Ask HN: How to decide if an idea is worth implementing as a business?
8 comments
The love test from Robot Co-op (the guys behind 43things, 43 People, 43 Places etc...):
"When we started working on product ideas, one of the tests we subjected every idea to was what if it works?
We had lots of ideas: a better answering machine, online education tools, job hunting sites, baby blogs, personalized text ads, personalized news services. Sure, we could build a personalized text ads service! But what if it works? Do we really want to run that business?
Before long, we realized we had one primary criteria for an idea we’d want to work on: it had to be an idea we loved so much that if it works, we’d be happy to work on it. Reflecting on the love test I found myself contemplating the word Amateur. The root word there is love, and an amateur is someone who pursues their interest out of love, not a hope for professional recognition or market success.
The test we were concerned with wasn’t how great a business the idea would be. It was whether we could love the work. We thought about products we admire: del.icio.us, flickr, upcoming.org, craigslist, bloglines. Some of these are going to be great businesses, but all of them have an amaeteurish edge in the best sense of that word. They look like works of love. It was the amateur roots of them, the passion behind the product, that we admired."
Full link: http://blog.robotcoop.com/2004/11/15/the-age-of-the-amateur/
"When we started working on product ideas, one of the tests we subjected every idea to was what if it works?
We had lots of ideas: a better answering machine, online education tools, job hunting sites, baby blogs, personalized text ads, personalized news services. Sure, we could build a personalized text ads service! But what if it works? Do we really want to run that business?
Before long, we realized we had one primary criteria for an idea we’d want to work on: it had to be an idea we loved so much that if it works, we’d be happy to work on it. Reflecting on the love test I found myself contemplating the word Amateur. The root word there is love, and an amateur is someone who pursues their interest out of love, not a hope for professional recognition or market success.
The test we were concerned with wasn’t how great a business the idea would be. It was whether we could love the work. We thought about products we admire: del.icio.us, flickr, upcoming.org, craigslist, bloglines. Some of these are going to be great businesses, but all of them have an amaeteurish edge in the best sense of that word. They look like works of love. It was the amateur roots of them, the passion behind the product, that we admired."
Full link: http://blog.robotcoop.com/2004/11/15/the-age-of-the-amateur/
> Let's say you have a great idea. You think it is something that people need and would want. There is also a viable business model.
To me, that is all you need to know. The risk you mention is definitely present, but that is part of all ventures. Do it the way you envision it and fill the gap.
Great luck to you!
To me, that is all you need to know. The risk you mention is definitely present, but that is part of all ventures. Do it the way you envision it and fill the gap.
Great luck to you!
this. to the OP: do you think that novelists worry about someone else writing the same or similar book before they start? do you think painters worry that someone else had the same inspiration? do you think that investors worry that someone else out there is spending money the exact same way as them?
sure, some probably do. but the vast majority don't. they follow their ideas/gut/inspiration. if you think the idea's good, give it a try.
sure, some probably do. but the vast majority don't. they follow their ideas/gut/inspiration. if you think the idea's good, give it a try.
I think the test is if you have a significant enough competitive advantage (via execution stemming from knowledge, the team, idea and implementation) that if entrenched powers try to follow on, it won't matter hugely. For example, youtube was bought by google after google had tried their hand at google video. If your approach can jump this hurdle, the competitors are not something to worry about.
If there is already a clear competitive advantage then indeed the competitors are not that big of an issue. But it is very hard to ascertain that. Besides almost every company has smart people. So if there is something that can be done and it is not technologically impossible (or patented) then chances are that lot of other folks can do it too.
Those besides incumbents have about the same chance as you starting up and that is fair. The real issue is in estimating the likelihood that incumbents would dive-in too before you get traction. So what are the factors that one can look at or ensure to minimize the risk of doing something that the entrenched players would replicate. Or what are the factors based on which such an idea should be put aside?
I really appreciate all the high quality input I am getting.
Those besides incumbents have about the same chance as you starting up and that is fair. The real issue is in estimating the likelihood that incumbents would dive-in too before you get traction. So what are the factors that one can look at or ensure to minimize the risk of doing something that the entrenched players would replicate. Or what are the factors based on which such an idea should be put aside?
I really appreciate all the high quality input I am getting.
Things to think about:
If it is a feature, not a product, that would be a warning sign.
If the bulk of what the incumbents have already radically increases the value of the product, it will be harder to compete. As an example, kiko had calendaring, but google held higher ground with a massive user base and large critical mass of related functionality in other apps.
You have to weigh who the competitors are also. Do they buy, or invent technology? Are they vigorous (startups, or google) or slow and lethargic.
If it is a feature, not a product, that would be a warning sign.
If the bulk of what the incumbents have already radically increases the value of the product, it will be harder to compete. As an example, kiko had calendaring, but google held higher ground with a massive user base and large critical mass of related functionality in other apps.
You have to weigh who the competitors are also. Do they buy, or invent technology? Are they vigorous (startups, or google) or slow and lethargic.
It's not about the idea, it's never about the idea, it's all the execution. It shouldn't matter to you if someone copies your idea because you know you can execute better than them. They can make X, but you can make a better X or better market X or make more money from X, etc.
Most of the time, whoever implements an idea first doesn't win, it's whoever implements it best.
Most of the time, whoever implements an idea first doesn't win, it's whoever implements it best.
This is both a good piece of advice and a bad piece of advice. The fact that someone can copy your idea is really not of great concern if you execute well. This is very true. But a business is not all [in] the execution. Execution is important, but if you spend all of your time working on a useless or stupid idea then you have just wasted lots of your time, effort, and possibly money. Execution is only good when you have a decent idea to start with.
Business model? People want it? Hell, it already has more going for it than a lot of the ideas I see floated around here. Go for it!!
> So how do you decide?
By actually trying it. In fact, you could say the whole point of a startup is to run experiments to figure out if an idea makes a viable business.
By actually trying it. In fact, you could say the whole point of a startup is to run experiments to figure out if an idea makes a viable business.
Assuming you are in tech, you should probably think differently about this problem.
Instead of focusing on whether people could like it or not, do a test to see if people actually want it or not by implementing a very simple and non-committed version (kind of like what Google Labs is to Google's product line). If people like it, you will have your answer.
You probably have ideas like this all the time, so make a list and try a few of the more promising ones. But don't put all your eggs in one basket if you don't have to.
Also, stop worrying about people stealing your idea. Assuming you are sitting on a pot of gold, it's not about who launches first, but about who gets the right people to use that product first who get the prize.
Instead of focusing on whether people could like it or not, do a test to see if people actually want it or not by implementing a very simple and non-committed version (kind of like what Google Labs is to Google's product line). If people like it, you will have your answer.
You probably have ideas like this all the time, so make a list and try a few of the more promising ones. But don't put all your eggs in one basket if you don't have to.
Also, stop worrying about people stealing your idea. Assuming you are sitting on a pot of gold, it's not about who launches first, but about who gets the right people to use that product first who get the prize.
Customer First.
Competition Second.
Period.
Now with each idea, there is always a possibility that somebody else is also thinking about it. Anything short of a patent is not a guarantee of exclusivity. Then there are incumbents who could implement it as an add-on. For eg (only for argument's sake) if the idea is about a Facebook application, then there is always a possiblity that Facebook would implement it themselves before or after you do it.
So how do you decide? What are the considerations to be weighed in? Thoughts?