By Shreyas Doshi · shreyasdoshi.substack.com · @shreyas on X · LinkedIn
Shreyas Doshi describes a founder asking whether to go wide or deep, and argues that abstract framings like this feel productive but avoid the decision. The core advice is to push past comfortable generalities toward the specific, concrete details that actually determine outcomes. Because the source text provided is only the opening line, this metadata reflects the title, subtitle, and that opening anecdote rather than the full argument. The essay's value for product people lies in its call to replace vague strategic debates with concrete, testable specifics.
01Key takeaways
- When a strategic question feels abstract, ask what concrete facts would change the answer.
- Vague framings like 'go wide or go deep' can feel productive while deferring the real decision.
- Replace generic debates with specific customer, segment, or use-case details you can test.
- Specifics expose the real tradeoffs and make disagreement on the team more productive.
02Key sections
- The founder's question
- The essay opens with a founder asking whether the company should go wide or go deep. The question is a classic strategic dilemma framed at a high level of abstraction.
- Why abstractions feel safe
- Broad strategic framings are comfortable because they sound rigorous while avoiding commitment to any particular path. This comfort can mask the lack of concrete reasoning underneath.
- Moving to the specific
- The author's implied approach is to translate the abstract choice into concrete particulars about customers, use cases, and tradeoffs. Specifics reveal what the decision actually hinges on.
03From the post
“A founder I advise asked me last week: “Should we go wide or should we go deep?””
Summary and takeaways written by PM Atlas; quotes are short excerpts. © the original author.