Hackers vs. Consultants: How not to find an idea (Part 1 of 3) | Hacker News Reader

Hackers vs. Consultants: How not to find an idea (Part 1 of 3)

behindthescenes.midtownrow.com

30 pointsakashs16 comments

The premise is interesting, but there isn't anything conclusive about part 1. Part 1 is also incredibly short. It left me wondering why the story is even divided into parts at all.

I felt as if I started watching a 30 minute TV show and "TO BE CONTINUED" happens 10 minutes in.

Hey, thanks for the feedback. We understand where you're coming from, but we wanted to present the "business side" as it's own independent view. And while you're correct that Part 1 is a bit short, it was much too long to condense into one readable post.

Ultimately, we're still learning and we'll keep your points in mind for next time.

Stop wasting our time with this. Post it when it's done, divided into parts or not.

I will read part 1 and only part 1 if that's the only one available at the time it was posted. I will not return to your site to look for that content again.

I despise this trend.

I thought: Maybe someone (me) can write a little app that notifies you after the story is completed. But I will not, this behavior should not be stimulated. If you have something to say finish what you want to say and then post it to HN. It's not even possible to have a meaningful discussion right now.

The OP doesn't seem to be able to take any personal responsibility for his ideas flopping. Can't put one iota of blame on himself.

I've spent enough time to know that the culture of a 'corporate' work environment forces you into a particular way of thinking

They can't appreciate the idea because they don't understand the technical details

Perhaps my cofounders had their judgement clouded by creating one too many PowerPoint decks or Excel models

Do you think maybe it has at least a little to do with a) your idea b) the way you're selling the idea or c) you?

Note that the next installment will presumably be business-focused. Two unbalanced views may more-or-less balance out.

I naturally had some very tech-heavy ideas (e.g., new approaches for mobile / social / local, new hardware devices). I found it hard to get my co-founders to react positively, even after spending hours trying to convince them of the opportunity.

I can spend hours explaining why an idea was a better technology than what's out there, but for some ideas, it's just tough to fully appreciate if you don't understand the technical details.

Dangerous thinking. People don't use/buy something because it's "better technology"... e.g. the tech-specs-as-the-major-selling-point Android tablets vs. the iPad.

Mind sharing some of your "technical" startup ideas? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

"for some ideas, it's just tough to fully appreciate if you don't understand the technical details."

This is also called "sales". If one can't sell their team members on the premise, then it will be exponentially hard selling the market on the idea as well.

Doesn't mean the idea is invalid, just that the pitch needs to be improved.

"Better" was probably the wrong term, but if you start thinking about enterprise technology, a lot of it is actually just straight up based on how much cost savings or performance improvement something can deliver (e.g., a DB that gives an order of magnitude performance improvement for certain verticals). You're right that consumer stuff is a different story.

And as far as the sales comment below...as mentioned in the post, sometimes it's not worth me shoving it down their throat if they're not going to be pumped about coming in to work everyday.

"sometimes it's not worth me shoving it down their throat if they're not going to be pumped about coming in to work everyday."

Good sales pitches don't involve feelings of having things shoved down one's throat. Don't think "sales" in the slick marketing vernacular -- think translation that your team members can understand, in spite of their (in)familiarity with the market.

The idea of starting a company and THEN trying to find an idea is just so utterly foreign to me that I doubt I'll ever understand it.

The entire premise of YC is investing in a team first and idea second.

I can agree that a good idea with a bad team is a bad investment, but I wouldn't invest in either without the other.

Yes, but a (big?) part of what makes a team fundable is some ability to come up with a viable idea. The market may not always agree with the founders' and PG's idea of viability, so good teams can pivot, but if you don't have any ideas or your ideas don't have technical and business merit, best-case you're left with a couple of really great employees.

The fear of being an entrepreneur if you don't have a great idea is our biggest handicap. Everyone thinks they need to have everything ironed out before they can leave their "career". If more people just started viewing entrepreneurship as a career path of its own (as it is), a lot more cool products and business models would be invented.

I definitely agree with the notion "Team first, Idea second". Good ideas are easy; execution is the hard part. Put together a good team, and good ideas will come -- the support for this is the existence of many serial entrepreneurs.

It is funny that most people in software have no fucking clue about software...all they have is their IDEAAAa...and they think they own > 70% because of their idea.

I had a potential co-founder ask me once...Dont you think 30% is a lot for just making it..I stuck to a diplomatic answer but I wish I had told him something like.."No you retard....70% is a lot for just sitting on your couch and reading fucking techcrunch all the time".

Bottomline is if you cant code you are not invited to the party!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com