Your Idea Is Worthless. Worry about finding smart nerds.

I think the author doesn't go far enough in his post.

Yes, ideas are worthless. But finding "smart nerds" is an almost fruitless endeavor as well. It's not that they don't exist, but they are so sought after, and are doing so many projects many times, that unless they are a great friend of yours, they will politely listen to your idea and then say they don't have time for you.

Also, "Smart Nerds", unless they are completely oblivious, can instantly disseminate what value you bring to the project. Did you just think up the idea, yet want an equal split of the company with the "smart nerd" who will actually bring the idea into fruition? Fat chance, they will do their own thing and become big their own way.

The best strategy is to learn to become your own "smart nerd". You may not be as good as those around you, but you have to show that you are committed to the project, and that you actually have some technical sense of what it will take to do what you dream.

I'll be much more likely to work with someone if they show me they have thought about user interface, technology, done some mockups, etc, than someone who comes to me with something they thought up while drinking.

Finally, it helps to actually give a shit about the person, rather than imagine them as some "resource" to be "had". I know one guy who would spam aspiring programmers walls with reasons why they should work for his company, including adding a bullet point listing himself as a selling point ("Work with the 2011 entrepreneur of the year!" He said, failing to mention that he himself, was that entrepreneur). Stop being so egotistical and fucking treat people with respect. If they have their own ideas, listen to them, and if one sounds interesting, help them out in any way you can. It will be a huge shift than what their used to, people being actively interested in their ideas and wanting to work with them on it.

Can we please drop this hyperbolic platitude that "ideas are worthless." You need to have ideas. That's how you decide what to do. In the case that the author describes, your ideas will help you decide what type of "smart nerds" you need to find. After all, there are as many different types of nerds as there are topics to study in depth.

The real problem is thinking that you're just one big idea away from a successful company. A successful company is made up of thousands of ideas and many man-years of execution. The real value creation happens when you have infrastructure in place to separate the good ideas from the bad ones.

So it's true that a single untested idea isn't worth much, but a huge collection of validated ideas really is valuable.

I just despise the condescending stereotype.

The author isn't wrong... but "nerd," IMO, is still derogatory in the way it's used. There's a prevailing idea amongst non-technical business people that developers are replaceable cogs and will jump at the chance to work on the next big idea for the smallest portion the business person thinks they can get away with.

This kind of wishful thinking, I find, is offensive. I don't work 8 - 10 hours a day; spend 2 hours a night hacking, reading, and practicing; and spend good money to attend conferences just so that I can work on your idea. Worse, many business people expect me to work for half of nothing. They think that their idea has some sort of inherent value. That it is actually so unique and innovative that it is actually worth something.

Newsflash: you probably didn't think of it yourself.

Anyway.. my advice if you need a technical co-founder: don't call them nerds. If someone doesn't mind being called a nerd they'll let you know. You sound like a clueless douche when you say, "I need a nerd to build this project." You sound like you don't even care about what we "nerds" put our heart and souls into doing. If it was so easy you wouldn't need people with our skills and experience... so be nice and come to the realization that if you want to start a tech company with no tech experience you're going to have to take the smaller portion of the equity and have a good amount of cash on hand.

Otherwise make good friends and wish for the best.

As a geek who's now trying to start my own company I can say that conversely, just being a geek who knows how to build things does not make success easy either; other skills matter too. I have gained a much greater appreciation for product management, UI / UX and sales. The hard thing to figure out is whether that guy with an idea who approaches you at a meetup has these other skills; it's a lot easier to B.S a track record.

"Steve used to say to me -- and he used to say this a lot -- "Hey Jony, here's a dopey idea."

And sometimes they were. Really dopey. Sometimes they were truly dreadful. But sometimes they took the air from the room and they left us both completely silent. Bold, crazy, magnificent ideas. Or quiet simple ones, which in their subtlety, their detail, they were utterly profound.

And just as Steve loved ideas, and loved making stuff, he treated the process of creativity with a rare and a wonderful reverence. You see, I think he better than anyone understood that while ideas ultimately can be so powerful, they begin as fragile, barely formed thoughts, so easily missed, so easily compromised, so easily just squished."

I'm not totally sure this is really written for the HN audience, but since its self-submitted I'm going to speak my mind.

Everyone with any chops in silicon valley already knows this. It's established conventional wisdom at this point. Yes, there are still a lot of people who need to hear it (I sit next to them on airplanes sometimes), but around here this is preaching to the choir in the most fundamental sense. Furthermore, debating the nuance of such a proclamation is masturbatory. Yes reality is nuanced, you can always find a counter-example, but frankly an intellectual understanding of the relative importance of "ideas" (whatever that really means in a knowledge economy) is probably one of the most useless forms of wisdom you can aspire to as an entrepreneur.

Its very interesting to read about non technical co-founders find it really hard to find a CTO for their startup. In our case me and my buddy/partner are both technical and our knowledge set covers from frontend UI to backup DB tuning and performance but what we lacked in business skills made us shelve our first project. We also realized that ideas not always extrapolate into an useful product. Ideas that seemed world changing stopped making sense over time.

So the 'idea' is worthless without a smart nerd's execution and coding? Exactly what does an engineer do without an idea? The answer is nothing. They have nothing to execute on. Did Mark Zuckerberg not conceive of the idea of Facebook? Did Jack Dorsey not do the same for Twitter?

Engineers do not gather in a room and summon ideas to their pre-existing code. I see so much 'idea' bashing when it is such an essential ingredient to anything that is created. Without question, an idea guy without the ability to code, or the knowledge of what's possible will have a difficult if not impossible task ahead of him. But an engineer without an idea will face the same.

There is a balance. And it usually exists between co-founders (one engineer, one idea person) who already had a long-term relationship before the creation of the product. The other common scenario is for one person who has the idea, and engineering skills to bring it into fruition on their own. It is very rare for one person to find a 'nerd' to create their idea. Both the ability to execute and the idea should be given equal weight. It still shocks me that this is not the case.

Reading all these 'ideas are worthless' diatribes reminds me of kids who learn a new thing that blows their minds and then start parroting it to everyone, without realizing that there are lots of nuances that they are leaving out of the simple fact they just learnt and are telling to everyone who will listen.

Yes, people who don't know any better think that their idea is worth billions, and they "only" need someone to implement it. These are the equivalents of 5 clueless year-olds.

Then, people realize that, you know, implementation/execution is a really necessary component of a successful venture, and without execution every venture will fail. This leads people to think that execution is paramount and therefore ideas are worthless. This blows their minds and they want to let the world know of this amazing new fact.

The problem is that the reality is more complex. You need both. You need a great idea and great execution if you want to succeed. It's like a chain with two links. If either of them breaks, the chain is broken. Doesn't mean that the link on the right is more important, or the link on the left is more important.

For those who think ideas are worthless, do you think two friends, one of whom is a top programmer while the other is a great business person, and who both work for a big company, would these people leave their jobs if they had no idea to start working on once they quit their jobs? Do you think it's wise for these to just quit their jobs and then start thinking of what idea they will start executing on?

Do you think investors put millions into random teams of awesome talent (programmers, sales, business development, etc), without those teams having any idea what they will work on, with the expectation that since they are such great executors, that they will find something to work on and make a great return on the investors' money?

Start a topic on HN asking for smart nerds who can put up a website in 5 minutes and that also have time for a new venture and it will probably be one of the top postings. The problem is that we have an abundance of smart nerds putting up stupid ass useless websites without thinking it through and with no direction. Way too many stupid ideas.

Folks who see ideas everywhere are overflowing with them and often paralyzed by them.

That's one way ideas are generally worthless. Execution is far more important.

To execute, smart nerds alone might not do it. You need smart people who get it, in all positions.

Who will help get it and get it done? Maybe people who over-value ideas but have lots of energy to put into an idea they get?

I think an idea might be worthless, but a good idea holds tremendous value. Maybe not monetarily, but in the sense that one good idea can rally other people around you to join the cause and spend their precious time and money (along side you--as others have pointed out, an ideas man work is not done after he merely lays an idea egg on the carpet like some golden idea laying goose) working towards making this thing trapped in the aether of space a reality. I think everyone is aware that startups and businesses and everything in life takes a lot of sweat, blood, and tears, but as cliche as it sounds, it all starts with that one good idea.

Ideas are not necessarily worthless; it's just that so many people place far too much emphasis on the idea with no consideration for the cost of execution. Unfortunately, the backlash to this flawed assumption has caused the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction, where "ideas are worthless" has become a sort of mantra. The problem with mantras is that they are oft quoted, but rarely contemplated.

Ideas come to nothing without execution, but execution will have no direction without an idea to foster.

The real problems come when someone trades the weight of the idea against contributing work. The extreme of this is an idea guy who "does the hard work" of coming up with the idea, then expects his partner(s) to do everything else while he sits in an armchair sipping a martini.

Execution comes down to playing it smart, and wading up to your armpits in shit. Every founder must have something to contribute on a day-to-day basis to turn the idea into a reality. Every founder needs to do shit work. Every founder is responsible for the product, and must always be looking at it with a critical eye, and discussing any concerns or refinements. Of course, one person needs to be the final decision maker, but everyone shares ultimate responsibility.

Execution and ideas are the chicken and the egg. A bad egg yields a bad product, but failed execution ruins everything it touches.

Finding "smart nerds" really won't work.

First of all, quite a few of them will be disliking you for using a derogatory term. If you've got a tech person looking for a "PR flak" or a "business suit", you'd be offended too. Try treating people you want to partner with as human beings. I hear it helps.

Second, take a look at what value _you_ bring to the table. If your idea is indeed worthless, why would anybody sign up to work with you? It's perfectly fine if your answer is e.g. "my Rolodex". The point is, know your strengths. Find people who complete you. A truly brilliant idea with a strong vision _is_ worth something. It's worth nothing by itself, but the same holds true for technical brilliance. Or a great Rolodex. Or insane sales skills. You'll need _all_ of that to succeed, and a huge dose of luck. The one difference between the idea and the others is that an idea loses value over time, so you've got to bring more than an idea.

If your answer however is "I don't bring much to the table, except an idea", you're in trouble. You shouldn't worry about finding smart people who can help you, you should think about clarifying what it is you can contribute _after_ that first meeting.

(This is a copy of my comment on the original post) For those that say ideas are next to worthless, when you think about why Google search succeeded, do think it was because of their execution or because of their idea about the importance of backlinks (i.e. the BackRub/PageRank algorithm). Of course, it is a combination of the two, but it is greatly mistaken to think that ideas are next to worthless. I think Daniel Bobke (commented on original post) has it right, when he commented that a good idea is necessary but not sufficient for success. Bad ideas are a dime a dozen, but good/great ideas are rare indeed. Though at times it is hard to tell if an idea is a good/great idea. I think a truly good idea will motivate you to work hard and as Jake Croston (commented on original post) stated drive you to keep going to find the path to good execution, even if you fail at first. Think about it another way: would you rather work for a firm that had (1) a great idea, but terrible execution or (2) a terrible idea, but great execution? I would work for firm (1) in a heartbeat.

We don't need to be told ideas are worthless. What we need is how to tell when an idea is worth it?

The "eureka method of idea formation", I think, banks on our grand vision of telling a great story at some point in the future about how the thought of this cool thing came to us in a flash of lightning and how our lives were never the same from that point on. Unadulterated self deception!

So where to look for great ideas? Here might be one candidate - places where people have been collecting and digesting data about a problem area for a period of time, find themselves stuck with a problem, toss and turn it around for a while and find an unprecedented way to think about it. In other words, ask "what process of engagement with the domain have you gone through that led to that idea?". The process is, I think, likely to give a hint about the value of the idea.

I'm sure the school bully mentioned will have a tough time answering that question.

For a couple years I was that business guy with a good idea and no money looking for a technical co-founder, but that strategy failed. Then I learned how to execute using a very lightweight web app that I paid a consultant to build and hired people who were smart enough and trained them from scratch. In 2 years I've gone from one person and $0 in cash to a business w/ great margins & nine people w/ all growth paid for by sales by focusing on a single idea and always holding onto it. Pretty soon I'll be able to pay for the people I need to scale the business to much larger.

In my opinion calling ideas worthless shows a lack of vision and creativity. It is very possible to engineer a business that can dominate from a single idea; doing so takes some fortitiude, cash, moxie, luck, strategy, determination, and a bunch of other adjectives.

As author of the Original Post I think you need a balance team where everybody brings something unique and important to the table. It's not enough to just come up with the "idea". You have to know how that idea will morph into other things. You have to know how you can extend that idea. You have to know how competition will force you to iterate. Etc.

I don't agree that you should become your own smart nerd. I shudder at anyone with no technical background picking up a programming book at just trying to learn to code. I'm not saying it isn't valuable to learn new things, but it would be a better use of time honing the things that make you unique and finding a person with the talents you lack to compliment yourself.

I thin the "idea vs execution" debate often misses a key point - that in highly creative environments, the idea is the execution. In this sense, I think software development may be more like writing or painting than building a house. Every sentence a novelist writes changes the outcome... a painter may have an idea, but by the time it's done, the act of painting has transformed it. This is why I think it so important to be able to code if you want to produce software.

Eh. Yes and no.

You also need the functions of sales, marketing, HR, legal, customer service, etc. Possibly more, depending on your field. Just having a product simply will not cut it.

If you are looking to hire a software writer, you need to be prepared to back up the non-software side significantly. We can all flap good ideas around like hankies, that's not a problem. Being able to execute the Human side as opposed to the Tech side, that's what needs to be in the picture.

I think its characteristic of people to devalue a different expert's contribution to a project. I am definitely typecast "nerd" and take on projects that have a huge weight on my shoulders. I look at what encompasses a successful project and consider the construction/design the most important part while degrading the marketing aspect of things and feel that this is a dangerous outlook to maintain.

The author writes the article saying that any idea or project is worthless without a strong foundation of workers to erect it from the ground up. As "hackers" most of us look at the problem and say that we could build it ourselves and other work is less crucial. What I want to do is stretch the analogy further and say that hackers can build a wonderful monument but if we're short sighted enough to build it on a deserted island its equally useless. Projects take more than the simple questions of what and how and require strong answers to when, where and why to be successful.

What I'm really saying is we lift ourselves up above others unnecessarily sometimes. The work of a person pitching ideas or marketing the product can be just as critical to the success as is the construction of the product. When evaluating ideas for their potential don't focus entirely on how its built without considering everything else, its easy to do that as hackers when you over-value your contribution to the entire life-cycle.

Actually finding smart nerds isn't so difficult. It takes a little bit of work, but you can at least see what they have built.

On the other hand, you can't do that with a business person and finding a good non-technical cofounder is a very different problem.

Ideas are not worthless if you have a strong understanding on why your idea will work. They're worthless if you think they're cool, creative, and don't stop to analyze the weaknesses of it.

The problem is I can code anything, but can't find any artists to back me up. And talented art isn't much easier to find than talented coding.

If ideas are so worthless why are companies spending billions of dollars on them, in the form of patent portfolios?

Eh. I think the success of companies like patio11's is proof that technical achievement really doesn't matter at all (no offense intended to patio11!), and that marketing and finding the right niche (both of which are more related to ideas) are really the most important things. Hire good marketers, but skimp on engineering (or just outsource it).

A tech-nerd becoming a good businessman is not that common but we have seen many examples and we know its not that hard to do.(Take Eric Schmidt or Bill Gates for example).

Please give me ONE (I repeat ONE!) example of an MBA becoming a rockstar programmer....The fact there is possibly no one like that should give you a teeny tiny glimpse at the future!

If ideas are worthless, then every 'smart nerd' should be extremely successful. We all know that's not the case, so we should also know better than to click on articles with such myopic titles.

'Vision' and 'idea' are essentially the same thing, and the author admits vision is necessary. Why is it that everyone tries to separate the two? Because that makes it so easy to write a contentious article? How unoriginal.

So, the author asks:

"What do you think? Do you think people overestimate the value of an idea or am I just full of it?"

Along with the author is "Ideas are easy and plentiful. Execution is hard and everything."

Well, first what is being discussed is just an intuitive, off-hand, wild guess, up all night, sophomore beer party bull session 'business idea'.

The 'subtext', the real intention of saying that an idea is worthless is to insult, intimidate, and denigrate entrepreneurs.

For most such bull session ideas, yes, they are nearly worthless. Fine. But we knew that.

But this whole theme totally throws out all the baby with the bathwater. The theme says that that the haystack is mostly just hay with only a few golden needles so throws out the whole haystack.

We know: Any major business success is quite exceptional and necessarily so since the economy can't have everyone a billionaire.

The goal, then, is NOT to say something general about the haystack but to find the golden needles, not to notice that the average is nearly worthless but to say how to find GOOD business ideas.

So, first cut for something better we should say:

Good ideas are difficult. Given a good idea, execution should be routine.

Why routine? That's easy to see: All across the US, coast to coast, border to border, from villages with just one crossroad up to towns and the largest cities, the US is just awash in entrepreneurs who as 'sole proprietors' had a 'business idea' and executed successfully enough to buy a house, support a family, get the kids through college, and have a secure retirement. You know their companies -- general contracting, roofing, plumbing, electrical contracting, kitchen and bath remodeling, paving, grass mowing, landscaping, masonry, auto repair, auto body repair, tire shops, muffler and brake shops, big truck-little truck suppliers of enormous variety, pizza carryout, Chinese carryout, Italian red sauce red checked tablecloth restaurants, white table cloth French restaurants, 'drive-ins, diners, and dives', dentists, barbers, gas stations, convenience stores, CPAs, tax accountants, business lawyers, pediatricians, dermatologists, podiatrists, independent insurance agents, and on and on.

They nearly never get venture capital, but at the bodies of water they own nearly all the yachts from 35 feet to 60 feet when nearly none of the yachts are owned by anyone who got venture capital.

So, there are millions of such successful sole proprietors. So we have to conclude that, given a reasonably good 'business idea', being successful enough for, say, a 50 foot yacht is 'routine', that is, doesn't require an MBA or 'marquee' CEO or a really good 'top management team'. Indeed, as we know well, the US is just awash in people who have successfully managed organizations from a few dozen people up to a few thousand in education, the military, or government. So, getting competent, proven general management talent is also 'routine'.

So, let's hear no more of how difficult execution is or how much special expertise and advice is needed.

Then for the 'good idea', there really are such. Good ideas are golden, not worthless, plentiful, or obvious. And there are some sufficient conditions for a good idea, and these conditions have been well proven. So the idea that we can't get good ideas is shaky.

A good business idea is close to having a solid plan. Can we have a solid plan? In many crucial fields, absolutely: From building tall bridges, high dams, tall buildings, long ships, and much more, we can get solid bids that will be executed on time, within budget, with only reasonable profits.

So, the idea that we can't plan effectively is shaky.

How to have a 'good idea'? Here is an example: (1) Pick a serious cancer. (2) Find a molecule that is a safe, effective, inexpensive cure for that cancer. Done. That's a sufficient condition. Is this a good idea? Clearly it is: As soon as safe, effective, and inexpensive have been demonstrated, there is no shortage of large pharmaceutical companies ready, willing, able, and eager to buy the patent on the molecule for big bucks right away. Then, indeed, the execution is routine and not "everything". Indeed, the idea was everything, and all the rest was easy.

Is finding such a good idea easy? No. But I didn't say that meeting the sufficient conditions was easy. Indeed, I said that it was "difficult".

So, from this example we begin to see what a good idea is and why, with a good idea, execution is routine.

Is there a general way to find good ideas? Sure: First, pick a problem where a much better solution will be valuable. Second, do some research to find such a solution.

How to do such research? Sure: The US is just awash, the unchallenged, unique world-class, grand champion, in how to do research. Indeed of the world's top 50 research universities, nearly all are in the US, and you know a lot of the names: Harvard, MIT, Cornell, Yale, NYU, Columbia, SUNY, Rockefeller, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, UNC, Georgia Tech, CMU, Chicago, U. Illinois, U. Michigan, U. Wisconsin, U. Washington, U. California, Stanford, Cal Tech, and more. Not a big secret.

How to do research? There's education for that, the Ph.D.

Does research connect with solid plans for projects? Sure it does. The unique, world-class, all-time grand champion of research funding knows this, and this is why they fund the research universities. This grand champion has known this for over 70 years. Who is the champion? May I have the envelope, please? Here it is: The grand champion is the US DoD. The research they funded has led to fantastic progress in bombs, rockets, airplanes, submarines, etc. We got radar, sonar, the images for Google Earth, GPS, stealth, and much more. In just two words, it works.

A good example is the SR-71: It was proposed just on paper and was delivered essentially as promised.

Can such research play a role in Web 2.0 Internet startups? Sure. How? Exercise for the reader. Hint: Notice the remarks above.

But do VCs know this? In biomedical technology, often yes. In information technology hardware, also often yes. In just software for Web 2.0, could count without taking shoes off all the VCs with backgrounds to evaluate relevant research. So, for Web 2.0, the answer is essentially no.

Does this answer of no mean that research for Web 2.0 is impractical? No: All across the US sole proprietors without VC funding start carryout pizza shops. Some of these entrepreneurs grow to, say, 10 pizza shops. Then they can buy a small yacht. But the capital required for a Web 2.0 startup is much less than for just one pizza shop. So if pizza shop entrepreneurs can convert their ideas to money, then a Web 2.0 entrepreneur should be able to convert a good research idea to money.

Back to it; I've done the research and have nearly all the software done and a little more to write. But what is crucial is the 'idea', that is, the research, and the software is just routine. Then users will like it or they won't, and in either case the execution will be routine.

So, to answer the author's question, yes, he's "full of it", not in the average case but in the relevant, desired, exceptional case.