Sure--the vast majority of ideas just can't support a multi-billion dollar business.
But a lot can, and poor execution is why they don't.
But a lot can, and poor execution is why they don't.
Let's put it another way. When you say:
>It would be interesting to put together a list of these "good idea, but poor execution" ideas.
I read:
>It would be interesting to put together a list of these "execution plans but poor execution" ideas.
There is absolutely no way to separate out the "good idea" from the "good idea but poor execution" because business is the art of execution.
But maybe I'm crazy.
You can patent entire industries and fundamental advances. The hard part is just choosing what to focus on, that you can actually do in 1860 starting with $1,000,000 and maybe the patent system (though it's probably unfair that you're using a time machine - this is likely quite immoral as you're not the true inventor of anything.)
And then doing it.
In other words: the outcome of the game is about execution. But what you're executing is idea. The two go hand in hand. You have a real chance to become worth 2015$ 1 trillion within the 20 years - or generate a one-million fold return on the million. You can be worth as much as entire continents. But you have to do it right.
For starters, you have to be someone whose brain can ship those technical ideas back to 1860 in one piece. This is quite similar to someone with an idea today. Not everyone qualifies.
Put another way, you could probably make exactly the same amount of money, if not more, with a "back to the future 2" scenario where you had zero ideas, but had a chart of various events that you could wager on or invest based on.
When we look at it from that perspective, it's only execution - can you correctly execute about the information you already have.
Soooo - yeah, it's not a great analogy. In general, having a perfect knowledge of what happens makes for bad analogies.
Why this is a workable analogy is because this really is similar to the position that founders with technical ideas are in. They have this vision that something can more or less work - but even if it does they still have to execute on it. That's my point.
Everything you dictate in this revised game is 100% guaranteed to work, because you're reading it straight out of technical manuals for the scientists who build these things today. But that still doesn't make a company that manufacture these things pop out of thin air. You can transfer a very large part of a $1 trillion in R&D back in time -- the ideas; but you won't suddenly have a company as a result. Someone still has to make it all and sell it all.
As an example, even if Babbage had invented modern transistors, he didn't "almost" create Intel and IBM. These companies as such are quite separate from the idea.
What do you define as "a lot"? What do you define as a "vast majority"?
Luck and timing no doubt play a very important role in addition to simply poor execution. Also even excellent execution doesn't take into account how the market will respond to what you are making or trying to sell which can't always be determined prior to actually going through the motions.
The vast majority will not achieve that goal (you don't need them to, either -- for sustainability, all you need is a few winners), and in the process, I can't help but feel that they're stunting their career, technical, and personal growth by approaching critical period of their lives with the belief that your economic model of the universe applies equally to them.
We try to be up front that they have a high chance of failure. But I truly believe that there is nothing better for their career, technical, and personal growth than doing a startup they're passionate about (we try to filter out the people that want to do a startup for a resume item).
Also, one of the advantage of YC is that if the startup doesn't work out, founders have made a lot of connections in the network and can usually find something interesting to do next.
As I've said before, I think the actual risky path is not pursuing what you really want to do and then spending the rest of your life regretting it.
Peer pressure once there is no longer there and you can't replicate that easily.
We added a few people (part-time) raised a little money, but ultimately we couldn't get the product market fit we needed to feel comfortable that we could grow and keep our integrity (we were a financial product). A few weeks ago I shut down the business and I'm about to find something new.
The fact that I lost a year of income is completely irrelevant vs the regret I would have faced had I never made the leap. Even without YC my network has strengthened considerably and I learned more in a year than I thought possible.
I have read a ton, watched all the startup school videos, talked to a lot of founders and tried to understand how to do this well. The fake work problem is real and even while paying extreme attention to it, often times I would waste a few hours doing something that would not increase the probability of success.
Code and talk to customers. It's so, so crucial.
Starting a fast growth company is not for everyone, but for those that want to do it, YC's information is gold. Thanks for everything you guys have put out.
I'm a lot happier having spent 10 years building a sustainable company doing what I really want to do, than I ever was at exciting startups during the v1 .com bubble.
Getting to that point, however, required putting in a lot more than 3 months -- or 3 years -- of backbreaking effort.
Further, I think nearly every founder who has gone through YC would report that, succeed or fail, they are net-benefited by the experience. Rather than stunting an individual, the exercise of founding a startup is probably one of the best ways to rapidly increase your skill-set over a short time frame.
I would disagree that you should grind away for it on years. If YC is confident that hustle/effort is the problem, they should be hiring engineers directly, pay them market rate, and keep all of the equity in their projects to themselves instead of having founders shoulder the risk.
If it were reasonable, I don't think the value created would be so great.
While I don't disagree with your points on a macro, startups are very specific entities, and their success is contingent upon founders (and team members) who are willing to do unreasonable things. And also be extremely lucky.
Your chances of success, however, are much higher with more experience and resources at your disposal.
Sure, you worked harder than someone who has a boring 9-5, but you're not turning yourself an indentured servant until the end of time. Your only risk is the additional time/effort.