Ask HN: If ideas are so cheap, why can't we think of better ones?
12 comments
I honestly want to challenge you to define the term "better." Is "better" measured by the degree of "feasible execution," "profitability," "match to consumer needs" or a combination of those?
Other than that, here are my thoughts
1) Ideas aren't cheap. Not good/executable ideas anyways. Those ideas are sparked by work, experience, time invested into research, fostering a good environment that encourages ideas/competition.
I'm sure you can ask a 5 year old on his ideas on how to end world hunger and compare that of someone who is 30 or 40 something. Both ideas were cheap, but who's is better?
2) As mentioned by someone else here, not all ideas are executable or worth executing.
3) Personality traits. Not everyone find pleasure in thinking, have you had a friend who brushed you off every time you bring up an ideas? In addition there are many internal and external factors that help create or hinder ideas such as level of conformity at the work place, tolerance to risk etc
Other than that, here are my thoughts
1) Ideas aren't cheap. Not good/executable ideas anyways. Those ideas are sparked by work, experience, time invested into research, fostering a good environment that encourages ideas/competition.
I'm sure you can ask a 5 year old on his ideas on how to end world hunger and compare that of someone who is 30 or 40 something. Both ideas were cheap, but who's is better?
2) As mentioned by someone else here, not all ideas are executable or worth executing.
3) Personality traits. Not everyone find pleasure in thinking, have you had a friend who brushed you off every time you bring up an ideas? In addition there are many internal and external factors that help create or hinder ideas such as level of conformity at the work place, tolerance to risk etc
I think all three of those criteria are good. I'd rank them by:
customer needs>feasibility>profitability
Agreed on your other thoughts as well.
customer needs>feasibility>profitability
Agreed on your other thoughts as well.
I really do not buy the oft repeated maxim that ideas are cheap. I think one reason for this thinking is because unless an idea is converted to an actual product there is no way to tell if it is good. But just because we can't judge whether an idea is good - does not mean ideas are cheap and worthless either. I think this notion was made popular by investors and VCs, and it makes sense in their cases - as they make nothing from mere ideas - only from products that sell. Outside the domain of startups and VCs, ideas are very precious indeed - just ask scientists who work on ideas that can create brand new industries. Quantum physics was just an idea with equations - but we would not have any of modern electronics, lasers, computers or mobile phones. Which brings us to tbe second part of your question - why can't we think of better ones. My theory is that the human brain is wired to perceive what exists and act on it, whereas innovation requires perceving what does not exist and seeing the gaps. It is much harder for the human brain to focus on this. Which is why it is easier to improve upon what already exists than it is to create a brand new product.
I like to think if it as a multiplier:
idea * execution = outcome
idea * 0 = 0. "Ideas are worthless without execution"
1 * execution = execution. "with hard work, any decent idea can succeed"
100 * execution = something amazing. "great ideas can change the world"
idea * execution = outcome
idea * 0 = 0. "Ideas are worthless without execution"
1 * execution = execution. "with hard work, any decent idea can succeed"
100 * execution = something amazing. "great ideas can change the world"
If that is correct, it follows that one should seek out the best people to work with, no matter whether one is more of an engineer or a visionary.
Just be prepared to make up for what they lack. i.e. If they are a visionary, you better be prepared to work.
Reality trumps imagination. Of course, but especially because it's easier to measure.
Creativity, innovation and the like are difficult for humans to quantify. So we get in arguments like "ideas are worthless" and debates over the importance of design.
But our economy is becoming much more based on intellectual property, and I don't believe this kind of thinking, will help us in the future.
Creativity, innovation and the like are difficult for humans to quantify. So we get in arguments like "ideas are worthless" and debates over the importance of design.
But our economy is becoming much more based on intellectual property, and I don't believe this kind of thinking, will help us in the future.
When you are focused on "the idea" you cannot see the forest for the trees. When you are more familiar with the execution and what it takes to go from idea to successful product you realize that the idea is a smaller part of the equation then you originally thought.
Do you think that great companies like Netflix, Amazon or facebook are really doing anything revolutionary from the idea stand point? A movie rental chain, a department store and party line. They are simple everyday things that are worked upon very hard for years until they finally become a success.
I am in the opposite position. So many "good enough" ideas that is is hard to choose which one I want to be married to for the next 3 to 5 years.
Do you think that great companies like Netflix, Amazon or facebook are really doing anything revolutionary from the idea stand point? A movie rental chain, a department store and party line. They are simple everyday things that are worked upon very hard for years until they finally become a success.
I am in the opposite position. So many "good enough" ideas that is is hard to choose which one I want to be married to for the next 3 to 5 years.
Who says we haven't? We're blissfully unaware of most of human thought because it isn't acted on in such as way that we become aware of its existence. YC is a great example of this, to a certain extent PG started it because there was no possible way for him to carry out every idea he came up with, so he created an environment where he can involve himself with other people who have ideas that he's had or likes. I'm not entirely behind the "ideas are worthless" camp. They're worth something (after all, you do have to execute on SOMETHING that had to be thought of prior to), but most of a company's value is still derived from the fruition of its core idea.
This is a reaction to my current frustration. My ex-partner said ideas are only worth 2%, technology 5% and implementation 93%. But he wants to know if he take the idea and continue to work on it on his own.
So I said "If ideas are so cheap, why don't you think of a better one?" <crickets>
It's getting to the point where people say it without thinking.
So I said "If ideas are so cheap, why don't you think of a better one?" <crickets>
It's getting to the point where people say it without thinking.
"Ideas are worthless" means that having some idea about how to make some money is cheap and worthless. It has to be instantiated quite laboriously with a lot of additional effort and lots of other ideas supporting the original core one. You can tell this happens because ten startups may start with the same "idea" but end up with completely different concrete solutions on different platforms with different tradeoffs and each taking ten man-years of work to create. It's in those ten man-years of work that the value lies, not the core idea.
As proof that is where the value lies, many solid businesses exist that have done the work but haven't even hardly got an "idea" the way startup founders think of it, just exploited opportunity. What's the "big idea" behind a graphics design firm, or a plumbing company? On the other hand, try making money with an uninstantiated idea. Where the value comes from is pretty clear.
Now that you've presumably done some of that work, the core original idea remains as useless as ever, but the work done around it to get it some distance down the path to instantiation is not. A new idea would be starting back at square one, and once again be, yes, worthless.
I doubt that he really wants the idea so much as he wants to move forward with the instantiation.
(Ideas with no instantiation effort put into them are worthless because basically supply is effectively infinite.)
As proof that is where the value lies, many solid businesses exist that have done the work but haven't even hardly got an "idea" the way startup founders think of it, just exploited opportunity. What's the "big idea" behind a graphics design firm, or a plumbing company? On the other hand, try making money with an uninstantiated idea. Where the value comes from is pretty clear.
Now that you've presumably done some of that work, the core original idea remains as useless as ever, but the work done around it to get it some distance down the path to instantiation is not. A new idea would be starting back at square one, and once again be, yes, worthless.
I doubt that he really wants the idea so much as he wants to move forward with the instantiation.
(Ideas with no instantiation effort put into them are worthless because basically supply is effectively infinite.)
An idea is a direction. If he wants to move forward with the instantiation he's moving forward in the same direction. That's like saying paraphrasing isn't plagiarism. It's not the same if it's different.
You can tell this happens because ten startups may start with the same "idea" but end up with completely different concrete solutions
Airbnb is an idea. If you do it a little bit different it's still the same idea. The value lies in what the customer receives, not the man-years. If you've built something with large customer benefit then you've done something. But the customer benefit comes from the direction the original idea took.
Now that you've presumably done some of that work, the core original idea remains as useless as ever
If the idea has changed completely then yes, but that's probably a different idea. Google search is still Google search even though they've added countless man-years to it.
He wants the idea because he wants to solve the same customer problem in the same way. Especially if the original idea unveiled a problem that was ignored. An idea can often identify a problem. No amount of implementation can do that.
You can tell this happens because ten startups may start with the same "idea" but end up with completely different concrete solutions
Airbnb is an idea. If you do it a little bit different it's still the same idea. The value lies in what the customer receives, not the man-years. If you've built something with large customer benefit then you've done something. But the customer benefit comes from the direction the original idea took.
Now that you've presumably done some of that work, the core original idea remains as useless as ever
If the idea has changed completely then yes, but that's probably a different idea. Google search is still Google search even though they've added countless man-years to it.
He wants the idea because he wants to solve the same customer problem in the same way. Especially if the original idea unveiled a problem that was ignored. An idea can often identify a problem. No amount of implementation can do that.
"An idea is a direction."
You're making my point for me. Directions are cheap. It's the road traveled that matters.
"The value lies in what the customer receives, not the man-years."
OK. Build your AirBnB clone in two man-hours. Go!
You're making my point for me. Directions are cheap. It's the road traveled that matters.
"The value lies in what the customer receives, not the man-years."
OK. Build your AirBnB clone in two man-hours. Go!
This is the problem with metaphors. They get misunderstood and misapplied.
I didn't mean a general direction, I meant a specific one. Like a telephone is different from a cellphone. Landlines have only so much potential. You may attribute cellphones to implementation, but someone had to figure it out.
How many millions of man hours would make AirBnB worth more than Groupon? Not the best example, but I'm sure you get it. Ideas have limits, but so does implementation.
I didn't mean a general direction, I meant a specific one. Like a telephone is different from a cellphone. Landlines have only so much potential. You may attribute cellphones to implementation, but someone had to figure it out.
How many millions of man hours would make AirBnB worth more than Groupon? Not the best example, but I'm sure you get it. Ideas have limits, but so does implementation.
The problem is that we become focused and attached to ideas. It becomes hard to seriously consider other ideas once you've fallen in love with one. We lose objectivity.
Because how is something better when "better" is just an adjective and not something you created, tested and executed ? Going to the moon is an idea, executing the moon landing is a million ideas all put together in the correct order. Different is not always better. One bad idea, 999 999 good ideas and then you explode and die, consistently.
Creativity is free, but having mental models, abilities to express, experience and domain knowledge is expensive and hard-won. If you don't have the latter, the former (creativity) will not produce good ideas that fit and evolve the latter, to result in success and wealth. Not everyone has the former, and not everyone has the latter.
I think the reason why people consider ideas cheap is if it's just an idea. If the idea is the solution to the problem then that's what makes it a good one. Then again that's just my interpretation of the large amount of seemingly-good startup advice on the internet. It also just makes sense.
I think what they mean is that the initial idea is cheap.
The idea after much execution is expensive.
The idea after much execution is expensive.
I think part of it is a bias against solo founders. We simply don't hear of many solo successes, but I'd venture that's where a lot of idea-mill work happens.
If you think for a while, you'll very likely think of a better idea. The problem is that you'll also think of 100 or 1000 not-so-good ideas at the same time, and you have to decide which ideas to keep and which to throw away, and you'll probably guess wrong. It's the testing that is not cheap, and that we wish to make as cheap as possible.