Anon for now.
Which would put you in pretty good company.
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".
I think you mean Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo aside.
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?
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.
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.
And yeah, Yahoo! was just making a list of links - hardly a challenging technical problem, but people wanted it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't that what you yourself said in one of your posts on your blog, or am I misunderstanding your position?
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.
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?
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?
I'm sure I've forgotten a hatful.
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'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.
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?
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.
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 ...
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 ;-)
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.
Sorry but I don't quite think you know what execution is about.
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.
They are the ones that hold the trademark.
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 :)
Why the hell are people still arguing this point.
In my mind the argument of "execution" vs. "good idea" is like arguing whether food or water or air or sleep is more important.
You need all. Case closed.
I think as people who "execute" programmers tend to have (from what I've seen over a year) a knee-jerk "execution is everything" reaction out of some deep insecurity or something.
The very existence of this "I can't think of any good ideas" is testament to the notion that execution is not the be-all end-all.
If I can never find a programming partner, worse case scenario I can still use my contacts to raise capital and then hire programmers, though my negotiating leverage in raising capital would be a lot less than if I had a partner who can help put together the idea.
What is this programmer going to do without a good idea that people want and a good idea how to make money off of it?
Start programming randomly until he accidently codes a useful service people pay for?
"O----kay"
Because you obviously haven't got a clue what you are talking about, keep contradicting yourself, and don't know anything about neither ideas nor execution. At least not in real life.
I won't reply more to this conversation - it is a pain to write, and probably boring to read.
I just got a bit disillusioned.
If you can find a product that makes a "pain" go away -- you've probably got something marketable.
I can envision a fun 'mat based' game for all ages here... Score!
Write a bit about what are you looking for? Embedded, web, applications? Any particular fields that you like ?
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?
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...
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 could be wrong. But I can't think of any possible other reasons.
"Can someone help me out with what to do next?" That's not.
None of them make any money.
<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.
Problem solved ... for a mere 30 cents.
Keep me updated on any progress.
Don't forget little people like me when you guys hit the big time.
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.
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...
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?"