Is your startup idea already taken? | Hacker News Reader

Is your startup idea already taken?

whittleidea.com

141 pointskjbinu30 comments

The difference between something merely existing and something remarkable existing. If you find that someone has already done your idea, and they've executed well, consider abandoning your idea. If they haven't solved the problem well enough then it doesn't matter that they exist.

One of the greatest sources of motivation in solving a problem is the anticipation to use the solution. If a good solution already exists then you're not going to have that.

Think of the Zune team. Those guys were trying to solve a problem that the iPod had already solved so well. Where's the excitement? They had to make up artificial problems for the Zune to solve (WiFi song sharing) just to get excited about it. The problem is that the market doesn't care about artificial problems.

I like the point the author makes that "If prospective users are still available, the idea is still available."

Take online time tracking applications for example. I was looking through Mixergy earlier and there was an interview with an entrepreneur who runs a time tracking app ( http://mixergy.com/tom-rossi-molehill-interview/ ) which reminded me of an interview I'd read a while ago with another entrepreneur who also runs a time tracking app ( Clockspot , http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/12/11/engineering-... )

And of course HN user, Amy Hoy, also blogs about her profitable time tracking SAAS app Freckle ( letsfreckle.com ).

I bet they weren't the first to come up with the idea of online time tracking applications, and more people will come up with similar businesses in the future but as long as they have some differentiation and find users (or rather, customers) its irrelevant how shiny and new the "idea" is.

Collaboration, Project Management, Dashboard, Time Tracking, Invoicing, Accounting, CRM, ERP (simple ones), Inventory Management Systems, Contact List, Todo List, Customer Support/Ticketing Management Systems, Knowledge Based, Forum.

Re-do everything above and add the word "social" next to them (e.g.: Social CRM)

It can be done.

Unnecessary. Our apps aren't "social." :)

That is not my intention.

What I'm trying to say is that there are traditional tools, the baseline, the fundamentals, such as the list I mentioned above.

Then there's another genre which add the 'social aspect' to the traditional tools.

Did I mention freckle to be a social time tracking? Nope :)

No, but your comment implied that "it" is hard to do but if you slap on some social, "it can be done." You don't need to do anything so serious as "add social" to do "it."

I just had this very epiphany today. After being rejected by two potential investors because of that reason ("Have you heard of X?"). It's frustrating to say "Yes, I have, and here is why we are different", but still get written off. The investor seems to stop listening after the "Yes", which stinks especially since the main problem I see with Company X is that no one is using it! (They are very loud and in the press, so it gives them an appearance of dominance). So, I will definitely try using that answer next time, if only to force the investor to realize that while the idea is out there, it hasn't won yet.

Perhaps you should start off your pitch with "Why no one actually uses X."

We have a similar problem in research, where we have to always demonstrate that what we do is novel. A technique that I have taken a liking to is to talk about all of the related work as soon as possible, so we can distinguish ourselves immediately. The difficulty with only distinguishing yourself at the end is that your audience has been bearing a "someone has already done this" grudge the whole time. It's difficult for them to let that go, no matter how good your answer is.

edit: I just looked at the page for your startup, and it wasn't immediately obvious to me that your site is a place to find classes out in the real world.

Perhaps you should start off your pitch with "Why no one actually uses X."

Yes and no. I'd maybe try to rephrase that to something along the lines of "I've looked through their site and I haven't seen any evidence of them attracting users". Dismissing a rival with "meh, no-one uses it!" makes it sound like you haven't really considered the competition.

Your evidence that "no one uses X" is point number two. It is support for your first claim, which should be upfront. And the fact that you have a list of damned good reasons why no one uses X should help them get on board with your point - that is, after you've made that point, they should be thinking "Yeah, I can see why no one would use X." Then you present the evidence that no one uses X.

And if you don't have a list of damned good reasons why no one uses X, then they shouldn't give you any money.

True, what I wrote initially would seem arrogant in a vacuum. In a fuller discussion, I would cite their main actionable metrics that I've kept track of and show that there is no organic growth occurring. Then I would show what we are doing to make that actionable metric grow.

BTW, I don't waste too much time concerning their success (just a once a month check) especially since my company's success is most important. No one asks "Isn't your company just like X" when you are winning :)

I went to your site Knackeo. I have a tough time seeing what you are doing by going to the site and clicking all workable buttons. I'm sure investors did that too before meeting with you.

A really simple graphical explanation about who pays what might work? I really don't know, but what does peak my interest is that it seems like it will be a variety of crazy stuff rather than another lesson in math.

I liked the comment that you should start your pitch with what others are doing and how you will address a different market or beat them in their own market.

This stuff is obviously really tricky, but I feel like you have something you just are not showing.

Amazing how many people believe the fallacy (that VCs and others perpetuate) that you have to, or even should be, "first." Second movers (and later) rule. Apple, Google, Facebook, Dropbox, many more. Heck, all Facobook and Google do is copy other ideas or via buy companies and copy them that way.

I know Bob Parsons (of GoDaddy fame) isn't the most popular person here, but I'm always inspired by something he said (paraphrased loosely due to recall):

"Don't be afraid to enter a crowded market. Just be better than everybody else."

That's my mantra, personally. The stuff we're doing at Fogbeam Labs competes - to some extent or other - with stuff being done by Jive Software, Alfresco, Yammer, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft and a few other also-rans. But we really don't care, because we intend to simply make better products and kick the holy shit out of Jive Software, Alfresco, Yammer, IBM, Cisco and Microsoft.

Oh yeah, we're a little bit brash too. Ah, well, I always said one of my mindsets was to be "The Mötley Crüe of software companies." \m/

Its not really a fallacy. They just have different goal posts from the entrepreneur. A business that tops out at $500,000 revenue per year is a failure for a VC. This could be a big success for a sole entrepreneur.

Just keep their advice in context.

    I always liked the saying that the early bird gets
    the worm. However, the second mouse gets the cheese.
    Breaking new ground means that you get to be the
    first one out there, but it also means you have no
    paths to follow, no wisdom to heed, and no mentors to
    be mentored by. You have to hack that sucker open.
    It's harder. It really is.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2009/05/first-mover-advant...

My startup is tackling what my former employer attempted to do, but I'm going to do it much better and sell a far superior product. I interfaced with customers and users at my last company. They failed to address the pain points that were brought up. Additionally they failed to pay attention to how the needs of users were evolving. I took it upon myself to address these customers and build something better.

Make sure you don't infringe on any IP's or violate any non-competes. =)

A good nugget of wisdom. I would also add that investors are, by no means, the only people who suffer from this false idea of scarcity.

It's very difficult to encourage first-time entrepreneurs who fall into the belief that their idea is the most valuable asset to their success. You hear it all the time, "I had this great idea, but then I got online and saw that it was taken." This is no way to think when it comes to business.

In my mind it is absolutely critical to understand that markets are always changing and consumer taste is always changing. To be sure, there ARE some formidable challenges in more established and saturated markets, but nothing is guaranteed. There is always room for innovation and elegant solutions.

You can rest assured that if there is no competition, there will be. You can also rest assured that if competition exists, someone is making money. Why not you too?

Before Google there was AltaVista. Carry on.

StackOverflow vs the legacy of Expertsexchange is a great example of this.

Those guys understood the user well and built a great user experience around what had previously been lacklustre at best.

Even though I should know better by now, I still read it as "Expert sex change"

Every entrepreneur has heard "that already exists" a million times. Next time someone says that to me I'll try the smart-ass-ish retort described in this post.

Good article.

But I think that there is also another point to make. It's true that there is often space to be the one idea that delivers in a way that is easy enough to use for the general user to the point of having the chance to be the winning product. But I believe that that kind of answers from investors shows in general a pretty clouded judgement.

I think that when they respond like that, it means that they don't actually like the idea in the first place.

Otherwise, exactly "because" there is some other similar product around, that in general means that there is some level of market validation. And if it's possible to show that those companies are profitable, then it's likely, if they trust your team, that also your company will be profitable.

This should be enough, you don't necessarily need to convince them that you will kill them all, you just need to convince them that you will make money.

Then, after you convinced them, you can keep going with your goal of being the unique winner of that market.

Great points BUT I think saying "checking if the prospective users are already taken" is missing a large part of it. Before Google, I used Altavista. Before Facebook, I used MySpace.

I thought those first services were great but then someone else came and executed so much better that I switch. Accept that fact that you will (almost) never have a truly unique idea and just focus on executing astronomically better than anyone else ever has.

"Drew Houston turned to an investor who dismissed the idea & asked 'Do you use any file sharing service?. The answer was 'No'"

This is GOLD. Drew probably found the competitive edge by figuring out why the investor didn't use those other file sharing service and fixed that investor's pain

It's a nice reply but IMHO it works only if your investors are (a subset of) your typical customer base. Do you think you can use the same approach if you're pitching a new service for, let's say wedding spouses, or even pregnant women, and you're in front of 5 alpha males?

Even if someone has already executed the idea well, the question is whether or not the market is big enough for you to share it. You can always find a niche or a value add that separates you from established competitors.

There are so many ideas that I always knew deep within but then somebody has to spell it out for me to believe. This article is another such reinforcement.

The author just nailed it. I really liked his 24 popular startup that misleads entrepreneurs" - he makes awesome points.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com