Dear founder,
Here's a story that every founder needs to hear, because it reveals something fundamental about markets, competition, and the hidden costs of being first.
In the world of Python programming, there's been a tool called pip that has dominated package installation for years. pip has been the de facto way to install Python packages through all the many different versions of Python that have existed. It worked, it solved the problem, and it became ubiquitous.
Then, recently, a new competitor emerged called uv—just those two letters. uv is a reimplementation of that same installer, but here's the kicker: it's so much faster than the original that people often run it and think it didn't work. They're used to pip taking time, maybe going to grab a coffee while packages install. With uv, they blink and it's done. The speed difference is that dramatic.
Now, uv probably would never exist if it hadn't been for the many years of pip being used, being built, growing into the tool that it became. And there's a story here—a learning that goes way beyond Python tools.
The Unavoidable Complexity of Being First
When you're building the very first solution in a space, you face what I call "unavoidable complexity." You're not building something complex because you want to—you're building it complex because you simply don't know what you don't know.
Think about it: when people set out to build pip, they didn't know about the complexity of cloud systems. They didn't know about the intricate challenges of interoperability between different Python versions, or the nightmare of managing packages across different environments and repositories. The tool was made to fit a world that didn't have these things in it yet.
As these challenges appeared over time, pip was adapted. New features were bolted on, edge cases were handled, workarounds were created. Through the sheer necessity of being an ongoing experiment—an ongoing learning journey—pip developed layers of complexity and interconnectedness.
This happens because when you're the first and only tool that has to fit all the use cases, every new problem becomes your problem to solve. One part of your tool solves one particular problem for one kind of person. Another part solves a different problem for another kind of person. The moment these parts interact, there's a third condition you never thought about. If you don't solve for it, your tool becomes unusable for people who need both capabilities.
The Early Adopter Feedback Trap
Here's where it gets really interesting. If you build a product for innovators—for people who are willing to experiment—their feedback comes from a very specific perspective. They're thinking, "Okay, it's fine if it doesn't work perfectly, as long as it works at all." They'll tolerate certain drawbacks, sluggishness, or incompleteness if your solution still beats the status quo of having to build it themselves.
The feedback you get from innovators will always be biased toward solving individual use cases perfectly rather than finding a generalized solution that works adequately for everyone. And this is exactly what happened with pip over the years.
Now, enter uv.
The Competitor's Advantage: Learning from Others' Pain
uv does something fascinating—it reinvents the wheel, but it reinvents the wheel as seen by the majority of people who actually use it. uv is focused on what it already knows to be the hard parts. It takes the most painful aspects of package management that pip users have complained about for years, and it solves them extremely well.
All those learnings from pip's journey—the complexity, the edge cases, the performance bottlenecks—they weren't necessarily encoded in pip's code, but they were encoded in the documentation, in the community discussions, in the lived experience of millions of developers who used that tool. uv's builders had access to all of that institutional knowledge from day one.
They could look at pip and say, "Okay, here's what works really well—we'll keep that. Here's what everyone complains about—we'll solve that better." They didn't have to discover these problems through painful trial and error like pip did. The market had already done that expensive learning for them.
The Founder's Dilemma: First Mover or Fast Follower?
So here's what this means for you as a founder. If you're building a tool for the very first time in a market that doesn't have a solution yet, just be aware: you will build complexity simply because there's no way for you to know where the avoidable complexity lies.
You have unavoidable complexity in these systems because to avoid complexity, you need to be aware of it first. It's an unknown unknown that often manifests as technical debt long after the fact. Your future competitors will know this. They'll find the things you do really well and take them. They'll find the things you don't do well at all and build them better.
That's how markets evolve. That's how tools evolve over time.
But here's the flip side: if you're a founder building something in an existing market, you can use this pattern to your advantage. You already know there are things your incumbent competitors could not have avoided, simply by the logic of them not being able to see problems before they were built.
This still requires tremendous insight into the market you're operating in. It still requires the capacity to actually come up with better solutions. But the benefit of not being first is that you get to build the uv that defeats the pip. You get to build the tool that has community learnings and industry best practices built in from day one—advantages that the original tools can only integrate slowly, with lots of refactoring and rebuilding.
The Incumbent's Hidden Moat
Now, you might think this means first movers are doomed, but that's not quite right. Here's why pip is still on so many systems despite uv being clearly superior in many ways: legacy and dependencies.
Those systems running pip weren't set up from scratch yesterday. They're not completely novel installations running the latest version of everything. They have dependencies. They have other tools that depend on being installed via pip. They have tool chains that would be hard to change because they're deployed on legacy systems that might struggle with uv, or where something is baked in or pre-compiled.
In many ways, this complexity that seemed like a burden? It becomes a moat. Your moat is having all those learnings encoded into your product. Even though it might be sluggish, even though it might be complicated, the solution is already there and it's usable right now.
People on the innovator and early adopter end of the spectrum will always try out new things like uv. But people further along the adoption curve—those who take longer to embrace new tools and solutions—they see a new solution as a risk.
Unlike pip, which has decades of community experience, tutorials, insights, and people who are fluent in it, uv only has a couple of years worth of documentation and community knowledge. There may not be as much real-world experience with edge cases. It may not be completely capable of being deployed on certain systems that people know they need to work with.
This is the Lindy effect in action: something that's been around for a while is likely going to stick around for a while longer.
The Strategic Takeaway
So what's the lesson here for founders?
If you're building something completely new, there will be unavoidable complexity. Don't beat yourself up about it—it's the price of being first. But do prepare for competitors who will learn from your struggles and build cleaner solutions.
Your defense isn't to prevent complexity—it's to move fast enough and build deep enough relationships with your users that by the time cleaner competitors arrive, you've become infrastructure that's hard to replace.
If you're building a solution to replace an existing tool, you have an incredible opportunity. You get to find the avoidable complexity in existing solutions and eliminate it. You get to learn from years or decades of other people's expensive mistakes. But you also need to understand why that complexity exists—sometimes it's solving real problems that aren't immediately obvious.
The market teaches us everything we need to know, but it teaches the first movers through painful experience, and it teaches the followers through observation. Both paths have their advantages, but only if you understand which game you're playing.
Whether you're building the next pip or the next uv, the key is recognizing that complexity isn't always a flaw—sometimes it's a feature that's been battle-tested by reality. And sometimes, the cleanest solution wins not because it's simpler, but because it's simpler in all the right ways.
That's the hidden cost and hidden benefit of being first: you pay for the market's education, but you also get to keep some of the value that education creates.
We're the podcast database with the best and most real-time API out there. Check out podscan.fm — and tell your friends!
Thank you for reading this week's essay edition of The Bootstrapped Founder. Did you enjoy it? If so, please spread the word and share this issue on Twitter.
If you want to reach tens of thousands of creators, makers, and dreamers, you can apply to sponsor an episode of this newsletter. Or just reply to this email!
No comments:
Post a Comment