The top 10 lies of entrepreneurs(blog.guykawasaki.com)
blog.guykawasaki.com
The top 10 lies of entrepreneurs
http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/01/the_top_ten_lie_1.html
2 comments
All these will look shiny to the eyes of a newcomer, and
will probably accept your lies.
Phrases determine people as much people determine phrases. So, if someone has the power to act instead of talking, then even accusing that someone of using those phrases will be a shot in the water, because this kind of persons are untouchable, as much if you want to hurt them with a blog post!
"No one can do what we're doing"
“Oracle is too big/dumb/slow to be a threat.”
Oracle or any other big company is a threat if you have a poor idea and execution. All the rest are useless.
Patents
you can say whatever you want about patents, but for a startup is not about suing others as it's about gaining IP, which makes it an easier target for an exit.
1% of the market
define market first, then define what you mean by 1%
Phrases determine people as much people determine phrases. So, if someone has the power to act instead of talking, then even accusing that someone of using those phrases will be a shot in the water, because this kind of persons are untouchable, as much if you want to hurt them with a blog post!
"No one can do what we're doing"
“Oracle is too big/dumb/slow to be a threat.”
Oracle or any other big company is a threat if you have a poor idea and execution. All the rest are useless.
Patents
you can say whatever you want about patents, but for a startup is not about suing others as it's about gaining IP, which makes it an easier target for an exit.
1% of the market
define market first, then define what you mean by 1%
There's two fallacies in this argument. The first is that getting 1% is sufficient. The second that getting 1% is possible. I've seen the first technique working but it isn't sustainable. In the UK, there was an early cable channel and I believe its strategy was to be visually arresting and therefore catch 1% of channel flippers. This is viable when you have 30 channels, but it isn't viable when you have 500 channels.
The second fallacy is the Chinese Sock Syndrome. If you could get 1% of the Chinese sock market then you'd have a huge turnover. Unfortunately, it ignores the possibility that the natives can service their own market at less cost. This is probably how Pets.Com failed.