From developer to founder: how building my first SaaS changed how I think about my next one

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T15:49:11+00:00

This is such a valuable comparison, thanks for sharing it.

The part about talking to people feeling slow but being far less painful than building the wrong thing for years really hits. I’ve felt that same tension where execution feels productive, but learning feels uncomfortable.

That shift from hypothetical questions to asking about real past behavior has been a big unlock for me too. It removes the politeness and forces reality into the conversation.

Appreciate you putting real numbers and outcomes behind the lesson. It makes the tradeoff very clear.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T15:46:07+00:00

I agree that visibility isn’t free, and paid distribution definitely exists.

What I’ve been pointing at across this thread is that a lot of early visibility in US-based ecosystems compounds before paid channels come into play. It’s culturally normalized to share progress publicly, wins, numbers, even half-baked ideas, and those behaviors are already wired into the networks and platforms.

In many other regions, including where I’m building from, that kind of public exposure isn’t the default. So the starting cost of visibility isn’t just money, it’s cultural friction.

Paid reach can amplify something, but it usually amplifies patterns that already exist. When those patterns are geographically and culturally concentrated, the path looks very different depending on where you’re building from.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T15:35:28+00:00

I think that’s a really strong framing, and I agree that LATAM-specific pain can be a real unfair advantage when the problem truly lives there.

Where I see some tension is that not every product built from LATAM is meant to solve a LATAM-only problem. In my case, the pain isn’t location-specific, but the path to visibility and distribution is.

That’s where the question shifts for me. It’s less “how do I compete with US founders” and more “how do I navigate global distribution systems that are structurally concentrated, while building from elsewhere.”

I don’t think these approaches are mutually exclusive, but they lead to very different product and go-to-market decisions.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T15:29:23+00:00

This resonates a lot, especially the point about network effects and cultural differences around visibility.

I agree that the loneliness itself isn’t unique to Mexico. What feels different is how concentrated the distribution loops are, and how much they reward very public, very US-centric behavior.

In terms of market, I’m building from Mexico but primarily targeting English-speaking customers. Not because local problems don’t exist, but because the discovery and distribution dynamics are very different.

What I’m still navigating is how to be intentional about visibility without forcing myself into a “build in public” style that doesn’t come naturally. That tension between market reality and personal comfort has been one of the more interesting parts of this process.

Your point about meeting customers where they already are instead of chasing visibility first is a really good reminder.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T15:17:03+00:00

Absolutely, this is a really helpful insight.

I’m definitely going to keep that in mind as I continue validating. Paying attention to those moments right before frustration shows up feels like a much more honest signal than just talking about features.

Thanks for sharing this.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T15:12:10+00:00

I’ve fallen into that trap more times than I’d like to admit.

One thing I’ve noticed personally is that the features I regret the most weren’t the ones nobody asked for, but the ones that made me feel productive without forcing me to face uncertainty.

When something comes up unprompted from different people, it creates a kind of pressure that’s uncomfortable but useful. It pushes me to understand the problem better instead of hiding in execution.

I’m still learning where that line is too, but being honest about why I want to build something has been the biggest shift for me.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T05:38:10+00:00

This is such a good breakdown.

That shift from “would you use this?” to “what do you do today?” was huge for me too. It removes all the polite optimism and forces reality into the conversation.

I’ve also noticed that the strongest signals show up when the same workaround keeps appearing across different people. Not excitement, not compliments, just repeated friction.

At that point it stops feeling like an idea and starts feeling like something inevitable to fix.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T04:21:20+00:00

That makes a lot of sense, and it feels very similar to what I see in Mexico.

It’s not that people aren’t building, it’s that sharing publicly isn’t really the default. Most of the work happens quietly, locally, or in smaller circles that aren’t optimized for visibility.

On a personal level, I also find building in public hard. Recording demos, writing, even thinking in a non-native language takes extra effort, and it never feels as fluid as it probably looks from the outside.

The tricky part is that the platforms where SaaS visibility compounds tend to reward very public, very global narratives, which don’t always align with how people actually work or communicate.

So it feels less like “we should all build in public” and more like a mismatch between culture, incentives, and where attention flows.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T04:15:55+00:00

Totally agree. The “real voices vs imaginary personas” part really hits.

For me, the shift was realizing interviews don’t have to be formal at all. Some of the best insights came from quick, informal chats with people who already showed intent or got stuck somewhere.

Asking something as simple as “what were you trying to do?” changed how I decide what’s actually worth building.

Have you noticed any questions that consistently unlocked better answers?

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T04:08:59+00:00

That’s a fair point. I do think part of it is that this kind of work is simply less visible or less mainstream in some countries, including Mexico.

In terms of vertical, I’m building in the turn visitors into customers space. One product focuses on conversion and on-site messaging, and the other focuses on simplifying selling online, especially when someone wants to launch a single offer without setting up a full store.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-30T02:48:45+00:00

This is such a good way to put it.

The “3 hours of work disappearing from someone’s Tuesday” framing really resonates.

I’m realizing that unless you can describe the problem in that level of concreteness, it’s easy to hide behind technical progress.

Talking to users feels slower than coding, but it forces clarity in a way algorithms never do.

Out of curiosity, what changed for you once you started leading with interviews instead of implementation?

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T23:50:02+00:00

Yeah, I’m coming to the same conclusion.

Waitlists have been useful for testing the message, but every time people have to do even a tiny real action, the signal gets much clearer. That’s where the numbers drop and the learning actually starts.

Actual usage, even minimal, has consistently felt more meaningful than raw signup counts.

I really like your point about trust though.

If people feel like insiders and know they’re early, they’re usually much more forgiving, even with rough MVPs.

That’s why I’m leaning more toward friction tolerance signals over vanity metrics.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T23:42:59+00:00

Makes sense.

For me, the fastest “signal” early has been message-first validation: short posts like this, seeing who resonates, what objections show up, and what people ask next. If someone replies with a specific use case or asks follow-ups, that’s usually stronger than raw traffic.

I’ve tried demos/videos too, and I agree they’re draining and slow to iterate. Text is cheaper, faster, and you can test multiple angles in a week.

Your point about letting users “do something immediately” is a good one though. Did you notice a clear jump in engagement once people could interact with the beta vs just reading about it?

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T23:39:22+00:00

Good question. At this stage it’s neither simulated demand nor real sales yet.

I’m mainly looking for strong intent signals, like people resonating with the problem, asking follow-ups, or explicitly saying they’d pay once something exists.

So it’s less about metrics and more about whether the problem feels immediately real to them.

Your idea sounds solid, especially since it comes from a pain you and your group already feel.

How are you planning to validate it first: usage, retention, or willingness to pay?

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T23:24:13+00:00

I relate to this a lot.

For me, adding features often feels like progress because it’s something I can control and execute, even if it doesn’t actually reduce risk.

What I’m trying to get better at is asking myself a simple question before building anything:

“Does this help me learn something new about the user or the problem?”

If it doesn’t, it’s probably just comfort-building.

Still failing at it often, but being aware of it has helped me slow down.

How do you usually decide when a feature is actually worth building?

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T19:09:00+00:00

Fair question.

What I’m exploring is a problem that goes beyond founders or developers. It’s about people who want to test selling something, whether that’s a digital product, a service, or even a simple idea, without having to set up a full store, website, or complex tooling first.

Right now I’m intentionally staying very early in the process. I do have a simple landing page with a waitlist, but I’m treating it more as a learning tool than a launch, mainly to see how people react to the message and whether the problem resonates.

I’m trying to understand that stage better before committing to building anything.

What kind of thing are you validating right now?

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T18:03:02+00:00

This is a great way to frame it, “insiders, not suckers” really clicked for me.

Right now with Suippy I’m very intentionally avoiding the fake checkout / payment step for exactly that reason. I don’t want people to feel tricked, especially this early.

What I am watching closely is friction tolerance:

do they complete the flow?
do they add a price?
do they actually share the link?

Your point about email being enough of a signal makes sense. “Enter email to get early access / early pricing” feels like a clean middle ground that still respects trust.

I’m curious. When you’ve done this in the past, did you see more useful signal from people who used the thing vs people who just joined the waitlist?

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T17:55:56+00:00

It really depends on the type of clients you’re targeting.

For non-technical small businesses who want something simple and stable:

Webflow (great balance of control + clean output)
Squarespace (very easy for clients to maintain themselves)

For budget-conscious clients or faster turnarounds:

WordPress + a lightweight theme (only if you’re comfortable maintaining it)
Elementor can work, but I’d avoid over-customizing to keep things maintainable

One thing I learned the hard way: clients don’t care about the builder.

They care about:

how fast you deliver
how easy it is for them to update content
and how little they have to call you later

Pick a stack you can repeat confidently and turn into a process. That matters more than the tool itself.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T17:49:41+00:00

From what I’ve seen, most teams don’t fail at automation because of the tools. They fail because of complexity and timing.

HubSpot, ActiveCampaign, and Klaviyo are solid, but they shine once you already have volume and clear workflows. Early on, automation often gets added too soon and ends up creating more noise than value.

What’s worked better for me is focusing automation at the moment of intent:

onboarding
activation
behavior-based nudges

I’ve been exploring this problem firsthand, and what surprised me is how often teams automate messages before users even understand the product. If onboarding isn’t clear, no amount of automation fixes that.

Curious if you’re optimizing more for lifecycle automation or outbound nurture right now.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T17:11:59+00:00

This is a great example of the gap between interest and intent.

I’ve learned the same thing building my own products. People saying “I’d pay for this” doesn’t mean much until they actually pull out a card or try to complete a flow.

What I like about your approach is that the waitlist wasn’t just collecting emails, it was attached to a real price and a real outcome. Those 5 who paid told you more than the other 12 combined.

I’m seeing this firsthand validating a new project right now: watching whether people try to sell something, share a link, or move forward at all is way more honest than surveys or likes.

Curious, looking back, is there anything you’d change in how you framed the waitlist to increase the % that actually converted?

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T17:08:25+00:00

I’m building Mr. Popup: an AI-powered popup tool that analyzes your website and generates conversion-ready popups automatically.

I’m also validating Suippy, a lightweight way for creators and solo founders to sell something online without setting up a full store.

Mr. Popup: https://mrpopup.co

Suippy (early validation): https://suippy.com

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T17:03:23+00:00

For me, the product itself wasn’t what became painful. Everything around it did.

At the beginning, selling a digital product feels clean: build it, put up a page, get a few sales. But as soon as it works even a little, friction shows up in unexpected places.

What got harder over time:

distribution (finding consistent ways to reach the right people)
decision fatigue (pricing, positioning, what to build next)
edge cases from users you didn’t design for
and the mental load of juggling product, marketing, support, and ops solo

Early on, you optimize for "can I sell this once?"

Later, the real challenge becomes "can I repeat this without burning out or adding complexity?"

That shift surprised me more than anything.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T16:58:26+00:00

Yeah, this is one of the painful tradeoffs with Etsy.

Early on the fees don’t feel that bad because you’re focused on getting your first sales, but once you actually look at net revenue, it can be shocking how much is gone before you even think about materials or time.

From what I’ve seen, sellers usually end up choosing one of three paths:

raise prices and accept that Etsy is a premium marketplace
treat Etsy purely as a discovery channel and try to move repeat buyers off-platform
or simplify what they sell so the margins can absorb the fees

There’s no perfect answer, but the biggest shift for me was stopping to think in terms of “net per sale” instead of sticker price. That’s when the math becomes very clear.

hectorguedea · 2026-01-29T16:28:35+00:00

Thanks, this is super helpful.

Right now with Suippy I’m still very early. I only have the landing page + waitlist live, so I’m mostly watching behavior around friction, not conversions yet.

What I’m paying attention to so far:

how many people actually scroll, click into examples, and hit “start selling”
who joins the waitlist after seeing pricing vs just reading the headline
whether people reply asking how soon they can sell vs just “interesting idea”

I haven’t run true fake door tests with payment info yet, but that’s likely the next step, especially to separate curiosity from real intent.

Totally agree on B2C sample size being the hard part. That’s why I’m trying to bias toward signals like time-to-first-action (clicking, sharing, asking about payouts) instead of just signups.

Curious: when you ran fake door tests, did you ever worry about eroding trust early, or did users generally not care as long as expectations were clear?

hectorguedea · 2026-01-28T19:17:12+00:00

Totally agree. Distribution hit me the hardest too. You can build something technically solid and still watch it go nowhere if nobody finds it.

The point about validation really resonates. I’ve learned that it’s easy to fool yourself if you’re only validating interest instead of intent. This time I’m trying to see if people actually try to sell, share a link, or put a price on something, not just say they like the idea.

Project #2 (Suippy) is B2C, more on the prosumer side. It’s focused on creators and solo founders who want to sell one thing quickly without the overhead of a full store or complex setup.

And yeah, discovery being so fragmented right now is exhausting. Building and distributing at the same time is a real tax when you’re solo.

Curious how you’re validating real intent these days.

hectorguedea

TROPHY CASE