Thanks for sharing Ross, it's amazing how first iteration looked so basic but the founders were able to get traction and develop their sites into something huge! Guess most of us are all too caught up with the form not function.

Here's a screenshot of how 43Things started, 5 years ago with a simple page. http://blog.robotcoop.com/2009/11/16/43-things-...

Interesting story, I think starting simple and getting the backend right is always a good start. Then you can focus on the pretty or finnicky stuff.

Here is a great video with Owen dispelling the aforementioned $200 Digg myth. It's an interesting insight into how it happened. http://blog.mixergy.com/pr-lies-destroy-your-un...

Good post, though personally, I’ve had both good and bad experiences on RAC and eLance. I think, in the long run, you’re better either building something yourself or hiring professional developers.

totally true.

Evan Williams, the founder of Twitter (lots of small messages) said this at the TED2009 Conference - "Sometimes when i consider what tremendous consequences come from little things, I realize all things are little."

37 Signals (famous for the Basecamp project management app) recently turned 5 and wrote a post about how they got started and what has happened since then.

http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1556-happy-b...

Me back again... interesting that this post happens in the same week as FaceBook celebrates it's fifth birthday.

Mark Zuckerberg released a series of similar retrospective pics of the evolution of Facebook profile pages over the years, check it out:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=87231&...

Similar story I suppose, starting small & simple (uni/college campus level) then expanding to beat MySpace (in Au now at least)

Starting simple (agile dev) means you get to the 'people' stage faster than if you develop too much first (waterfall dev). You still have to go through the people stage but if you can get a quick and dirty version up first it means you can test with real users, get real feedback, and adapt with quick iterations.

Ross, interesting post. but honestly, i think you're looking on the perspective of design and appeal. If you digg bit more you'll find people were part of a massive investment - take Amazon e.g.
They brought in people for millions back to the time
good intention

Owen Byrne has said the Digg story is bogus http://www.owenbyrne.com/2009/02/03/top-digg-un... and that Fred Wilson's view is more realistic http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/01/when-talking-ab... - it's a very good read in typical Fred style.

that's great startup

love to know

thanks
csscody.com

Great post. It gives little guys like us hope that we will one day become big!

Wow! For some reason I almost not read this article. Now I'm glad I did. It's inspiring. Thanks.

That Amazon screenshot is amazing. I remember when that all-capitals-with-first-letter-larger-font-size was all the rage. Was that about 1995?

The phenomenon of launching on the cheap is what my group is all about. Check it out:
http://ultralightstartups.com/

Graham.

Wow, Amazon has come a long long way since then. I'm wondering what year that screenshot was taken from?

This should be common sense, but for most of us - we want our product/service to be the end-all/be-all for our clients/users. Starting small is a good lesson to learn, but to have the courage/motivation(and more) to start somewhere/something(and learn from your mistakes) - can be more exciting, and rewarding.

Good perspective on what are now giants. There's hope for us all!

www.rocksoapopeara.com
www.thebeanbag.co.uk

Nice info!!

I N S P I R I N G !!!

Wow, Amazon was pretty ugly.

wonderful post with wonderful pictures, it is a rare collection. i like this very much. very great development of web industry. great and goo on digg, amazon and twitter. i too like to see pics of other big sites.

Terrific post, Ross! Very interesting to actually see with your screen grabs how those sites have evolved.

Keep up the great work and remember us little people when you take over Australia. :-)

I love posts like this, its always fun to look back at sites in their infancy.

Very much inspiring post... it reminds that "Rome Was Not Built In One Day"

Of the three only Amazon has made any money. Digg and Twitter may have caught the attention of investors but its too early to tell if they'll be sustainable in the long run. Digg is certainly no model of financial restraint. Last year they spent $7.6 million and made $4.8 million, a loss of $2.6 million.

Good post, though personally, I've had both good and bad experiences on RAC and eLance. I think, in the long run, you're better either building something yourself or hiring professional developers.

We launched Alpha version of http://www.edocr.com in Sept 07 under £500. £250 was for the design. Come to think of it, the actual cost could well be about £350 (design + URL + company setup).

Since then we have spend bit more and now developing edocr.com after 12 months of almost no development. edocr API was released few weeks ago, why not give it a try?

Cool. I'm wishing the same destiny for mentory.com which launched today.

Great post to get the thoughts flowing however I think it should be titled something like big websites based on successful ideas start as small websites based on great ideas. (Doesn't sound very good though!) The idea or concept has to be valid - the implementation doesn't need to be mature - just able to be implemented sufficiently to show the value of the idea.

Its all about marking your territory it bit like a miner's claim - you know there is gold here you just haven't dug it up yet. Some gold is harder to dig up than others but that doesn't mean its less valuable.

I agree with Nige - iteration and gradual maturity is much wiser than throwing money at a bad idea - a dog is a dog even if it is wearing a bow.

I don't think the twitter public timeline hasn't changed much either!

Yeah - good point Steve... and great post Ross!

I think that sites like Digg, Amazon and Twitter have some similarities in that the user experience is so simple, but the back-end may actually be really complex.

Building up over time is probably better than pumping $5k into a site that looks awesome but nobody uses.

Tim Ferris (http://www.fourhourworkweek.com) talks a bit about testing ideas in a similar way on really small scales before but being growing them up as required.

@Steve - I think yeah, you'd want to spend $200 on func and maybe $250 on design... friends will do small web stuff pretty cheap.

@Ross - I'm also keen to hear about your yabble experiences

A little of if comes down to perfectionism. Something is better than nothing. Something lets you get feedback and move forward. Spending big bucks and time trying to get it perfect before launching doesn't get you any feedback and isn't getting you forward momentum.

Cheers,
Rod (@thetappingman)

I would call twitter pretty current! You don't need a design to make people use your site if it is a compelling feature, but it will help to 'impress' them later if you need to for other reasons.

Coverhunt.com has gone really well. I outsourced a complete rewrite of the code and it was returned in only a few days.

With Yabble.com.au I've had a bit of trouble with outsourcing - the sites work but quality control has been an issue. Hopefully this next guy will be able to fix everything up and it will be up and racing in no time :)

At Rentoid.com we outsource all of our development and design work and it has been a learning process but 95% of the time it works perfectly. I think you really just need to find a good, cheap or fast coder to work with and accept that you are giving up the last element. Where most people would go for good and fast, on the web if you are just starting out and not really sure of the direction you are going you are probably better off with fast and cheap.

I didn't know you were involved in the Rentoid startup -- did Julie-Ann Kerin put you onto that?

Great post dude, inspirational that those now 'foundation sites' started so simple and small. It gives us all a bit of hope!

My question now, though, is how small can current web-launches start? Things could look a lot less 'sexy' back then...If that version of Amazon launched today, there is very little chance I would hand over my cash online.

Do we now need to spend $200 on the site AND $500 on the design? What have you experienced when creating the different iterations of Yabble?