One important part of the story is in the very beginning: The founder’s motivation. To become wealthy.

You see this in the startup world a lot. Founders with 5+ failed startups in different sectors, because said founder picked the fields mainly by doing some market analysis. Not domain expertise.

There’s then a big mismatch between what the founder thinks is possible, and what the domain expert thinks is possible.

The defense is of course that some people can do that - Musk did it, so why not?

Another defense is that blindingly naïve optimism is sometimes needed to move the needle, as the concept “that can’t be done” simply doesn’t exist to some people.

I’ve sat through some pitches like that, where it is very obvious that the founder/CEO has limited knowledge and expertise in what they’re pitching, where the product is limited, but their enthusiasm is off the charts.

EDIT: The very latest happened only a couple of weeks ago. A startup had reached out to my employer as they’re developing a platform in our domain. Higher ups liked what they’d seen, enough to arrange a real meeting.

Startup is only 3 months old, and the moment I opened the platform I recognized a vibecoded (likely using clause) platform identical to almost all other launched on a daily basis.

So I probed a bit about data sources, serious questions regarding security, etc. but the guy was pretty fluent in consultant (turns out he had worked as a management consultant before launching), and the CTO was just nodding along.

In the end they wanted our data, and promised the moon on features - but as mentioned, I’m sure the whole product was entirely vibecoded.

Oh, I'm glad I don't work in the oven business. We're just starting a stealth startup that's revolutionizing dishwashers, and the prototypes are amazing. They use less water, less detergent, and this weekend we're hoping to solve the last remaining issue: occasionally, they break glasses.

We keep seeing this. If you had to point out the fundamental problem, what would it be?

I think it’s the disconnect. Each persona is an expert in their own field but is completely oblivious to other critical areas.

The founder knows how to raise money but doesn’t really understand the customers. The engineer knows the tech but doesn’t really understand what it takes to keep the business afloat. The salesperson knows what customers want but doesn’t really understand what’s possible to make. The investor knows the numbers but doesn’t really understand how poorly the business is run.

I suspect if you look at successful startups you’ll often see a very small (1-3) group of founders who are very close, each can do more than one thing really well, and their combined expertise means that together they have very few blindspots.

This article could have been written 20 years ago (source : I was there), probably 50 years ago, and will probably be written for ever. (Although future éditions will have fun about AI.)

What I would love is to read more of the story from the perspective of the salesperson (we're all too sympathetic to the engineers, and potentially ceo - but I suspect their part of the story goes beyond "I'll just say yes to everything and cash my variable share of the deal". Otherwise, pour rational next move would be to all become salesperson and build oven on the side for fun.)

Also, I would love to read the perspective from the customer side ? ("What do you mean they sell oven that don't rotate ? We clearly specified that we needed an ISO-98765 compliant oven !!! OF COURSE it has to rotate !! why did the boss just went with the cheapest supplier again ?")

Or even the perspective from BigOven ("guys ! I read on linked in that this little startup has built a candle button, why don't we have that already ?")

More seriously - do you know of startups that got away with salespersons saying "no, sorry, we can't make rotating ovens, you should see our competition, or come back in three years." Aren't those dead as dodos, by virtue of not having any customer to pay the bill ?

Similar story here.

Even though our ovens actually work fine, the problem is a new competitor: OpenOven. Their oven is completely free, and on the Italian forum everyone talks about them. It has even way more buttons than ours (most don't work very well, but the community loves it).

We almost sold to MrBaguette, one of the biggest bakery chains in the world, as they wanted new oven supplier for their next generation of kitchen. Their chef tried our oven and loved it. But in the end they went with the pricier one from Corporate Oven, because some VP thought we were too small and worried we wouldn't supply them in 20 years.

I found the part about the engineer's motivation interesting:

> The founder offers [the engineer] 20% of the company and total freedom to build the perfect oven. The salary isn’t great, but there’s the promise: [...] And something more important than money: he’ll finally get to build the oven of his dreams.

That turned out to be a complete lie. Not necessarily a deliberate one - I think it's quite possible both the engineer and the founder were initially believing it - but it was still a situation that never existed in that way.

Essentially, they weren't aware of all the constraints that existed for their oven design and then mistook a situation where the constraints were unknown with one where there were no constraints at all and they could just build whatever they wanted. But the real constraints were set by the market, investors and corporate customers and those were already there before they even stated the company.

(I don't think it means you have to submit to those slavishly and can never bring anything of your actual vision into your products, but it feels naive to be completely unaware of them.)

Uncomfortably accurate, but a fantastic read. Somewhere between the candle button and "It doesn't rotate clockwise" I stopped laughing and started remembering.

This was such a funny and refreshing read. Especially to find on this VC fuelled forum.

There was so much truth in this on a Dilbertesque level. If you can learn from this you are winning.

I am not saying "VC bad". I am saying it is a sharp-edged tool which you need to wield with great care. This humorous piece really points out the pitfalls.

Worth the read - do not just lurk here in the comment section (as I usually do!)

I remember sitting in on a sales meeting early in my career. I kept quiet, but afterwards I complained to my manager that they were selling features that didn’t exist and conflicted with core concepts of the product. My manager told me that was how sales were made. I left the company not long after, I was already disgruntled prior to that discussion.

I’ve seen the same thing everywhere I go. I don’t have the disposition to be in sales, but I periodically daydream of making huge commissions by straight up bullshitting people. There seems to be no downside.

The best tools/businesses are coming from domain experts who vibecode, not anyone who can vibecode — because the ones who are not from that domain have not really experienced the painpoints to know what the industry needs, even when they work with a dev team requirements get lost in translation.

The catch: domain experts don't know what they don't know about shipping. The fix — vibecoders build it, dev team hardens it for production.

I like this part:

The founder gets angry. He promised the VCs 10% of Spain’s oven market. The entire market. “We can’t sacrifice any of them.”

It’s not just greed. The 5 million was raised with the entire market on the slide. The founder isn’t choosing between right and wrong: he’s choosing which promise to break.

I wonder what the author had in mind when he wrote "which promise to break". Is the founder thinking about his promises to the VCs? Or thinking between the VC and customers?

I think this is the most human moment of the entire story. Everything else is pretty standard tropes (and just like everyone in this chain, these tropes ring very very true). They're almost systemic issues.

But this is a moment where the one person who is supposed to actually have agency (the founder!) actually has a choice. I don't want to nitpick the technicalities of the choice (it seems pretty straightforward to me that getting to 10% of total market would more than justify multiple product lines), but the psychology here.

Why is the founder uncomfortable breaking promises to investors, but more comfortable selling a garbage product? Is he just hopeful?

It’s very simple. Everbody just wants to make money.

Startups have nothing to do with innovation or making the world a better place.

It feels like it’s about creating the bubble, inflating it and cashing out before it bursts.

Too close to the home, ouch. It’s such a microcosm of things. I can imagine people reading this going “ah, the founder was right, it’s those damn nerds” or “at least WE generated sales” and so on. The more you do startups the more it seems that the time is indeed a flat circle.

> When he gets home at night, he argues for hours on Italian forums about which type of oven is best. The Italian forums are, to him, the ultimate source of oven-truth.

This detail, among several others, is subtle but deeply fateful.

> A month later, Mario leaves the company. [...] In the retro, it gets written down as a “learning.”

That hurts and exemplifies everything I hate about the industry. Humans lost on a Kanban board, abstracted away and covered in business speak.

> When Everything Is Urgent, Nothing Is

The most resonant line for me. This line for me is about how good project management meets team culture. You want a high performant team: one that remains focused and motivated - but the goals are carrots, not sticks.

The mistake was when they didn't just switch to selling two types of dough. They had a genuine innovation and should've squeezed as much juice out of that and moved on to finding some other innovation. You don't need to build exactly what you described to your first investors, you just need to build a valuable business for them.

I was waiting for the plot twist and it didn't come, so its genre is: horror.

It's flabbergasting how this story is close to the reality. Bookmarked, I would love to see it printed.

This is so well written. What would really be icing on the cake would be for Mario to join another oven company that had the same premise (or similar vein) where he got to experience that all over again. Either way, there’s always a starry eyed graduate that thinks this is my ticket.

I’ve felt like this before but I think the responsibility of the founding engineer is underestimated. 20% of the company is a cofounder and a partnership. The failure was compromising on the buttons. An engineer who can say “no” is far more valuable than the one who will grind out features for a sales call.

you know the pamphlets passed to soldiers before war.

your article needs to be passed to engineers & I guess everyone before graduating college.

in all the satire - what our industry forgot is - how did people build/fund companies before Venture Capital ?

Brilliant! And this isn't really just about startups. Large companies are operating the exact same way.

> The engineer realizes something: building an algorithm that calculates baking time for cakes, pizzas, and bread is quite a bit more complex than it looked. Every dough is its own universe. They need to hire more engineers.

Why did the engineer "who spends all day talking and arguing about ovens" not realize this sooner? Sure, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it", but the engineer's salary wasn't great anyway; the real goal was to build "the oven of his dreams". To do that, he very much needed to understand the algorithmic complexity involved.

What I assume happened is the engineer wasn't sure whether the idea could work, and the only way to find out was to try. Well, he tried, and he found out. Oh well.

Isn't this how VC is supposed to work? Ten startups try ten ambitious ideas. Nine fail, one succeeds. The one that succeeds does well enough to make up for the nine failures. And so it goes. There was nothing wrong with the nine founders who failed. They were just unlucky, and they can try again.

I think what went wrong in the story is very simple. The company didn't "fail fast".

Brilliant. What I liked are the characters - it's hard to make every character motivation reasonable and so well communicated.

What I think is a bit of a missed opportunity is for the product to fail with "the pizza|cake|pastry is half-baked" and so customers still have to do the rest of the job anyway.

Here is another story: A baker who bakes for her kids every day makes an oven. She spends years perfecting it by herself with details only someone who uses this product would notice. The nuance of gold baked details in just the right places on the bread, the infusion of essences for the cakes. The precise charring on the pizzas. She goes to young founder events to meet likeminded makers and they talk about space ovens and OvenCrunch incubators fund them just on school name and ideas. But the oven maker with the kids doesn’t even get an interview. She applies with a working product and increasing sales year over year for 10 years and no interview. Her over becomes an organically growing best seller and she doesn’t need the seed money anymore. Incubator founders have spend their seed funding on fancy trips and conferences and flying over the Egyptian pyramids on instagram. The Incubator partners say they don’t fund oven makers anymore because the business is too slow to grow and consumer stuff is a tarpit.

The classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem.

If the founder had started by talking with people in the problem space, he could have discovered what problems were actually worth solving before investing any money and effort into a product.

Everything after that happened were downstream effects of creating something without a defensible reason why and for whom.

Why do I feel like this is the story of the average B2B SaaS YC startup?

Reading this made me hyperventilate

Considerable arrogance is required to think you can improve on mature products enough to conquer a large market share. Such arrogance should be supported by having, if not a demonstrably fantastic prototype, at least an obviously good idea; otherwise you are following the example of Juicero or Theranos.

In the article, the "smart" oven is only a speculation (maybe it works, and maybe someone will pay for it) and as such it is appropriate as a relatively low effort and low risk experiment on the part of an established oven maker (develop rudimentary automation and offer it as a very mildly disruptive feature at a modest price increase).

> Engineering stops trying to build a good oven and starts adding buttons and features. Nobody made that decision. It just happened

I’ve found that most people hate making tradeoffs. They don’t recognize that the things they do like don’t do everything.

So If you focus too much on a customer or worse an internal stakeholder who hasn’t designed or built things, it can became a Homer Simpson designing a car situation.

Wow I was laughing internally. I couldn’t dare to laugh out loud because this story is too real to me. The moment I noticed that I just had to look back my life. Good read

This writing is too realistic to feel joy about it. Thanks for putting it together (and then to the HN)

Entertaining, very AI prose though.

This one hits a little too close to home. I left my company around 9 months ago due to being "Mario" at my old company. It was a good decision because it ended up being a sinking ship. I wish I left much sooner, but I didn't know the red flags at the time. An expensive lesson for me

> He offers them the same deal he got: low salary, lots of freedom, the perfect oven.

This is highly relatable. The part that it hides is the "lots of hours of your life" included part.

Such a great read! I kept on nodding and chuckling the whole time reading it. I can see myself as the founder, especially 'spending time in the oven forums' lol.

I went to the /blog route to see other posts by the author, but alas, there is only this one! And that's a gem.

Slow clap… matches my experience in startups. And honestly, big tech as well. I think you can consider an enterprise to simply be a collection of many startups with shared revenue as funding.

The technology is amazing. The marketing around it is a decade ahead of its capability, and the pushiness to make LLMs do what they still can't is just irritating. The question to me is "who is seeing the goal posts?" And the answer is "the marketing department of whoever sells it".

> “But this is a startup. And startups are built with blood and sweat. Everyone here has to sacrifice. You have two weeks.”

If only this simply applied to startups. Many enterprises today still remember their startup roots a little TOO clearly.

This was an absolute delight to read. I have tried to build so many ovens in my life…

Has anyone ever experienced the alternative? to building products from scratch, growing a business, without the drama?

I made an account just to reply to this post. Happened to me. Word per word. From the start until the end. Exactly like it is.

Is this how they view us? Like yeah. I'm going to spend all night arguing with the Haskell lovers (that's a slur in my books) on Reddit, but it's not my hobby. Rather, responsibility demands I direct these functional programmers away from the devil.

This was such a great read! Thank you! Too bad Oven Inc never got more headcount. Otherwise the engineers could've had a day hackathon week while the managers and founder went to a retreat for a strategy offsite.

Wow, this is so damn close to truth :)

for me, the moral of the story is that it's easier to promise things than to deliver them. or, engineering was the bottleneck. in my experience, this is not particular to start-ups, or even software engineering.

why does this happen though? i think it could be due to short-term thinking. like buying things with a credit card: you get the shiny new thing immediately, but the payment is diluted over time. likewise, once the sale is made, you may feel the reward immediately (though i guess it depends on the exact nature of the deal), but the work that will have to be done, will be done over time.

also, it's no wonder that the founder, or, outside start-ups, the marketing department, which specializes in promising impossible things, manages to evade the blame...

I have started a number of (failed) companies and this, this article summarizes the last 15 years of my life. A software dev trying to play startup founder.

To whoever wrote this , thank you for so eloquently articulating something I’d failed to put into words.

Being able to say no, across the company! Having an engineering team which is allowed to say No the founder. Having a sales team which is allowed to say No to the customer. Having founders who are allowed to say No to themselves, sit patiently and figure the root-causes.

Can’t say this is fiction or non-fiction. Totally depressing. Too good.

Brilliant autobiography.

The founder should have visited China's oven manufacturing market/industry after raising 5 million. This could have solved their first major client Pepepizza feature problem.

While the majority of comments are absolutely right in recognizing and lamenting such situations plaguing our industry, let's not forget this is an ultimate first world problem. It can be stressful and frustrating but we are a privileged bunch to be able to call this 'pain'.

Interesting story. This seems a true story of the author? The author understands the characters of the people in the process of business. Understanding reality is not easy.

This is like a punch in the gut. Holy buckets. How do you prevent this? Bootstrap?

This was exquisitely cringe-laden and I think I may be the Luigi figure

If I didn't laugh i'd cry.

Honest question: Does the founder end up making money this way? Can you really get rich building a failed business?

This was actually so good to read. It really reminded me of so many of my past experiences at startups.

Great story. Reminded me what my professional nightmare would look like. But, I think at the end it started to thin out its allegorical premise when it started including SWE terms like Kanban and retros.

Well written. This applies much further than just equity raising startups.

I LOVE THIS!! well done.

Daft! And very strangely true. I recognised several moments and events in the story

MCP for browser automation is interesting because Safari's WebKit engine is the one most AI agents can't easily drive (Playwright and Puppeteer are Chromium-first). Having an MCP server for it could fill a real gap in cross-browser testing for agent workflows.

Well written and it perfectly describes reality, it got me hooked and nodding from start to finish.

Ouch, that hits close to home, and it seems like it does for a lot of others out there as well.

So what's the solution? Is there a playbook that avoids these pitfalls, or is it just the cost of the spin. Ideally, something early engineers can point to when we see non-technical founders falling into familiar traps.

Oh, that one hits hard on the nail.

This is inkblot test. Some will read it and see fundamental irrationality. Others will read it and say “it could have worked out if a couple of things had gone their way.”

The story could be change with just a few sentences in the middle that would turn it into the founding myth of how Globoven took 100% of the market for energy efficient portable emergency ovens for NATO military use.

> The founder is very good. He builds a plan that, on paper, is flawless and airtight: manufacture a more efficient oven using new technology. Selling it is easy. Want to work more efficiently? Buy our oven. End of pitch.

Are you kidding me? Here's my business plan: manufacture faster computer chips than anyone else ever has before using new technology. Selling it is easy. Want faster computers? Buy our chips. End of pitch.

Here's my execution strategy: I'm going to hire the person who comments the most on Hackers News discussions about new chips and let him loose, then come back with a million new requirements because I never bothered to understand anything about how people want to use computer chips or how they're sold today.

My company eventually loses its only customer when it turns out that we don't know how to build faster computer chips at all.

The founder is not "very good", he's a moron who doesn't make a single good decision in the entire story. His failure is absolutely predictable because he doesn't add any value for anyone else at any point in the story, he doesn't understand his customers, he doesn't understand the market, and he doesn't understand his employees and their motivations. The only thing he ever does is raise money, and he's able to do that because his investors also know nothing about the customers, the market, or the potential employees.

Great business parable! This matches how reality works 100%, including the delusion that guys like this are "really smart".

The more I read into it, the more pain memory flashbacks I got. Bravo

my favorite blog post of all time... this should go in a museum

Now I remember why I noped out of tech a decade ago...

Brilliant. Brutal.

This is so well written. Well done!

Unrelated, but does anyone else remember halfbakery.com?

Oh cool it's still around!

Enjoyed this – very entertaining!

This could have all been solved if they added a setting for bread, pizza, or cake.

s/oven/cms/g

Spoiler: This is not about ovens.

Spoiler: this is not about ovens.

> The founder is very good. He builds a plan that, on paper, is flawless and airtight

Premise is laughable right out of the gate.

I mean sure, but look, I will not make the same mistakes.

Also my context is totally different. And MY oven concept has none of the drawbacks of their oven and Claude tells me I'm definitely on to something.

I'm off to the notary to sign the docs for Oven.ai (got the domain for only 300k!!) See ya on my yacht!

Every feature you add to you product really explodes the amount of new states you have to take care of, in addition to the risk of diverting the core product vision

How on earth did this post get so many points and comments lol

this is the best thing i've read in a while. it's both triggering and prophetic at the same time. really captures the essence of what happens in startups. well done.

i am completely new to this stuff (just made a mobile app). thanks for explaining (in 5 year-old kiddo style) how funding and corpo slop works. WOWOW

No cap

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[dead]

[flagged]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

A legend in the making.

This is such European take on startups. Tesla was making shitty overpriced status symbols/value signalling cars and selling FSD for 10k knowing very well that it will not work with car hardware. It took them 10 years to "fake it until you make it stage".

If founder keep iterating and hyping his ovens with enough capital he could become big player in oven maker space and disrupting industry. Learning from this article was that he lacked capital and vision.