Bored with no ideas for next startup
90 comments
A good way to come up with new ideas is live outside the tech world. Get a non-tech job in a totally different field. Haven't tried that myself, but I'd bet you'd come up with some good ideas that way.
Careful there! That implies that the best way to come up with solutions to a problem in an industry would be to get outside of it so you can get an external, top-down perspective on emerging trends and unmet needs. Then if you get an idea, you'll get a bug to implement it. But everybody will just laugh at you and scoff, "Pssst - what would you know about that? You don't even work in that field! You're not credible!"
>But everybody will just laugh at you and scoff, "Pssst - what would you know about that? You don't even work in that field! You're not credible!"
Which would put you in pretty good company.
Which would put you in pretty good company.
I don't know if I was vague but I was specifically saying that you should immerse yourself in an industry you are interested in and then use technology to solve their problems.
What do you wish someone else would build for you?
Could we have a permanent thread dedicated to this question?
It would be empty. The second somebody with technical ability came up with an idea, they'd think, "Hey, why don't I just build that myself?"
If someone without the ability to develop the idea had a good idea, they'd wonder why they should do the idea-thinking for programmers who'll then dismiss the idea-generation with some VC-inspired platitude about how "it's all about the execution" or something.
So there you go. Progress halted by the best of the human condition: arrogance, greed and suspicion of the "other."
On the other hand I've always thought that if you get people who normally would never talk to each other in everyday society together and got them drunk, tons of good exchanges would occur resulting in who knows how many great new companies.
Sigh ... dreams ...
If someone without the ability to develop the idea had a good idea, they'd wonder why they should do the idea-thinking for programmers who'll then dismiss the idea-generation with some VC-inspired platitude about how "it's all about the execution" or something.
So there you go. Progress halted by the best of the human condition: arrogance, greed and suspicion of the "other."
On the other hand I've always thought that if you get people who normally would never talk to each other in everyday society together and got them drunk, tons of good exchanges would occur resulting in who knows how many great new companies.
Sigh ... dreams ...
A friend of mine and I kept a folder once with ideas that had to be both patentable and useful. When we had around 50 we just got depressed and stopped, knowing that there was no way we would ever be able to implement them all. I would gladly give away ideas. I know there's a long way from idea to product - even if you can program it yourself.
Patentable and useful doesn't necessarily mean good business. I'm assuming the "bored developer" wants to start a business around whatever idea he can't think of. There are ideas, some useful, some even patentable, but to make a business you need not so much patents but the ability to present it in such a way that a prospective customer thinks, "That provides me with more value than the price they're asking for, so I should buy it." Think of it this way: are Starbucks lattes patentable? But they are a good value to half-dead zombies on their way to work/on their way back from a grueling day of work. That makes them I think like 10 billion a year, roughly same revenue as Google. BeOS was awesome and technically advanced and I'm sure had many patents. Who paid for it? Nobody. Company's gone. There's a difference.
Useful implies that a potential customer in the specific market would want to pay for it. ;-)
Regarding your starbucks example: the value of Starbucks is not in the idea but in the execution, and that is not what this thread is about. And while I don't mind giving away ideas I can't help anybody execute. Unless I get paid to do so of course ;-)
Regarding your starbucks example: the value of Starbucks is not in the idea but in the execution, and that is not what this thread is about. And while I don't mind giving away ideas I can't help anybody execute. Unless I get paid to do so of course ;-)
I don't typically spend money unless something hurts, in which case I'll often spend far more than I should.
If you can find a product that makes a "pain" go away -- you've probably got something marketable.
If you can find a product that makes a "pain" go away -- you've probably got something marketable.
Useful implies nothing but useful. People don't "want" to pay for anything. People want to keep their money in their pockets. They reluctantly pay for things whose usefulness, real or perceived, substantially exceeds the asked price. Gmail is "useful" but I sure's heck wouldn't pay for it.
As for Starbucks, it illustrates my point perfectly:
(1) Starbucks is mostly neuro-marketing. I guarantee you that the buzz people get dopamine-wise from expecting the "reward" of a sugar/caffeine rush is much more important (again, the "idea") than the execution, which counts to about 1% of the customers. I know when I need a quick fix 9X out of 10 I couldn't care less if they got the wrong number of pumps of whatever in there.
(2) To illustrate the value of an idea, the Frappucino was the idea of 1 store manager. Cost: peanuts. Contribution to bottom line: about a billion a year directly, who knows how much indirectly as a "gateway drink" for non-caffeine drinking teens ...
The point was not about the execution, it was a manager thinking, "Within the realm of what we can execute fairly easy, what is a good idea that takes what we can do and adds more value quickly and easily?"
And in the larger context, Starbucks doesn't "execute" anything better than countless immitators these days can; but the idea in my mind is "a special little treat I deserve after a long day." A perfectly executed drink with the same stuff in it just wouldn't make me feel the same if I got it in, say, a sushi place. Again - it's the idea of Starbucks = sexy drinks for sexy people. They're not executing that, I'm imagining it. It's an idea.
As for Starbucks, it illustrates my point perfectly:
(1) Starbucks is mostly neuro-marketing. I guarantee you that the buzz people get dopamine-wise from expecting the "reward" of a sugar/caffeine rush is much more important (again, the "idea") than the execution, which counts to about 1% of the customers. I know when I need a quick fix 9X out of 10 I couldn't care less if they got the wrong number of pumps of whatever in there.
(2) To illustrate the value of an idea, the Frappucino was the idea of 1 store manager. Cost: peanuts. Contribution to bottom line: about a billion a year directly, who knows how much indirectly as a "gateway drink" for non-caffeine drinking teens ...
The point was not about the execution, it was a manager thinking, "Within the realm of what we can execute fairly easy, what is a good idea that takes what we can do and adds more value quickly and easily?"
And in the larger context, Starbucks doesn't "execute" anything better than countless immitators these days can; but the idea in my mind is "a special little treat I deserve after a long day." A perfectly executed drink with the same stuff in it just wouldn't make me feel the same if I got it in, say, a sushi place. Again - it's the idea of Starbucks = sexy drinks for sexy people. They're not executing that, I'm imagining it. It's an idea.
I've got a great idea: Crappucino - A frappucion with extra sugar on top. Where are my millions?
Sorry but I don't quite think you know what execution is about.
Sorry but I don't quite think you know what execution is about.
> I've got a great idea: Crappucino - A frappucion with
> extra sugar on top. Where are my millions?
No, I'M sorry but I don't quite think YOU know what a "great idea" is about.
Frappacino was a great idea where it took off in California because it's hot there and people liked the combo of cold and caffeine buzz.
Nobody (as) yet invented a portable high-power expresso maker/ice blender that can chop ice to smithereens in 7-8 seconds or so. So you need Starbucks.
Extra sugar on top is pointless because I can go to the condiment counter and just pour more sugar on top for free.
So you're idea by definition is not "good" because (a) it offers no value to the customer that they can't get by themselves without you and (b) you haven't figured out how you make money off of it (part of the definition of a good idea to begin with).
So in conclusion, you don't have a good idea - you have fluff you can't figure out how to make money off of. That makes you qualified for raising venture capital or applying to ... um ... this place I've heard of where there are a lot of ideas that never wind up making much money as stand alone businesses.
But that' doesn't mean you have a good idea. So you have no milliions.
Viola. Equation stands.
On top of which, I've never downgraded execution. My experience is that it takes a continual mix of both, plus lots of luck and timing, 2 things you can't control.
It's usually "execution" people dismissing the value of good (by which I mean you can make money off of) ideas, almost like some obsessive-compulsive insecurity or something. And now there's this post, and when I ask the simple question: what does a person who gives you a good idea get in return, nothing but crickets.
So if execution is the be-all end-all, have fun executing hot air people might use but never pay for.
See how far that gets you in this new global economic reality we'll be experiencing for the next 3-5 years.
Go on. Go execute ideas you can't figure out how to make money off of. Keep me updated.
No, I'M sorry but I don't quite think YOU know what a "great idea" is about.
Frappacino was a great idea where it took off in California because it's hot there and people liked the combo of cold and caffeine buzz.
Nobody (as) yet invented a portable high-power expresso maker/ice blender that can chop ice to smithereens in 7-8 seconds or so. So you need Starbucks.
Extra sugar on top is pointless because I can go to the condiment counter and just pour more sugar on top for free.
So you're idea by definition is not "good" because (a) it offers no value to the customer that they can't get by themselves without you and (b) you haven't figured out how you make money off of it (part of the definition of a good idea to begin with).
So in conclusion, you don't have a good idea - you have fluff you can't figure out how to make money off of. That makes you qualified for raising venture capital or applying to ... um ... this place I've heard of where there are a lot of ideas that never wind up making much money as stand alone businesses.
But that' doesn't mean you have a good idea. So you have no milliions.
Viola. Equation stands.
On top of which, I've never downgraded execution. My experience is that it takes a continual mix of both, plus lots of luck and timing, 2 things you can't control.
It's usually "execution" people dismissing the value of good (by which I mean you can make money off of) ideas, almost like some obsessive-compulsive insecurity or something. And now there's this post, and when I ask the simple question: what does a person who gives you a good idea get in return, nothing but crickets.
So if execution is the be-all end-all, have fun executing hot air people might use but never pay for.
See how far that gets you in this new global economic reality we'll be experiencing for the next 3-5 years.
Go on. Go execute ideas you can't figure out how to make money off of. Keep me updated.
So why didn't Coffee Connection in Boston make millions selling frappucino?
They are the ones that hold the trademark.
They are the ones that hold the trademark.
Actually, this illustrates my point perfectly. By a lot of accounts, Coffee Connection came out with a similar, but much better tasting ("better executed" as you put it) drink. But though their execution was better, they got bought out by Starbucks. Why?
Boston is cold as hell in winter and not too hot the rest of the time. Nobody wants iced drinks when it's cold. Plus Boston is a small city.
California, on the other hand, is a huge state full of teenagers with lots of disposable income and most of it is hot most of the year.
So: introduce an iced drink in 1 city in a cold place = not so great idea, not that much money. Introduce an iced drink in the biggest state in the country where it's almost always hot in most of the state = great idea, lots of money. So the one with the better idea and the better idea of how to implement the idea (Starbucks) made a lot more money and bought out the business who executed better but executed better on what turned out to be a crappy idea.
Starbucks had what customers claim is inferior execution compared to Coffee Connection's version, but their idea was better and their ideas of what/how/where to execute was better.
So in the end mediocre execution of better idea = billions in revenue.
Superior execution of a mediocre idea = get bought out by above and cease to exist.
It's true an architect can't build without builders. But unless the builders have a good plan, no matter how well they execute, they're just wasting time/energy/resources.
Telling someone who's taken the time to come up with good plans/scenarios/alternatives that once the plan is done they add no value is just as much a slap in the face as an "MBA-business guy" telling programmers that the second they finish writing the code for an application, they're useless and add no further value unless a change needs to be made.
And you can execute perfectly but these days you need so much insight and perspective to be able to detect changes in current and prepare alternate courses of action while managing remaining resources ...
Boston is cold as hell in winter and not too hot the rest of the time. Nobody wants iced drinks when it's cold. Plus Boston is a small city.
California, on the other hand, is a huge state full of teenagers with lots of disposable income and most of it is hot most of the year.
So: introduce an iced drink in 1 city in a cold place = not so great idea, not that much money. Introduce an iced drink in the biggest state in the country where it's almost always hot in most of the state = great idea, lots of money. So the one with the better idea and the better idea of how to implement the idea (Starbucks) made a lot more money and bought out the business who executed better but executed better on what turned out to be a crappy idea.
Starbucks had what customers claim is inferior execution compared to Coffee Connection's version, but their idea was better and their ideas of what/how/where to execute was better.
So in the end mediocre execution of better idea = billions in revenue.
Superior execution of a mediocre idea = get bought out by above and cease to exist.
It's true an architect can't build without builders. But unless the builders have a good plan, no matter how well they execute, they're just wasting time/energy/resources.
Telling someone who's taken the time to come up with good plans/scenarios/alternatives that once the plan is done they add no value is just as much a slap in the face as an "MBA-business guy" telling programmers that the second they finish writing the code for an application, they're useless and add no further value unless a change needs to be made.
And you can execute perfectly but these days you need so much insight and perspective to be able to detect changes in current and prepare alternate courses of action while managing remaining resources ...
By a lot of accounts, Coffee Connection came out with a similar, but much better tasting ("better executed" as you put it) drink.
If you re-read you own comment you will see why Starbucks get a better execution than Coffee Connection :)
IN GENERAL this is a great frame of mind to come up with ideas for a non-programming mind; I think, however, that as a developer such a perspective would lead to technically interesting stuff that few people would use / pay for. As time remains constant and life becomes more complicated, I suspect people will become more selective and use more of the kinds of services they would actually bother paying for and limiting their interactions with things that are interesting, but not enough if they actually cost something. That said, most non-programmers usually start the "what would I want built for me" process from the perspective of "that would be so useful that I might even consider paying for it" whereas, from my experience with programmers (trying to recruit for my own startup efforts), most programmers start the "what would I wish someone built" process from the perspective of "that I would respect this guy's technical ability a lot."
Case in point: there are tons of ideas that can become good, useful, practical valuable services based on standard, already existing technology reconfigured in different ways. But most programmers, if they're anything like the ones I've come across, would consider that "below them" and instead favor a startup working on some obscure problem that 6 people on the planet could understand and appreciate.
Google aside, that rarely translates into "great business".
Case in point: there are tons of ideas that can become good, useful, practical valuable services based on standard, already existing technology reconfigured in different ways. But most programmers, if they're anything like the ones I've come across, would consider that "below them" and instead favor a startup working on some obscure problem that 6 people on the planet could understand and appreciate.
Google aside, that rarely translates into "great business".
Google aside, that rarely translates into "great business".
I think you mean Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo aside.
I think you mean Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo aside.
Throw in Intel, AT&T, and all the early transistor companies for good measure.
AT&T is too broad and I don't know what you mean specifically, but from a common-sense business perpective, the problem Intel works on is "how to keep making smaller faster better processors" and I think again that's another idea that, technical though it may be, captures the interest of way more than 6 people.
Who was the market for the original telephone/telegraph, who was the market for the original transistor or microprocessor?
Whose interest did those things capture initially outside of a small group of technical people? Were they built and people just lined up outside of Walmart to buy them?
Whose interest did those things capture initially outside of a small group of technical people? Were they built and people just lined up outside of Walmart to buy them?
Intel was originally in the business of making memory chips, which had a thriving market in minicomputers. They invented the microprocessor because, well, they could. It was the sort of geekish hack that virtually nobody appreciated at the time. They only got big into microprocessors because the Japanese ate the market for memory chips - it was either concentrate on microprocessors, or die.
What does this have to do with programmers? Aside from the fact that I'm talking about programmers and you're extending this to include "all technically-minded people everywhere", in general you're citing exceptions to my observations.
Example:
> Who was the market for the original telephone/telegraph
Gee ... um ... I don't know. Everybody in the world who thought it would be more convenient to get instant verbal communication over a letter that took weeks or months to deliver/respond to?
Let me put it another way. Pierre Omidyar is a technical guy, and more specifically a programmer. Did he choose to develop something that solved an obscure technical challenge, the goal of which was to be published in some computer science journal with a subscription base of 12 people?
No. He had a rare abililty of having both the technical talent and being able to think from the perspective of the general population.
Hence someone like him would be an exception to what I said I've observed.
But for everyone like him that can be cited, I can introduce you to 20 programmers that are trying to start startups around "challenges" so specialized and irrelevant-in-the-scheme-of-things that I know for sure they did zero market research before starting or even during.
Sure, lots of things that seemed like a waste turned out to be very useful with the benefit of an unexpected consequence coupled with unpredictable developments and the benefit of hindsight.
In general, though, I'd prefer to start with "what's needed" and try to come up with a technical solution as simple as possible rather than "what's the coolest thing I could work on technically" and then spend time on that only to find out that 5 people in the world would actually buy it.
Example:
> Who was the market for the original telephone/telegraph
Gee ... um ... I don't know. Everybody in the world who thought it would be more convenient to get instant verbal communication over a letter that took weeks or months to deliver/respond to?
Let me put it another way. Pierre Omidyar is a technical guy, and more specifically a programmer. Did he choose to develop something that solved an obscure technical challenge, the goal of which was to be published in some computer science journal with a subscription base of 12 people?
No. He had a rare abililty of having both the technical talent and being able to think from the perspective of the general population.
Hence someone like him would be an exception to what I said I've observed.
But for everyone like him that can be cited, I can introduce you to 20 programmers that are trying to start startups around "challenges" so specialized and irrelevant-in-the-scheme-of-things that I know for sure they did zero market research before starting or even during.
Sure, lots of things that seemed like a waste turned out to be very useful with the benefit of an unexpected consequence coupled with unpredictable developments and the benefit of hindsight.
In general, though, I'd prefer to start with "what's needed" and try to come up with a technical solution as simple as possible rather than "what's the coolest thing I could work on technically" and then spend time on that only to find out that 5 people in the world would actually buy it.
I agree with you that most technical people value triumph over technical challenges more than economic worth. I suffered from an acute case of this disease for many years. Perspective is everything when building a startup product. A user doesn't give a damn about a language or methodology, they just want a need solved.
Exactly. And it doesn't even have to be "economic worth" it could be a time/money saving solution that let's some one devote an extra 1 hour to playing with their kids. That's a worthy cause as any. You won't get published in any journal, but I suspect the feedback would be worth it in its own way. I just think there needs to be more of a balance. Google can afford to bankroll people working on problems for their own sake because they got the "value-added" part down pretty well first, for example. No shame in having your feet on the ground while your head looks upward (IMHO).
No, I mean just Google.
Apple in my mind = present an OS GUI according to the needs of the human brain. A lot more than 6 people were/are/will be interested in that.
Microsoft = make big business computer functions possible on the home computer (at least originally). Apparently more than 6 people were interested in that.
Yahoo's proposition originally = the world wibe web is taking off exponentially and you need some sort of list or something to keep track of all the interesting stuff that keeps popping up.
Again, more than 6 people were/are interested in that.
So, only Google. And truth be said, even Google doesn't count that much since from my understanding Google was just living off of angel/VC funding for a few years until a biz-dev V.P. came up with the idea to tie search results to paid advertising as text on the side.
Without what became adwords, Google would have just stayed an interesting technical solution.
Had that V.P. kept his mouth shut and left, secured VC backing based on his cred as an exec in a KP/Seq-backed venture and started his own search engine based on his adwords idea, I suspect he'd be the billionaire and "google" would have turned out to be a startup his subesquent company bought and absorbed.
Apple in my mind = present an OS GUI according to the needs of the human brain. A lot more than 6 people were/are/will be interested in that.
Microsoft = make big business computer functions possible on the home computer (at least originally). Apparently more than 6 people were interested in that.
Yahoo's proposition originally = the world wibe web is taking off exponentially and you need some sort of list or something to keep track of all the interesting stuff that keeps popping up.
Again, more than 6 people were/are interested in that.
So, only Google. And truth be said, even Google doesn't count that much since from my understanding Google was just living off of angel/VC funding for a few years until a biz-dev V.P. came up with the idea to tie search results to paid advertising as text on the side.
Without what became adwords, Google would have just stayed an interesting technical solution.
Had that V.P. kept his mouth shut and left, secured VC backing based on his cred as an exec in a KP/Seq-backed venture and started his own search engine based on his adwords idea, I suspect he'd be the billionaire and "google" would have turned out to be a startup his subesquent company bought and absorbed.
No, I mean just Google. Apple in my mind...
I'm talking about the actual historical Apple, not the one in your mind. It happened because Steve Wozniak made himself a computer.
http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html
Microsoft, likewise, began not with "business computer functions" but with a Basic interpreter for the Altair.
Yahoo literally grew out of the list of web sites Jerry and Filo compiled for their own use.
I recommend you read Jessica Livingston's Founders at Work, which is specifically about this subject: what actually happened when famous startups were started? It's a common mistake to underestimate the difference between how a startup began and what it later became.
I'm talking about the actual historical Apple, not the one in your mind. It happened because Steve Wozniak made himself a computer.
http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html
Microsoft, likewise, began not with "business computer functions" but with a Basic interpreter for the Altair.
Yahoo literally grew out of the list of web sites Jerry and Filo compiled for their own use.
I recommend you read Jessica Livingston's Founders at Work, which is specifically about this subject: what actually happened when famous startups were started? It's a common mistake to underestimate the difference between how a startup began and what it later became.
Okay, notice I'm saying "great business", not "startup." There are millions of "startups" working on cool technical challenges, of which almost none will become great businesses.
When all those things you described were happening, almost nobody cared = no business. When they turned to meet needs of a much broader audience then the few technical people who were interested in such a narrow range of issues, they took off as businesses. In my mind, "startup" does not equal a business. Business means lots of people pay you money for selling them your thing. So to a limited extent, for example, Woz had a "business" selling computers through ads to computer enthusiasts in the back fo Scientific American or whatever. But that was nowhere near as successful a business as when Jobs visited PARC and realized the research they were doing on GUIs based on the human mind could be significant for a lot of people.
The Yahoo folks may have started with a list specific to their interests, and students may have found it cool, but that was not a business. It became a business when they broadened to general idea of an organized list to the needs of a larger audience.
I've come across quite a few programmers over the last year who turned me down because they said they were busy working on their own startups, all of which were based on solving a problem only they seemed to care about. They incorporated, had a "company", etc.
But that doesn't equal business. Business means people pay you money. For that to happen you have to broaden your considerations to what those people want, not what you care to/can build. I won't, nor will anybody pay any of your startups a penny because somebody wrote really cool code that everyone on Hacker News agrees is awesome. But I'll pay you money if your code solves my needs. You don't care to solve my needs? Fine. You may have a technically awesome thing. I won't pay you for it, though. And neither will anyone else.
When all those things you described were happening, almost nobody cared = no business. When they turned to meet needs of a much broader audience then the few technical people who were interested in such a narrow range of issues, they took off as businesses. In my mind, "startup" does not equal a business. Business means lots of people pay you money for selling them your thing. So to a limited extent, for example, Woz had a "business" selling computers through ads to computer enthusiasts in the back fo Scientific American or whatever. But that was nowhere near as successful a business as when Jobs visited PARC and realized the research they were doing on GUIs based on the human mind could be significant for a lot of people.
The Yahoo folks may have started with a list specific to their interests, and students may have found it cool, but that was not a business. It became a business when they broadened to general idea of an organized list to the needs of a larger audience.
I've come across quite a few programmers over the last year who turned me down because they said they were busy working on their own startups, all of which were based on solving a problem only they seemed to care about. They incorporated, had a "company", etc.
But that doesn't equal business. Business means people pay you money. For that to happen you have to broaden your considerations to what those people want, not what you care to/can build. I won't, nor will anybody pay any of your startups a penny because somebody wrote really cool code that everyone on Hacker News agrees is awesome. But I'll pay you money if your code solves my needs. You don't care to solve my needs? Fine. You may have a technically awesome thing. I won't pay you for it, though. And neither will anyone else.
Microsoft is actually more B2B than B2C.
And yeah, Yahoo! was just making a list of links - hardly a challenging technical problem, but people wanted it.
And yeah, Yahoo! was just making a list of links - hardly a challenging technical problem, but people wanted it.
That's my point exactly. They focused on what people wanted more than a challenging technical problem. That makes them the exception to most programmers I've come across who are fascinated with technical challenges so obscure the resolution of which nobody cares about. In academia, that's respectable and commendable. In business ... nobody cares.
"But most programmers, if they're anything like the ones I've come across, would consider that "below them" and instead favor a startup working on some obscure problem that 6 people on the planet could understand and appreciate."
Do you realize you're arguing with yourself?
The 6 people argument was presented by you, and you're challenging other people based on that.
Do you realize you're arguing with yourself?
The 6 people argument was presented by you, and you're challenging other people based on that.
Not sure what you mean. I'm not posting this as an "argument with myself" as you put it. The poster above said that Yahoo wasn't an interesting technical challenge, just a useful approach to a common problem. Then I just acknowledged that. The "argument" is either based on a misunderstading of the 2 posts or a projection of your own self-debating thinking process.
Your understanding of Google is not at all accurate.
[deleted]
On another note, I just looked at your profile and read some of your articles. Why take issues with "my understanding of Google" when it turns out I'm making a similar point to what you wrote about in terms of being humble enough to put pride aside and find out what people actually want/need/will pay for rather assuming for them only to find out that nobody cares about the brilliant programming of an idea nobody but the programmer appreciates?
Isn't that what you yourself said in one of your posts on your blog, or am I misunderstanding your position?
Isn't that what you yourself said in one of your posts on your blog, or am I misunderstanding your position?
You're right that startups should be focused on building things that people will want instead of just trying to use cool technology, but you're mistaken in believing that Google wasn't doing that. Google had a strong following of enthusiastic users from very early on. "Make something people want" also happens to be the YC slogan, though I think it should be "Make something people will want", since people don't always know what they want.
Okay, let's leave Google out of this for a moment. My emphasis was that the transition from "startup" to "business" seems to happen when you connect with paying customers.
I even posted a post to this effect where I basically summed up the most interesting part (for me) of a marketing book:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=127157
In order to have a clear value proposition to get people to give you their money, you need to answer (according to the book) these questions in succession of difficulty:
Who you are / what you do / for who / because they need what thing that they can't do without you / unlike your competitors / your different in what way / which is a very important distinction (how?) and makes people care (why?).
I'd say most startups start with "who they are" and stop. Some make it to "what they do" although not expressed clearly. The part about "for who" and "why they care" never seems to be spelled out, just implied or something.
The first response is by some guy who took this as both a personal attack and an attack on the whole Y Combinator community!
Then PG comes on and says, "well such and such venture capitalist says he funds business that solve a problem the founders had."
I try to point out that that only holds true as long as that problem is one a huge market of people are also having and are willing to pay for the resolution of.
Then, in a rather futile and pointless exercise, he goes on to systematically knock about 30 points off my all-time high of 80, perhaps under the delusion that I secretly covet a high point tally so I can impress him or something.
It's like, the very mere suggestion that people need to tie their technical ability to practical solution solving for paying customers, especially in this economic climate, seems to meet with rage and fury from programmers who seem to take basic economic reality like a personal insult or something.
> "Make something people will want", since people don't > always know what they want.
That would need perspective and ability to anticipate possible patterns of future development, ability to assign probabilities to multiple scenarios, etc.
All "right brain stuff". Most programmers I've come across, especially here, couldn't seem to care less as long as they post their startup and score points from peers.
I even posted a post to this effect where I basically summed up the most interesting part (for me) of a marketing book:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=127157
In order to have a clear value proposition to get people to give you their money, you need to answer (according to the book) these questions in succession of difficulty:
Who you are / what you do / for who / because they need what thing that they can't do without you / unlike your competitors / your different in what way / which is a very important distinction (how?) and makes people care (why?).
I'd say most startups start with "who they are" and stop. Some make it to "what they do" although not expressed clearly. The part about "for who" and "why they care" never seems to be spelled out, just implied or something.
The first response is by some guy who took this as both a personal attack and an attack on the whole Y Combinator community!
Then PG comes on and says, "well such and such venture capitalist says he funds business that solve a problem the founders had."
I try to point out that that only holds true as long as that problem is one a huge market of people are also having and are willing to pay for the resolution of.
Then, in a rather futile and pointless exercise, he goes on to systematically knock about 30 points off my all-time high of 80, perhaps under the delusion that I secretly covet a high point tally so I can impress him or something.
It's like, the very mere suggestion that people need to tie their technical ability to practical solution solving for paying customers, especially in this economic climate, seems to meet with rage and fury from programmers who seem to take basic economic reality like a personal insult or something.
> "Make something people will want", since people don't > always know what they want.
That would need perspective and ability to anticipate possible patterns of future development, ability to assign probabilities to multiple scenarios, etc.
All "right brain stuff". Most programmers I've come across, especially here, couldn't seem to care less as long as they post their startup and score points from peers.
Most programmers I've come across, especially here, couldn't seem to care less as long as they post their startup and score points from peers.
Perhaps you could stop being so nice to us. Just kidding. Believe me, most of the programmers here understand this completely. We also understand that things like quantitative market analysis, business plans, etc are for the most part useless because no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. In this regard, I think we are more right-brained, or at the least more honest, in terms of what we think users want. We put out a rough approximation of what we think they want and let them guide us. What could be more empathetic than that?
Perhaps you could stop being so nice to us. Just kidding. Believe me, most of the programmers here understand this completely. We also understand that things like quantitative market analysis, business plans, etc are for the most part useless because no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. In this regard, I think we are more right-brained, or at the least more honest, in terms of what we think users want. We put out a rough approximation of what we think they want and let them guide us. What could be more empathetic than that?
From my understanding, Y has so far been involved in about 80 startups or so.
Name 1 that provides a benefit people care enough to pay for.
... ... ... ...
But if what you said is true, ie, that programmers are "more honest in terms of what we think users want", shouldn't you be able to point to a lot of things?
If it's true that "We put out a rough approximation of what we think they want and let them guide us", how come nobody seems to be guiding anybody towards an offering people are willing to pay for?
Or do you guys just think you're "more honest" and "empathetic" when in reality you may be very, very far from the reality of what people actually want enough to pay for?
Name 1 that provides a benefit people care enough to pay for.
... ... ... ...
But if what you said is true, ie, that programmers are "more honest in terms of what we think users want", shouldn't you be able to point to a lot of things?
If it's true that "We put out a rough approximation of what we think they want and let them guide us", how come nobody seems to be guiding anybody towards an offering people are willing to pay for?
Or do you guys just think you're "more honest" and "empathetic" when in reality you may be very, very far from the reality of what people actually want enough to pay for?
Name 1 that provides a benefit people care enough to pay for.
http://clickfacts.com/
http://wufoo.com/
http://virtualmin.com/
http://adpinion.com/
http://www.draftmix.com/
I'm sure I've forgotten a hatful.
http://clickfacts.com/
http://wufoo.com/
http://virtualmin.com/
http://adpinion.com/
http://www.draftmix.com/
I'm sure I've forgotten a hatful.
I could see adpinion and clickfacts possibly going somewhere to an extent ... though only because I don't know enough about advertising to figure out if they won't be able to get lots of customers
I can't help but notice, though, that clickfact's management team seems to be around PG's age so I wouldn't call it a pure Y Combinator thing based on the premise of Y Combinator as I understand it.
I can't help but notice, though, that clickfact's management team seems to be around PG's age so I wouldn't call it a pure Y Combinator thing based on the premise of Y Combinator as I understand it.
[deleted]
My understanding of Google may not be accurate, but my understanding of why people hand their money over to Google is probably as accurate as it is possible to be.
Misunderstandings of any details you have in mind aside, in general Google too fits into the general idea: before Google started thinking about how to channel its technology to meet the needs of people with money, it was an interesting startup, but not a great business. The second it took the needs of customers with money into account, then those people handed over their money and that made Google a great business.
My point is that in my mind there is a simple distinction that most startups seem to either accidentally or purposely ignore: startup = bunch of guys working on a cool technical thing / business = bunch of guys working on a thing that makes life better for paying customers.
Having not seen Benny Hill since childhood, I assumed that the reason people were starting startups were to transition to businesses which made life better for paying customers.
Apparently I was wrong. People here, for the most part, as well as just about every programmer I've run into over the last year or so trying to start my own thing, seem to be more interested in starting a startup so they could post "Hey guys, check out my cool thing" type of posts.
I don't know where I'm going wrong here, but unless somebody finds a way to transform positive feedback from Hacker News into cold hard cash, that's not a business. At least not IMHO.
But judging by the feedback I get on other posts, not too many people seem to care about starting a business, just starting "startups" where "startup" = somebody pays me money to sit around writing code and drinking Mountain Dew.
I can't see how that's different from a job where you happen to be working on a cool project.
Misunderstandings of any details you have in mind aside, in general Google too fits into the general idea: before Google started thinking about how to channel its technology to meet the needs of people with money, it was an interesting startup, but not a great business. The second it took the needs of customers with money into account, then those people handed over their money and that made Google a great business.
My point is that in my mind there is a simple distinction that most startups seem to either accidentally or purposely ignore: startup = bunch of guys working on a cool technical thing / business = bunch of guys working on a thing that makes life better for paying customers.
Having not seen Benny Hill since childhood, I assumed that the reason people were starting startups were to transition to businesses which made life better for paying customers.
Apparently I was wrong. People here, for the most part, as well as just about every programmer I've run into over the last year or so trying to start my own thing, seem to be more interested in starting a startup so they could post "Hey guys, check out my cool thing" type of posts.
I don't know where I'm going wrong here, but unless somebody finds a way to transform positive feedback from Hacker News into cold hard cash, that's not a business. At least not IMHO.
But judging by the feedback I get on other posts, not too many people seem to care about starting a business, just starting "startups" where "startup" = somebody pays me money to sit around writing code and drinking Mountain Dew.
I can't see how that's different from a job where you happen to be working on a cool project.
.oO(who the heck voted that down?! )
I think you have a good point there.
I've met a lot of developers that would think that something wasn't worth doing because it was easy to do. But hard doesn't mean that more people will want it. Look at all the dating sites out there: Simple to do, but absolutely something people want.
I've met a lot of developers that would think that something wasn't worth doing because it was easy to do. But hard doesn't mean that more people will want it. Look at all the dating sites out there: Simple to do, but absolutely something people want.
Thank you.
Sometimes speaking with some of the programmers I have I suspect they think they're doing a startup, but in reality they're doing an extension of their academic programme and just secretly hoping that somehow they'll wind up making money off it.
I just can't understand why programmers are so reluctant to work on challenges with people from different perspectives.
My background is in economics. I can't stand lawyers and I can't stand psychiatrists and I don't care enough about neurologists and neuro-scientists to figure out what the difference is.
And yet over the last 10 years, the mixing of people of these seemingly unrelated backgrounds has given the world 2 of the most useful applications of economics: Law & Economics and Neuro-Economics. Fascinating and practical. Who knew?
Why can't all fields be like that, faster?
That's why ultimately I can't respect the programming ethos, as I've seen it, too much. Any true professional ... or academic "seeker of knowledge" ... should, IMHO seek continous improvement - bot vertical in terms of skill in their own field AND horizontal in terms of different perspectives.
Why does everyone respect Da Vinci so much, but nobody seems to want to emulate his methods?
Sometimes speaking with some of the programmers I have I suspect they think they're doing a startup, but in reality they're doing an extension of their academic programme and just secretly hoping that somehow they'll wind up making money off it.
I just can't understand why programmers are so reluctant to work on challenges with people from different perspectives.
My background is in economics. I can't stand lawyers and I can't stand psychiatrists and I don't care enough about neurologists and neuro-scientists to figure out what the difference is.
And yet over the last 10 years, the mixing of people of these seemingly unrelated backgrounds has given the world 2 of the most useful applications of economics: Law & Economics and Neuro-Economics. Fascinating and practical. Who knew?
Why can't all fields be like that, faster?
That's why ultimately I can't respect the programming ethos, as I've seen it, too much. Any true professional ... or academic "seeker of knowledge" ... should, IMHO seek continous improvement - bot vertical in terms of skill in their own field AND horizontal in terms of different perspectives.
Why does everyone respect Da Vinci so much, but nobody seems to want to emulate his methods?
So, are you taking your own advice and learning how to program?
Actually I taught myself how to program to a limited extent as an undergrad when I needed help from a professor to complete an independent study course and he agreed to help me if I learned enough MatLab and Mathematica to manipulate data as he suggested.
Our computer lab had nothing other than this mammoth book of "examples of code of stuff some people have figured out to do" ... but with no actual explanation of what code did what - just result, and accompanying code.
I learned enough to get what I wanted done.
From that experience I learned that:
(1) I barely have the temperment to review my own code, let alone rework other people's work, so as a career choice it was not for me to be a programmer and
(2) coupled with my economic background I learned that, intellectual stimulation aside, as a practical matter there was no way I could ever teach myself everything I needed to know in a timely manner to do everything myself, so it would be more useful if I could learn to put my ego aside and seek different people with different skills sets and work together to solve problems.
So, from an intellectual point, yes. From a practical point, that would be a waste of time.
Our computer lab had nothing other than this mammoth book of "examples of code of stuff some people have figured out to do" ... but with no actual explanation of what code did what - just result, and accompanying code.
I learned enough to get what I wanted done.
From that experience I learned that:
(1) I barely have the temperment to review my own code, let alone rework other people's work, so as a career choice it was not for me to be a programmer and
(2) coupled with my economic background I learned that, intellectual stimulation aside, as a practical matter there was no way I could ever teach myself everything I needed to know in a timely manner to do everything myself, so it would be more useful if I could learn to put my ego aside and seek different people with different skills sets and work together to solve problems.
So, from an intellectual point, yes. From a practical point, that would be a waste of time.
Randomly select three words, then think about what they mean together and how to turn that into a business. Repeat.
Jump To Conclusions
I can envision a fun 'mat based' game for all ages here... Score!
I can envision a fun 'mat based' game for all ages here... Score!
It sounds like you're in a mental rut at the moment. To get out of it, you will need to put aside the problem of 'finding your next startup' and focus your attention on other things for a while. Teaching yourself a new technology or working for someone else's startup for a while might give you enough of a different perspective to make more progress on finding a startup idea.
I have way more ideas than I can handle myself...
Write a bit about what are you looking for? Embedded, web, applications? Any particular fields that you like ?
Write a bit about what are you looking for? Embedded, web, applications? Any particular fields that you like ?
Aren't there idea repositories out on the web that are publicly accessible? Something along the lines of huge brainstorming sessions done by people who don't have the time or inclination to implement the ideas?
Here's the closest thing I'm aware of - the Global Ideas Bank: http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/
Anyone know of anything else along this line?
Here's the closest thing I'm aware of - the Global Ideas Bank: http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/
Anyone know of anything else along this line?
Well, I just went to the link you provided and aside from 90% of the ideas being well-intentioned but half-baked, I can't help but notice there are no business ideas. So, to answer your question, no, there aren't. Why would anybody waste time documenting an idea they don't have the inclination to implement? Why don't they have the inclination? Because there's no motivation. Why? Because they realize they can't make money off of it. Hence the only ideas you'll find for "free" on the internet are ideas nobody can figure out how to make any money off of. If they could figure that out, then they would have the inclination and thus, logic indicates that they'd MAKE the time. And keep the idea to themselves, not post it up for all to see and profit off of.
"... After exiting my first startup and coming out on top ($60K), I feel like I can't think of any more ideas for my next startup. I've read all of PG (yes, even the ideas one), analyzed other startups, but am sick of seeing the same ol' stuff... Can someone help me out with what to do next? ..."
There are some good resources for the "no-ideas" problem. Listen to this [0], then read this [1]. See how you go. If you still have trouble you are probably not determined enough.
[0] http://wiki.ycombinator.com.nyud.net:8090/presentations/Paul...
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/ideas.html
There are some good resources for the "no-ideas" problem. Listen to this [0], then read this [1]. See how you go. If you still have trouble you are probably not determined enough.
[0] http://wiki.ycombinator.com.nyud.net:8090/presentations/Paul...
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/ideas.html
Join another startup for a while? I think its almost a huge strength to want to work on startups but to not currently have an idea. There are tons of guys out there with good ideas needing co-founders. A few people in the current batch of YC included.
I want a way to use Paypal to pay for Google Adwords and/or other sites that don't accept it.
Why would you come up "anonymously for now" ? If you have an already successful start-up experience, why not talking about it and tell us a bit about you ? What are the risks in doing so ?
I'm a bit cautious by nature and I'm just curious about it. If I had an already successful experience and were in your situation I'd rather talk about it and introduce myself a bit. It helps to gain trust from other people and would make your request more appealing.
I'm a bit cautious by nature and I'm just curious about it. If I had an already successful experience and were in your situation I'd rather talk about it and introduce myself a bit. It helps to gain trust from other people and would make your request more appealing.
Anonymous = I don't have to tip my hat to people who can come up with ideas / admit that good business ideas are not as easy as everyone says they are / share any resulting credit/profits from application of ideas because nobody knows who I am.
I could be wrong. But I can't think of any possible other reasons.
I could be wrong. But I can't think of any possible other reasons.
"but am sick of seeing the same ol' stuff..."
That's just the spirit you need.
"Can someone help me out with what to do next?" That's not.
"Can someone help me out with what to do next?" That's not.
Find a good way to have an asynchronous feed back from a web server to a web client, a true general purpose "push" protocol as an extension of HTTP. Hey you can even call it HTTP2W or HTTP2HTTP. Of course you'll have to come up with not only the protocol definition but also a reference implementation for both the client and the server. Sounds like fun, eh?
Already exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_%28programming%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_%28programming%29
Thanks, I'm aware of Comet. Not exactly what I meant, in Comet the connection stays open after being initiated by the client. I'm looking for something where the interaction is first client-to-server, then client registers a "callback" address and port that it will listen to. This would be followed by a server-to-client call where the server will send updates/events to client as they happen, the client then decides what to do with those events. I want to avoid a persistent connection, and either the "heartbeat" client requests or other forms of polling by the client. The interaction that I'm looking for is more akin to a P2P sort of model.
You want a different and more complicated solution to an already solved problem?
I believe that YCombinator also declined to fund this idea ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=95931 ), which demonstrates how hard it is to have a good idea.
Sounds like it will be impossible to make money.
Hey, I like to make a buck just like the next guy, but it still sounds like a neat thing to work on. I'm sure you could find a way to charge someone something after developing this.
Well look at comet, django, rails, scriptalicious, and just about all other frameworks or neat pieces of code that developers can use to do something better.
None of them make any money.
None of them make any money.
Ask your non-hacker friends what irks them about work... develop from there...(yes, it will take a while... but you were bored anyway)
here's one: user generated content is hot. games are fun. turn a game into content creation or content creation into a game.
Bundled startup companies. Offer a Limited company with matching domain name and web-2.0-ey logo/trademark on the holding page. Your customers will get an instant web presence they can start coding into. Perhaps having an operational online payment system in that companies name would be good value for money.
is there an interactive-computer-help system going already? Punters pay per minute of help. They are matched with a nerd somewhere who can view their screen, offer advice (voip) or help using a remote desktop.
[deleted]
Where do you live?
I was wondering the same thing. If he was near me, I could turn him on to about 8 years worth of code that needs to be done in the next 3 months.
<comes up for oxygen>
13 hours later, he hasn't answered. Either he's not serious, he got hit by a bus, or your question got buried in the noise in this thread.
<comes up for oxygen>
13 hours later, he hasn't answered. Either he's not serious, he got hit by a bus, or your question got buried in the noise in this thread.
i'm a web dev with lots of time on my hands... problem is, no ideas to apply to it!
I know how you can get an idea for your next startup. Call your favorite VC firm and ask them, "You know how VCs are always lamenting that great business ideas are a dime a dozen? I can't think of any ideas for now - but I have 30 cents! Can you please write down 3 dozen ideas you think are great so I can develop them?"
Problem solved ... for a mere 30 cents.
Keep me updated on any progress.
Problem solved ... for a mere 30 cents.
Keep me updated on any progress.
They'll say ideas are a dime a dozen but their time is charged at $500/hour.
That's ok. Just tell them that you have an awesome "ability to execute" dime-a-dozen ideas. According to their theories, that, the capital they would subsequently invest and their "value-added" should help you all become multi-billionaires. Surely they believe their own talk, so in theory they should gladly put aside their pittance of $500 an hour to share ideas you can execute for them.
Don't forget little people like me when you guys hit the big time.
Don't forget little people like me when you guys hit the big time.
BTW ... let's say you get the help you want. Do you offer anything in return?
This is sooo funny. Almost every week there's a "Ask YC" type of post where a business idea is seeking programming talent, and almost all the time the response is, "Why should I partner with you? What will you do for the startup while I code?"
And here we have a "bored software developer" just soliciting free business ideas and the mere suggestion that he should offer something in return seems to be unpopular.
Have you ever considered that the person who you seek ideas from may have developed the idea over months ... or even years of thinking, unpaid research, trial-and-error, awkward conversations with potential users, constant analysis of other things on the market, etc.?
Perhaps you may consider that from their perspective it would be something like, "Why should I share the insights of months/years of thinking about the problem? What were you doing while I was investing the time to investigate the feasibility?"
And yet the very question of what value the idea giver can expect meets scorn.
And here we have a "bored software developer" just soliciting free business ideas and the mere suggestion that he should offer something in return seems to be unpopular.
Have you ever considered that the person who you seek ideas from may have developed the idea over months ... or even years of thinking, unpaid research, trial-and-error, awkward conversations with potential users, constant analysis of other things on the market, etc.?
Perhaps you may consider that from their perspective it would be something like, "Why should I share the insights of months/years of thinking about the problem? What were you doing while I was investing the time to investigate the feasibility?"
And yet the very question of what value the idea giver can expect meets scorn.
This is news.yc... have you read any of PG's thoughts on the value of ideas?
Here's an idea for bored_dev: Apparently, some people have a bizarre habit of highlighting the text as they read. Write a script that checks whether a user reads the entire text of, say, an EULA, or maybe an essay...
Here's an idea for bored_dev: Apparently, some people have a bizarre habit of highlighting the text as they read. Write a script that checks whether a user reads the entire text of, say, an EULA, or maybe an essay...
Okay, let's review reality. This "bored developer" is apparently not PG. So PG's opinions/thoughts are not relevant here, since obviously this particular "bored developer" is straying from that view. For example, PG said you don't even really need a good idea - just get started. But this "bored developer" apparently can't start without the good idea, so he apparently is experiencing a different reality at the moment than PG.
Seriously what does my response to "bored developer" have to do whith what PG says/thinks/does/where he goes on vacation? If PG writes an essay that says he thinks oxygen is useless and somebody next to you has an asthma attack, are you going to turn around to them and tell them, "Well, didn't you read PG's latest essay where he tells you he thinks oxygen isn't that important?"
Seriously what does my response to "bored developer" have to do whith what PG says/thinks/does/where he goes on vacation? If PG writes an essay that says he thinks oxygen is useless and somebody next to you has an asthma attack, are you going to turn around to them and tell them, "Well, didn't you read PG's latest essay where he tells you he thinks oxygen isn't that important?"
[deleted]
Anon for now.