Arvid Kahl talks about starting and bootstrapping businesses, how to build an audience, and how to build in public.
Hey. It's Arvid, and this is the Bootstrap founder. As I'm building yet another software service business after having built and sold one back in 2019, I keep wrestling with a pretty fundamental question that might sound simple, but I think has profound implications. And that is, what do I actually own in this business and off this business? And before we get to this whole topic, a word from our sponsor, paddle.com.
Arvid:They're a great example actually for things that I consciously delegate to somebody else. And I'll get to that particular kind of ownership later when I talk about owning customer relationships. I use Paddle as my own merchant of record. They take care of all the taxes, the currencies, tracking the client transactions, refunds, updated credit cards so that I can focus on dealing with my own competitors and not banks, financial regulators, and all that kind of stuff. So if you think you would rather just want to build your product, check out paddle.com as your payment provider.
Arvid:Now, what do I actually own? That's a question that becomes particularly urgent when you realize that most modern software businesses exist in this fascinating paradox. We're building increasingly valuable assets, businesses that generate a lot of revenue, hopefully, they grow in value and can potentially be sold for quite significant sums. Yet we have less direct control over things like the infrastructure and other things than ever before. We're essentially building castles on rented land and the implications of this go far deeper than most founders realize.
Arvid:Let me start with why this matters so much. A business is not just a place where you work. Particularly for founders it's very different. It's both something that generates this constant stream maybe a salary, dividends or you reinvest the money that the business makes into itself, there's some kind of revenue here. But in the end, the business itself grows in value.
Arvid:And if you own that value and if that value is capturable by you or maybe somebody else in the future, who knows, then you effectively get value twice. You get value along the way through operational income and then you get the expected future value over the course of the business running and that's something that people could buy from you and they often do. I'm always thinking how can I balance how much value the business creates for me today and how much it will potentially create for me or maybe somebody else in the future? Here's the thing that's kind of funny enough to be able to sell something. Well, for that, you have to actually own the asset.
Arvid:And this becomes a particular problem for building software businesses in this world of white coding and posted everything. If you manage to build a profitable business on say Lovable or on vZero or on any of these easy to deploy easy to prompt vibe coding platforms that kind of spring up every now and then, then one of the interesting questions becomes how much do I control? How much ownership do I actually have here? Not just over the business as a legal entity that's a legal question and you should have that figured out in the documents and all of that but how much control do you have over the operational durability of your business? We live in a world where almost everything you could potentially run a software or as an underlying foundation for a software business exists as a rentable version a much more affordable rentable version that somebody else is running for you.
Arvid:Thinking about Platforms as a Service stuff like Heroku or Infrastructure as a Service like AWS, Google Cloud or Vercel where you just chip some code and then everything magically runs for you. Even for my most recent side projects for PodScan I've started to run things under Laravel Cloud which is effectively a platform as a service provider for Laravel, my PHP framework that I use. I just deploy my code there and they automatically spin up the services that are needed. They spin up the database, they spin up Redis caching layer, file systems, and none of this I need to manage anymore, which is great. But you can feel that you don't have control at this point.
Arvid:I get somebody else doing the stuff and if they do it right, that's perfect. But if they don't, well, it becomes a liability. And with PodScan, I still have some control over the infrastructure by choice. But that infrastructure is also, at least in part, hosted with an infrastructure as a service provider. So it's not a platform as a service provider that I host, but I have a couple of bare metal machines that are mostly running my transcription, my search engine, that analysis and that kind of stuff.
Arvid:But the main application that I run for reliability and scalability reasons is not hosted on a VPS like these bare metal machines are. Bare metal VPS, you know, it's a it's a continuum there. You buy something, you still rent it, but it's an actual machine that you have access to. That's kind of what I But my web app is set up on an infrastructure as a service provider. That's AWS.
Arvid:Right? It runs in a virtual machine there. And we are becoming more and more dependent on these externalized services that are deep at the core of our businesses. This dependency, well, it both creates opportunities, mostly for saving and for not having to do a lot of work, and vulnerabilities for both the system that we run and the business on top of it that we need to very carefully consider. Let me tell you a story that really drove this home for me.
Arvid:So I had this technology choice problem with my previous business that I sold, FIFA Panda, which was built on top of a rather rarely seen web server called Phoenix in the Elixir programming language. It's a functional language, it's a lot of fun to build software in, but in many ways that choice to build an Elixir, which was a great choice at a time because it was the thing that I was also using for my day job, well that quite limited who would be able to buy our company or buy our product or asset because they would have to have an Elixir engineer and those people are pretty rare because everybody has access to a lot of PHP and Ruby and JavaScript engineers. But Elixir devs, they are very much in high demand and the engineers that can work with this technology, while they have spent a lot of years trying to figure out how functional programming works, they are more expensive than let's say your run of the mill Ruby or PHP dev. So in a way that tech choice probably precluded us from several potential buyers just by the mere tech choice that we made at the beginning and even though we had this wonderful application that we owned or we thought we owned we still did but when somebody asks well can I buy it from you what tech do you use well that ownership that you have that you feel in that moment not just in terms of the software the code itself but also the decisions that you have to own of which kind of code to write, all of a sudden that ownership matters tremendously and it fluctuates?
Arvid:And for me scalability and sellability are essentially the same thing here either I scale the business myself or somebody else scales it so it's kind of the same so the question becomes do my technology and ownership choices work for this? Did I make the right choice at the right time or do I control enough of it for somebody to either build more out of take it and build something bigger from it? And this affects not just the code that I write or where it's running but also why my code is stored and how do I deploy it those questions from where I control it version control to the actual servers that need a new version or need a fix or need a rollback right, where I push that code to be run-in front of people. And many a day on Twitter, I see people saying, while GitHub is down, I guess I can't work today. And as funny as it is to see people posting memes about that old xkcd comic about code compiling and people fencing on their office chairs because they have nothing else to do right an outage of one of these infrastructure systems not of the actual running code but for the deployment and development of code Well that's pretty critical to a business that has to deal with bugs and new developments every single day.
Arvid:Being able to deploy code not just through this abstract far off pipeline that involves a third party service but from your local development system in a pinch particularly for Bootstrap founders, for people with small software as a service business that do not have these massive checking of balance of power requirements, that's something you still need to own. I've run into a lot of issues not being able to deploy code, but I've tried to figure it out along the way. You need to still own a way to deploy in a pinch to a server even if part of your code deployment infrastructure is not working. And I figured out how to turn off and on, I guess, particular parts of my deployment procedures that may or may not require external servers. I lean heavily into caching for things like dependencies so that once I have them, I can always reinstall the same exact thing on that same exact server because it's already there.
Arvid:And I lean into being just able to skip the installation process and copy over old dependency data when I need to. Unfortunately, and you might have opinions about this, I'm working with PHP as my programming language, so I have ultimately the final capacity to SSH into my production server, go to the folder where the PHP file that has a bug or should be changed is located, and manually adjust that file if needed. If everything else broke down if github didn't work anymore if my installation system would fail every single time I could still manually correct code like it's the 90s and to me as weird as that is and as unscalable as that is that is ownership I still own that part of the thing right it's not on github to tell me when I can deploy or make a change like that's my choice and let me give you a concrete example of how I think about this layered approach in software Like for authentication, for example, I use an authentication library that allows me to connect to other external authentication services. I have an authentication system for PodScan and the other tools that I'm building that works locally on my PHP Laravel application, but I could also allow people to click a button and log in through like Google OAuth or a service even like Auth0.
Arvid:And this is a layered abstracted approach where there's always a local fallback. Right? I do not fully want to give my authentication system over to an external company, even though we did this with Feedback Panda back in the day and it worked pretty okay. Like it was very reliable, well until it wasn't for an afternoon, but that was just that one day in the two years or so one day of outage. That was fine.
Arvid:And they had a good system to allow people to log in with whatever service they wanted to. So that was a good choice. Now I went for local first plus then other stuff on top. I have the same thing with my AI usage in the back end. Whenever I do an AI analysis of a transcript for a podcast episode that just came into my system I run the best available local language model that I have at the time and if that is busy I try to go to OpenAI.
Arvid:And if OpenAI is throwing errors because somebody plucked in the coffee machine next to the server again, well, then it falls back into a queue so a local system can take care of it. You have to think about what could break because it will and what your alternatives are because you will need them. So what can you fall back on? Fallback systems are super important for every single thing that you have that connects to some external thing and they need to be tested. That's kind of where the backup situation comes into play.
Arvid:If you do database backups but you never test to restore them, are they even backups? Kind of Heisenbergian backup situation there. And here's where this gets really interesting and I kind of promise to talk about money here. I use Paddle as my payment provider for all of my services and they are my merchant of record so they kind of take the customer relationship and they own it in a way but because of this because it makes so many things easier I am fine with that. I'm actually quite happy about this because they take care of so many things that would add extra complexity to my business.
Arvid:It's for them to solve all the things like chasing credit cards or whatever. But being aware of them owning the customer relationship or at least a payment relationship with the customer, I take my own precautions. I regularly export every single thing from the Paddle payment platform through their API and through existing report features that they have, exports for reports. I have a list of all my customers, all their subscriptions, all their emails, all the data that I have on their addresses and stuff on my Dropbox somewhere in a safe location. And we could talk about Dropbox and, you know, backupping and cloud services, but let's stick with the SaaS stuff today.
Arvid:And I have it on my local computer so that even though that service may own that relationship and be closer and more proximate to the customer, if they experience problems on occasion, well, I always still have control of that data and I can connect to the people that are my customers through my own means. Think about it. We are renting on rented land. If you're building a SaaS, you're renting your software out as a service to your customers, and you yourself are a software as a service customer to somebody else in some way. In this relationship, you need to make sure that you try to own as much of the relationship with your customers in terms of the actual business interaction.
Arvid:You might not want to have their payment information in your service, right? And that's kind of where most people actually have a payment platform. You don't want to keep this personal identifiable information stuff and payment information in your own database puts a massive target on your back you want somebody else to do this but you need to try to still have a strong relationship with your customer obviously because that is important for your feedback cycles and for retention. And you also want to own as much as possible the circumstances and the data and the operations and the processes of your software product on the other side of things, where it's hosted, where it's running, where it's going, because you need to have as much ownership as you can. So here's what I personally have learned about navigating this ownership paradox.
Arvid:I always ask myself, who would not want to buy this business because of the choices that I make, because of the tech choices, the infrastructure choices, the stuff that I'm just constantly making, these tiny little choices, and because of the presence or lack of documentation of these processes, who would say no to this if I were to offer them this business? And why do they do that? What can I change for them to then say yes? That's kind of my mental exercise that I do. And second, I think about ownership really as a decentralization of data.
Arvid:Do I have a full copy of all my customers with their emails and their payment information if needed? Or at least a way to reach them to set up an alternative should my payment provider fail or de platform me or something like this. Does this data exist in multiple locations? It's kind of like having a a Dropbox for your documents and saving them on your local computer and maybe saving them to a network disk or something. Right?
Arvid:Are there multiple decentralized places where this data lives? And third, for every external dependency, I need to build a fallback. This doesn't mean you need to rebuild everything from scratch it just means having a plan B that you've tested and you know that works. Whether it's being able to deploy code manually when your CICD pipeline fails or having local authentication when your auth provider is down or maintaining regular exports of your critical data and putting that into different locations, that's all very important. It's a fallback.
Arvid:And fourth, consider transferability of those choices. When you make these initial decisions, how do I build my authentication system? Do I use a library that everybody else uses? Do I use a service like Osiru? That kind of stuff.
Arvid:Think about how easy it is or would be to hand over these components, these relationships that then you have with this external service to a potential buyer or even a team member in your own business taking over the work that you did before that they now do as the business grows. Are these lock in choices or are these opportunity choices? And for something like Auth0 it might be both, right? You're locking yourself into this kind of relationship where your existing customers are on their platform but they support stuff like LDAP, Active Directory, all of a sudden onboarding an enterprise client becomes easier. So that's an opportunity choice as well.
Arvid:So you kind of have to balance these always. That's kind of entrepreneurship in a nutshell. But it's important to think about what ownership do you retain. The option to sell a business always exists with a good and solid and successful business, but the option to grow and to invest in new team members taking on that work, delegating, well that means somebody else will have to take care of it as well, but it's kind of more internal. And even though my ownership is retained, it's access that needs to be shared at that point.
Arvid:And access needs to be shared to the point where I don't have to touch anything at all anymore. That's kind of the ideal position. You kind of remove yourself from the operational work in your business. And I guess that's part of the reality of building software businesses in 2025. We're more dependent on external services than ever before that we may not even own the relationship for or have access requirements with our customers, with our employees, with our consultants that work for us, contractors and all that.
Arvid:But I don't think that means we have to build everything ourselves and sacrifice this opportunity to use somebody else's. At the same time, we don't have to sacrifice ownership entirely as well. So it means that we need to be more intentional about what we choose to own, what we choose to rent, and how we maintain optionality in between. And the businesses that we're building today, I think they're quite incredible feats of leverage. We can create million dollar companies with tiny teams precisely because we don't have to own and operate every piece of infrastructure.
Arvid:But with that leverage comes kind of a responsibility, the responsibility to understand dependencies, document them well, to build resilience into our system, and to maintain enough ownership that we can still capture the value we're creating. As Bootstrap founders, we're not just building products, we're building assets here and an asset you don't truly own, that's kind of a job with extra steps. The key is finding that particular balance, leveraging the incredible tools and the services available to us while maintaining enough control that when opportunity knocks, either scaling or selling, we're actually in a position to answer that door. And that's it for today. Thank you so much for listening to The Woodshop Founder.
Arvid:You can find me on Twitter at avid kahl, a r v I d k a h l. And if you wanna know what everybody's saying about a brand on over 4,000,000 podcasts now, podscan.fm tracks mentions in near real time with powerful APIs that turn podcast conversations into actionable data. And if you're hunting for your next business idea, get them delivered fresh from the podcast world at ideas.podscan.fm where an AI system extracts the best startup opportunities from hundreds of hours of expert conversations every day. Thank you so much for listening and bye bye.