Ask HN: Do forced startup ideas work? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Do forced startup ideas work?

13 pointsdereking21 comments

Let me begin by clarifying the term 'forced' - in this context I would describe it as any idea that was artificially realized against a criteria, rather than an idea that naturally evolved as a need to solve a problem. For example;

Forced: There is a lot of growth in X market, lets think of something new within that area

Natural: Booking taxis is such a pain, wouldn't it be nice for them to see my GPS coordinates - Uber is conceptualized.

That being said, how many of you have successfully built a startup based on an idea that was retrofitted to a set of criteria's (eg. Paul Graham's startups we'd like to fund essay) rather than as a solution to any of your problems.

Is a natural idea more likely to succeed than an artificial one?

View on HN

When shit hits the fan and life sucks because things just are not going right for a time, passion, execution, belief and determination are what pulls you though. If you don't have those items about the idea, then it doesn't matter how the idea came about.

As for what historically has been more successful, I don't know of any real metric that defines it. But I'd say from perception I have formed over the years, Natural ideas seem to win in terms of companies with a long term positive outcome.

Very true, I have always had the same perception maybe even treated it as an undisputed cliché in every startup pitch.

But as time goes on, I seem to be getting more cynical to the perception and start believing a lot of the ideas are just more successful because of the 'market analysis' done before hand (with the exception of trend-makers, for example AirBnB)

Look at Blippar for instance, the startup that triggered this realization when I heard about it.

Augmented Reality has existed for quite some time, there have been countless applications, from real estate to navigation, yet many of similar start-ups have faded as time went on, but they on the other hand have remained due to targeting a cash rich market (Advertising) even though it solves no problem.

I know the above statement is quite simplistic, and surely it does not make the Blippar team justice for all the effort, strategies, etc that they employed. However, the idea of (what I perceive to be artificial) and yet has been so successful in such a short period of time is a bit of an eye opener.

Agreed.

AirBnB and similar companies from that cohort are random occurrences but company building isn't as new of a thing as we think so there are millions of other businesses to use in the sample.

The guys enterprising on the silk road (the old one) weren't chasing after some "I woke up one day and had a vision that everyone in the west was wearing silk". They were probably just trying to execute on a market opportunity that was large enough to risk their life for.

"Narrative driven" startups are easier for people to understand, everyone wants Odysseus to come out on top after all, but is it a factor for success?

I dont think so.

As an entrepreneur its my job to see market opportunities that others do not.

How I come to that realization is irrelevant.

I get what you mean.

I think the Natural idea that sucks (has no market or solves no need) will still suck regardless of how much passion and energy that you put into them, maybe just suck a little less. To me an idea still has to either have an existing market, or a definable market with a way to monetize the product/service. Otherwise what is the point, other than if you want a lifestyle business?

From my experience, it seems like when advertising products/services is involved (like Blippar), companies and investors do seem more willing to toss some money at the less defined markets and wackier ideas and see if they stick or create change. So at least from the very tiny bit I read about Blippar, my initial impression is that is where they fit in today. Effectively, a concept that got tossed a little money to see if they can make something stick with consumers and test out some technology that might benefit Qualcom (assuming Crunchbase is right about who their seed investment was from). And who knows how they are paying bills otherwise, maybe it is with significant market consulting to learn about problems which also gives them more runway prolonging an idea that is doomed to die (not saying they will, just a point).

To your other point, I think timing is critical too, there have been some really good ideas that were just to early for the market to accept, yet 10 years later a startup tries it and is successful. Happens to really well funded projects from large investors and firms, e.g. Microsoft, Apple etc.

Your chances are seriously increased if you are addressing a real and validated market need such as "Booking taxis is such a pain" and you get the method to solve the problem right e.g. "wouldn't it be nice for them to see my GPS coordinates".

In any case, conceptualizing is merely the beginning of building a business around an idea.

A really interesting question. I think that artificial ideas are the way to go, provided that you can find a way to develop a strong interest in the subject somehow. In my personal life I tend towards minimalism, but in my professional life I really enjoy the simple act of making the numbers go up, so it works for me.

In the recent past I've found good success in the birthday ecards space, and the astrology space, and both are "artificial". Right now I'm exploring religious themed apps in Android and iOS, and that seems to be going really well too, even though I am not an evangelical christian.

Anyway, without strong interest in a topic you cannot succeed. But it is possible to develop an interest in a subject ex post facto.

It doesn't really matter because epiphanies dont exist.

People often times think that ideas just come randomly while you are walking down the street. In reality good ideas come when you are executing on something and in the thick of it you see an angle.

People may argue that you need passion for a startup idea, but you alway end up falling in love with an idea over time, not from day one. Arguably if you are in love with an idea from day one its dangerous because you are likely to miss an angle or clear warning signs that you are doomed.

You touched on another opened wound - "falling in love with the idea over time"

For me I experienced the opposite. A while back we were working on and idea which we believed to have a lot of potential and opportunities to do something of actual positive impact in society.

Long story short, as time went on, I personally started feeling like it was not that great of an idea, like if it would be awesome someone would have done it by now, etc. For other circumstances the team drifted apart geographically and the startup slowly reached development stagnation.

Not that long after, 2-3 very similar ideas emerged in the market - one of them from a startup's partnership with PayPal.

Needless to say, I both felt sad and happy. The first is pretty self explanatory, while the second felt like a nice validation pat on the back.

But I digress...

Thanks for the comment, really insightful.

This is just part of the game --its happened to me.

I had a company that had some investment $$ and realized that it wouldn't work like I thought it would. So I did the responsible thing and found a buyer so that I could get my investors out of the deal.

I think the data shows forced ideas are less likely to succeed. The reason is you are less likely to understand the problem (you may or may not have lived it). You are also thus less likely to have any domain advantage over anyone else, or knowledge of any secrets. It may also affect your conviction; you may be less likely to believe in your idea when times get tough, because it is not deeply rooted in your experiences.

The MSFT crew didn't set out to make windows, they took advantage of a market opportunity by buying DOS from one guy and selling it to another.

Billions of dollars in value is made by people who analyze markets looking for an angle.

Good point - my same process of thought https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9080740

No doubt, but how they were able to see the opportunity for an operating system stemmed from their work with the altair. They found these opportunities because they loved computers. They didn't say, "this looks like a promising space", and then proceeded to learn about programming. They were already at the forefront of a rapidly changing industry.

I do very much agree with "you are less likely to understand the problem". That being said however, the contrary also appears true - I doubt the founders of Uber knew much about the taxi industry for example, but yes, they experienced the problem.

"... or knowledge of any secrets"

Did you read Zero to One? :)

"you may be less likely to believe in your idea when times get tough, because it is not deeply rooted in your experiences."

This is by far the point that resonates most with me from all the comments. Fair dos - point taken.

Everyone on HN has read Zero to One :D

tru dat :)

Both are very likely to fail. Execution and luck swamp any factors stemming from missionary versus doggy style conception.

> Both are very likely to fail

Applies if the execution and luck of the founders is rather poor - something that will normally be true in all cases.

My question focuses on the likelihood of success based solely on the method of idea acquisition.

To a first approximation: zero in both cases.

It's not a place for meaningful optimization. See JustinTV.

What does 'It's not a place for meaningful optimization' mean?

It matters less than cashflow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com