Ask HN: Solve a problem or build something cool?

> If I want to fulfill my dream of having an app with 100m users, what should I do?

If one of your readers knew that, why would he tell you? Why wouldn't he instead fulfill his own dream?

> However, I know that there are thousands of programmers and entrepreneurs who built cool stuff, but whose products failed and never gained any traction.

Yes, and the difference between those stories and that of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg is ... to a large extent chance.

Well, chance and persistence. Successful people try hundreds or thousands of things until one of them works.

“We now know a thousand ways not to build a light bulb” -- Thomas Alva Edison

My advice would be to focus on the customer and validate. There are so many variables when it comes to big name success stories. It could almost be considered a waste of time to break it down into a success formula, there are just too many variables. The only constant is the fact that they gained traction, which means that customers wanted the product they built. So in this sense, understanding the customer (or potential customer) is one of the most important aspects of success. It is also one of the hardest things to understand/master because in many cases, even the customer does not know what they want. This is why you end up with scenarios where it appears a big success was found "by accident" or "unknowingly"

You should stop making posts about it on HN and start writing code :) I'm being serious. Go!

There is no mystery, no magic sauce, no secret recipe. When your product (or idea) inevitably sucks, it's okay to be depressed. And after you're done with that, try again. You might get lucky. Or you might not. You might be the next Zuckerberg. Or you might not. The only way to find out is to get off Hacker News, Facebook, Reddit, etc. and give it a shot.

Its not a matter of doing, I'm motivated enough to put time in. The problem is what to build.

In any set of ideas, some are more obvious in their usefulness. Some just seem cool. If you look at the biggest consumer apps in their earliest stages, they almost all were ideas that "seemed cool" and lacked obvious usefulness (it was hard to see what problem they solved).

The problem is that way more of those apps fail vs ones that have utility. Hope that clarifies what I'm confused on.

The problem is what to build.

You're over-thinking things. Easiest actionable advice is to build whatever excites you. A great way to do this is to build something that would have at least one user: you. Maybe it's "just" something "cool" or maybe it solves a pressing problem.

Don't get caught up in all of this up-front analysis where you try to build the perfect thing timed with some magical market moment. Instead, build a quick prototype if and when you feel excited about an idea. If your enthusiasm wanes early or you finish it and you realize it's not going to work out, it's OK ... wrap a bow around it and move on to the next thing.

edit: You seem to be looking for a magic bullet in the form of a Paul Graham essay. If so, this may be your best hope: http://www.paulgraham.com/startupideas.html

Pretty much what this gentleman said! :D

>Almost all were ideas that "seemed cool" and lacked obvious usefulness.

This is just plain wrong. I can't think of a single major consumer app that lacked obvious usefulness. There was absolutely nothing cool about Facebook aside from it's ability to solve a problem more effectively than it's predecessors.

> Its not a matter of doing, I'm motivated enough to put time in. The problem is what to build.

You need to wake up to the fact that no one is going to reveal specific steps to personal success. At least, not ones that work. If someone knew a surefire way to achieve success, he would do it himself and leave you out.

Have you read PG's essays?

They are the closest thing you can get to a guideline to success. They make complete sense, and they are insanely valuable. His essays on wealth and startup ideas are absolutely true.

I don't think you understand what I'm asking for.

> Have you read PG's essays? They are the closest thing you can get to a guideline to success.

If they were a guideline to success, he would practice them instead of writing about them, and he would be richer than Bill Gates. There are no guidelines to success.

Success isn't about guidelines, it's about a mixture of chance and a prepared mind. And you prepare your mind by gathering life experience.

> His essays on wealth and startup ideas are absolutely true.

Whoever "PG" is (you don't say), his advice is either useless or is based on a success that owes more to chance than to a winning system.

Do you really think top business executives make 100 million dollars a year by applying deterministic success recipes they read in a book?

> I don't think you understand what I'm asking for.

No, believe me, as a successful programmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer), I can tell you that it is you who don't understand what you're asking for.

>Whoever "PG" is (you don't say),

Paul Graham of Y Combinator (i.e. the accelerator that runs this site). :)

Personally, I think I initially leaned towards "building something cool" - which led me to build something which "I" thought was cool only to realise later that there aren't that many people sharing my same thought.

Above leads to an unprepared development of a product because you don't know whether there is a need/problem out there.

I think that's why it's so important to know the market + customers.

I think if you do find a problem to solve, then you can build something "cool" to solve that problem.

But if you have to compare the two, "solving a problem" seems objective, whereas "cool" is... just... too relative + subjective.

Study and maybe you will get lucky. There are no shortcuts to success.

Study what? I'm not looking for shortcuts, I'm looking for ideas that help consolidate the concepts of 1) building things interesting to you, and 2) solving real problems

> Study what? I'm not looking for shortcuts, I'm looking for ideas that help consolidate the concepts of 1) building things interesting to you, and 2) solving real problems

You're suffering from a misconception -- that a commercial success results from a deterministic sequence of choices and events. This isn't true -- there is a large element of chance involved in modern success stories.

If this were not true, people could apply the known laws of success, become successful, and retire, without ever having to think creatively. In fact, a computer could automatically apply the rules of success without brooking human interference.

Success depends on a combination of creativity, hard work, and chance. No amount of creativity and hard work can eliminate the role played by chance.

> I'm looking for ideas ...

With all respect, if you become successful, it will be because of ideas you discovered on your own.

Fair enough, but I believe there are patterns to success, and I believe there are people's opinions worth reading. PG's essays have mostly been true to my experiences.

Build something people want, have a co-founder... I don't necessarily need to learn those lessons on my own, yet understanding them gives me a vast advantage over someone who doesn't.

> ... I believe there are patterns to success ...

Those patterns are illusions that rely entirely on hindsight. How can I be sure? If there really was a meaningful pattern to success, a computer could carry it out like a recipe, and achieve an automated success each time it was executed.

> Build something people want, have a co-founder... I don't necessarily need to learn those lessons on my own, yet understanding them gives me a vast advantage over someone who doesn't.

Really? "Build something people want" is a lesson? It's a self-evident and self-referential proposition. And the advice to have a co-founder is a silly proposition that's probably wrong more often than it's right. Bill Gates because successful only after getting rid of his co-founder. Steve Jobs because successful only after marginalizing his co-founder. Steve Zuckerberg became successful only after cheating his co-founders. Elon Musk because successful partly by avoiding the advice to have a co-founder.

You don't need the useless advice of sages, you need life experience.

I'm sorry, but I still don't follow where you're trying to go with this. You don't strike me as someone who is particularly well informed with the modern startup, or the principles of turning an idea into a business.

If you were, you'd know that cofounders are important because building a business is difficult, and going the path with a partner has numerous tangible benefits. You'd also know about the pitfalls that kill startups, things people believe to be important but are not, and may get in the way of "building something people want". It is not useless advice, its actually quite good advice that can save you a lot of time and energy. That's why I don't dismiss it, I seek it.

> I'm sorry, but I still don't follow where you're trying to go with this.

You don't understand what I mean when I say there are no secrets of the winners? That success is what success does? How is that either difficult to grasp or in any way controversial?

> You don't strike me as someone who is particularly well informed with the modern startup, or the principles of turning an idea into a business.

So the fact that I have been a successful software developer for decades doesn't count? That, as one example, I turned my idea for a word processor into a product that became a worldwide best-seller doesn't count? You need to show a little respect, given that you're presuming to pontificate about something you've never accomplished, to someone who has.

> If you were, you'd know that cofounders are important ...

You know what? Thinking is important. A respect for evidence is important. Your belief in the value of co-founders is falsified by the history of successful businesses, and I already provided a list of obvious examples where co-founders only got in the way.

> ... going the path with a partner has numerous tangible benefits.

I guess that would explain why the most successful companies were started by individuals, or teams consisting of a leader and followers (which contradicts the meaning of "co-founder").

> You'd also know about the pitfalls that kill startups, things people believe to be important but are not ...

Like believing there are surefire rules for successful startups? The thesis that there is a winning formula is as true in business as it is in war -- it's proven false over and over again. In business and war, whatever strategy you choose, your enemy will adapt to it, which means you have to ... wait for it ... think original thoughts, thoughts that by definition aren't on a list of surefire ways to succeed. Thoughts your adversaries won't anticipate.

> It is not useless advice ...

It is useless advice simply because it's out there -- everyone has it. What you need is not more canned formulas for success, but more life experience and less respect for formulaic "solutions".

"When we started out, I had six rules and no children. Now I have six children and no rules."

> That's why I don't dismiss it, I seek it.

And eventually you will stop wasting your time trying to find the magic potion.

But, contrary to what you say, your writing so far only proves that you are incredibly rigid in your thinking, incapable of hearing anyone's advice, and you already have your mind made up about what constitutes a successful business strategy. You are neither flexible nor open to new ideas. You can't be bothered to listen to the advice of people who've had successes you can only dream of.

This has gotten too personal and no longer has any substance. If you want to reply to get the last word go ahead, but I won't be replying to you any further.

If you presented any worthwhile ideas, I could discuss them. But all you've presented is that success is unmeasurable chaos and therefore any discussion is pointless and awash.

You have such a strong disposition, you even call it magic potions and canned formulas. Your last paragraph describes you as much as me, think about that.

> If you presented any worthwhile ideas, I could discuss them.

Translation: "In my search for surefire rules to success, I am going to avoid any advice from successful people." Sadly noted.

> But all you've presented is that success is unmeasurable chaos ...

And? That's correct. The only problem is that you have the modern equivalent of a religious outlook, i.e. there are rules that, if followed, assure success. It's false, but you can't accept that.

The fact that life is unmeasurable chaos doesn't mean people can't be successful. Those who are successful accept life as it is, not as they would like it to be.

> You have such a strong disposition ...

Just like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, an a thousand other successful people. But you have a belief in authority, in the power of rules, so you don't need to learn anything from successful people. Dream on, pilgrim.

lutusp is the only sage I need :)

First of all you have to be an expert programmer, able to bring in reality your own ideas. Then you will have to do a lot of marketing research and then look at some big companies(like Google, FB,etc.) and try to understand why the became big. Then look at some unsuccessful companies and try to understand why they failed. Hope that helps!

I'd work on redefining the dream. Dreaming of being one-in-a-milllion person can, in the long term, lead to frustration.

that is easy. just pay attention to what you and people do and how they do it. if you find a way to simlify that, you got an idea.