No Competition? That's Usually a Red Flag for Solopreneurs
Postedabout 2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
meysam.ioOtherstory
skepticalmixed
Debate
70/100
SolopreneurshipMarket ValidationCompetition
Key topics
Solopreneurship
Market Validation
Competition
The article discusses how a lack of competition can be a red flag for solopreneurs, and the comments debate the author's experience and the validity of their claims.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
14m
Peak period
21
0-1h
Avg / period
6.5
Comment distribution26 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 26 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 13, 2025 at 10:00 AM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 13, 2025 at 10:14 AM EST
14m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
21 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 13, 2025 at 1:49 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45915674Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 12:26:32 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
That doesn't automatically mean that your idea can't be successful, but it does mean that you should take a step back and do a hard rethink. Maybe you can identify the reason everyone else is avoiding it and can eliminate or bypass the problem, for instance. But there almost certainly is a problem that you haven't spotted. Further, it's probably a hard problem to solve, since nobody else has managed it.
This kind of thing is one of the several reasons why you don't want to be the first to enter a product category ("the pioneers get the arrows"). The sweet spot to aim for is to be second or third. Then the market is already validated, and you can also learn how to make your product better by learning from the mistakes of your competition.
Why do some people 10x their money? They have a certain amount of time, money and risk tolerance. Not everyone can sit around and stay invested in certain convictions.
A truly industrial entrepreneur will be like a good investor. Buy the obvious, bet on the not so obvious, and be prepared to keep working on both.
For example, if someone created an adversarial/rude variant of OpenAI's offerings I would be very interested. Taking the existing "what works" and targeting segments of that market that are underserved is less risky than direct competition or forging new markets.
have a wonderful day ahead
Price. They have overhead. They have growth expectations for future funding rounds and tend to overpay to acquire customers when their product is stock valuation.
"Your margin is my opportunity"
My opinion is that all SaaS pricing will trend to price of compute as vibe coding + open source alternatives with one-click deployment converge
I think this only happens if AGI actually happens. It can't because the value add of going with a SaaS company instead of a DIY is the support and management that the SaaS company takes on in your place, which requires people.
Phrases like, “The moment that broke me wasn’t the empty dashboard. It wasn’t the crickets after launch” or “Here’s what I missed: Those competitors weren’t obstacles. They were validation” (random bolding that ChatGPT does omitted) are just so banally awful it makes me weep.
This had me drop out of the article..
Now you're just seeing it on this blog post.
And here on HackerNews, in my post.
Why, you may ask?
Because my intent is to leave you breathless in anticipation for "engagement." With short sentences. That don't let you rest and take in what you read.
Wouldn't that mean that you did enter a validated market with competitors? So there must be some other reason you didn't get revenue?
Right. I think my biggest takeaway from this article is that another engineer discovered that sales and marketing are important and difficult jobs.
The broken execution can include being twisted by perverse incentives.
Example: social media tending to converge on a mix of outrage doom-scrolling for engagement, selling out privacy, and force-feeding ads/ideas.
I ran into the perverse incentives problem, in a different space (not social media). Basically, there's a fairly simple solution to a problem for the majority of users/customers with this problem. But they need assistance at scale, like from a tech company, and there are perverse incentives for a company to pretend to solve the problem, while actively working against solving it. There's big demand for a solution, but most of the money is in not solving it, and it's easy money. One big player even acquires most of the competition, and twists them into the same awfulness, just with different veneers. (And, if you're a pair of idealistic cofounders who actually want to solve the problem, and you need funding, you would rather abandon it and work on something less conflicted, than sort through all the investors and prospective CEOs who would tell you what you want to hear, while thinking of it as a warm-fuzzy marketing story for the same awful, and ultimately you'd be misleading your users into the same awful easy-money exit endgame.)