Hacker News Reader

Comment by josh_carterPDX | Hacker News Reader

There are some useful nuggets here, but every company and founder are different. Having run three different accelerator programs I have learned to STOP assuming what makes a good or bad idea. Some of the companies I thought were certain for failure have raised multiple rounds, found product market fit, and are growing just fine. The first 18 months of a startup should include one thing, "GET SOMEONE TO PAY FOR YOUR PRODUCT/SERVICE!" Everything else is just iteration.

View on HN

It’s obvious that a promising startup can fail, eg great idea but bad execution.

It’s really not obvious that an unpromising startup could succeed, though.

What were the main factors in those unpromising startups doing well?

Good execution on a weak idea can rapidly be redirected to a better idea. If you can't execute, the ideas don't really matter.

I guess it depends a bit on what you mean by "unpromising". One person might see the product idea and think "those guys are gone is 6 mo", while another might see the team coming together well and think "that team is going to do something interesting"

Also, in my experience most people are bad at evaluating these things early on.

It's a good question. From what I've seen a lot of it has to do with their network and the founder's ability to sell the narrative that what they're building is something no one else can build and/or execute. In those early days of a startup investors look at the team more closely than the product. If you're able to show that you're focused on revenue from day one it tends to shift the leverage. Very few investors are funding ideas anymore.

The world is full of inferior products and standards that ended up winning because of early mover advantages. There’s even a name for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better

I think "worse is better" is more about keeping things simple and composable than necessarily being the first mover.

Depends on what you mean by inferior. If you mean inferior as in quality, then your link doesn't support you:

> It refers to the argument that software quality does not necessarily increase with functionality: that there is a point where less functionality ("worse") is a preferable option ("better") in terms of practicality and usability.

It's a rephrasing of KISS. This isn't about getting something quicker out the door.

Promising/unpromising is a judgement call here. If you thought something was a great idea but you were wrong, there's a potential failure mode for a promising startup. And the reverse would give you a successful one that you found unpromising.

That's what the poster you're replying to is saying - it's hard to be consistently correct on if an idea is good or bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com