the MSFT side.