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.
I've been through 3 start ups from fruition to close, with the highs and lows in-between playing merry hell with my blood pressure.
At this point in my life I'd kill for a smart business man. Nerds, I do not need. I'm a nerd, I know plenty of other nerds, and if I needed to I know where to go to hire nerds and how to evaluate their performance.
What I need is a good business man. I need someone who is an absolute genius at PR, brilliant at direct selling, and knows how to wheedle her way into the appointment book of a Big-Co CEO when we need to make a product deal.
You can't make a good General in boot camp, but a lot of business types today rush into startups armed with an MBA or BBA. Wars produce Generals for the next wars. What you're looking for is somebody in a startup (not necessarily a founder) right now who won't be ready to be your co-founder until they have gone through a big war on their own. Get to know a few of these people and one day over beers and "would have", "should have", "could have" stories of their current or past startup you will find your business co-founder.
Let me add to your excellent comment this from my experience at Wharton. There are people who go and get their MBA or BS etc who were liberal arts majors or who never thought about business until they decided one day to go to business school. Then there are people (and I'm sure you know these people) who have lived and breathed business since they were 4. In many cases they came from business families and it's part of their makeup. They were always angling to make money in high school and college and did things on the side to earn a buck whatever way they could. Those are the types that you should try to have on your team if possible. They have a seat of the pants feel for business and it's in their blood. Going through business school I was absolutely amazed at the number of people in the classroom (with 1600 SAT's at the time the highest score) who didn't understand some really basic business concepts.
This is not to say in any way shape or form that it doesn't exist in someone who decided one day to pursue business of course it does and there are many examples of those that are super successful. But normally they are not successful out of the box without, as you would say, a few wars under their belt. The person with a business upbringing has a head start.
I left commercial real estate to enter an MBA program thinking everyone would be "like me", extremely interested in business. I was shocked when I got there and found just a small group who got it. Then I went to a major tech company in the Valley (finance internship) and was even more shocked at how few of them got it.
I got an offer but turned it down to work at an asset management company. Finally for the first time in my life I am surrounded by people who get it. (60% don't have MBAs)
An MBA doesn't mean anything except that the person has gone through a 2 year degree and knows a lot of random business stuff (supply and demand, being a monopoly is good, knows how to model a DCF etc.).
That being said, an MBA doesn't mean the person is terrible either. In general, an MBA allows the person to grow a lot, gain some great relationships and helps them communicate with other business people. Lumping all MBAs together is like lumping all programmers together.
Most business people are not great, most programmers are not great. see 20/80 rule.
"Lumping all MBAs together is like lumping all programmers together"
People do this with most things (they think all doctors carry around information about everything in their profession and every specialty).
This is why I get a laugh when I hear from someone (people who chuckle about their computer stupidity) that someone, a friend, "knows so much about computers". I mean how do you know how much someone knows if you don't know about it yourself?
MBA programs are not meant for people with a business background or business undergrad degree. The courses are entry level fundamentals courses which are probably easier than the undergrad equivalents. The degree is most useful for people from non-business fields.
I love this little snippet: "wars produce generals for the next wars." It runs contrary to the idea that we may have in tech of producing a "general" by graduating from an elite MBA school, for example. Look for the quiet achievers and the track records, not for bombast and elitism and silver tongues alone.
Exactly. Business people are what make a business go around. It's not always about product, but also about being able to sell the product. Programming is becoming ubiquitous and available around every corner of the world. If I want to build a real business...not just a lifestyle business, I need people who can sell the crap out the product. People who negotiate killer deals and high profit margins. Those are the people who make the difference in a startup. Yes, the product matters...but if you have a business person who can sell icicles to eskimos, your business will be far better off in the long run. Not to mention, they will be able to find the capital so your business isn't underfunded while you watch your competition crush 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.
It's not completely hopeless. There are some smart nerds who want to collect a paycheck every week, sit at a desk, and work on interesting problems. Sometimes 2 and 3 are optional.
That's not necessarily obliviousness, just a case of recognizing your strengths.
True enough, but I think it applies to a lot more cities than people might think.
Many of the developers I talk to in Ann Arbor, for example, are working on 2-3 projects in their spare time, and are constantly being asked to work on more. Ann Arbor isn't exactly one of the big 3 web dev cities, but it still is extremely competitive.
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.
Yeah, it's exactly because of the mentality of "ideas are worthless" that has dominated Silicon Valley that there's such a profound lack of imagination in today's technology world. It's perfectly fine to build things because they're "cool," and it's equally OK to follow the herd with some social analytics bullshit startup or an Instagram meets Path for Video type of thing, but know that when you want to do those things the idea is worthless not because ideas are worthless, but because that idea is worthless - and you can still be successful without a worthy idea.
We're quick to jump on ideas without implementation as being worthless, but is it because it's so nonsensical to have an implementation without an idea? If we could have such a thing, we'd probably deem that pretty worthless too: a software application that doesn't actually do anything in particular, just kind of meanders around, even if it's very well coded and documented.
Yes, but complaining about this is like complaining about the cost and inconvenience of getting vaccinated for polio: If the cure seems worse than the disease, it might be because you don't clearly remember what the disease was like.
I assure you that however clued in we all are on HN, the OP is right: The notion of the "top-secret killer idea for a website" is alive and well outside of geek culture, having captured much of the aura surrounding its much older cousin, the "brilliant idea for a movie that will make me rich in Hollywood unless it gets STOLEN". As a web-publishing consultant I had several people ask me to sign NDAs in the first half hour of the sales process, sometimes before they would even tell me why they called, because they were terribly frightened that their brilliant concept ("It's a review site. For local hobby shops. On the internet.") was going to get "stolen" by someone who would go on to reap the millions that were rightfully theirs.
> a huge collection of validated ideas really is valuable
What definition of "validated ideas" are we using?
My definition is "customers are spending real money on product".
There are other valuable points before that occurs but they're less valuable and much of the "value add" to get to that point consists of design and development, not biz dev, deals, and so on.
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.
I think you are learning what a lot of developers end up learning. There is a big difference between having an idea and actually having the skill to do Product Management. I think you can determine relatively quickly in a meetup who actually has these skills by questioning them deeply about their idea. Have they actually thought about the implementation. Do they understand the limitations that technology may impose? What problems do they anticipate? etc.
"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.
The title of this post should really be "your idea is worthless if you can't execute on it." When you have the technical skills to implement ideas, they become incredibly valuable: witness google, hotmail, youtube, facebook....etc.
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.
Oh god no. One engineer, one salesperson, maybe. One engineer, one designer. Skills are always worth a split, but the worth of the initial idea decreases at least linearly over time, and a 50-50 split based on that is laughable. If it gets considered in the equity split at all, the idea is worth 5% pre-money maximum.
Nobody really calls themselves an "idea person" unless they actually have no real-world entrepreneurial experience to bring the table. It's like wrapping yourself in a giant red flag that says "I'M A USELESS LEECH".
Did Mark Zuckerberg not conceive of the idea of Facebook?
There was no "idea person" behind Facebook or Twitter. They were founded by the engineers who came up with the idea and built the product. Nearly all successful technology companies are founded by engineers.
>Engineers do not gather in a room and summon ideas to their pre-existing code.
Everything we build is on top of pre-existing stuff.If there was no mysql/php,there would be no facebook.If there was no OpenBSD,there would be no iOS.If there was no dns there would be no Google.
The mentality that anything is possible and you just need a nerd to do it is exactly the reason why I have a hard time working with non-technical people!
I didn't state that engineers don't use pre-existing code. I stated that they don't summon ideas to it. They have to be creative enough to come up with them on their own, or partner up with someone they know well who is just as capable and also has great ideas. That has nothing to do with layers of software abstraction and building upon them. If no new ideas were in play, we would continue using all the technologies you just mentioned, in their current frozen 2011 state, forever.
And let me just emphasize that engineering skill is invaluable and an absolute necessity. I also didn't state that anything is possible. I'm am simply tired of this 'ideas are worthless' sentiment because it is ridiculous. It should be 'an idea without the ability execute on it is just an idea' just as 'execution is impossible without an idea'.
And in that regard the idea of Google is the direct derivative of the idea of DNS....the idea of Facebook is a direct derivative of the idea of having personal computers that can exchange TCP Packets.
You have used Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey to make your argument.Please remember that these guys are among the best engineers of our generation.
As a matter of fact the ideas of almost all of our current technologies came from engineers and not MBAs.(If you think Steve Jobs was not an engineer please read his bio!).Forget computers...Even Henry Ford was one of the best engineers of his generation.
Most of my best implemented ideas (the word implemented is very important!) came to me when I asked myself the simple question...what can I do to help people with all the code that I already have (code = My own code and Open sourced stuff) ?..If there is something small that can complete a great idea I go ahead and code it!
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.
Can a code base be beautiful if it doesn't solve the actual business problem?
I'd argue that it cannot and that you will not be able to write beautiful code until you understand the business and what needs it has. Developers that understand the business will focus on what is important.
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.
Having a good idea is very important to the success of a startup. However, their market value is lessened by the fact that the supply of "good ideas" greatly exceeds the demand. Between the idea, the talent, and the elbow grease, the idea is the least likely of the three to be the bottleneck. An idea is like a computer. It's essential to the success of your project, but they're not that hard to come by, a lot of people have them, and obtaining one is probably the least difficult part of the process. Ideas aren't worthless, but they are worth less.
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.
The point is to not become as good as a smart nerd, because you'll be playing catch up your whole life. The point is that you need to show that you know enough about your idea on the technical side that you can communicate effectively with your partner. Knowing some basic principles of coding goes a long way in that regard, and it also shows that you are willing to become interested in things outside your level of expertise -- even if you aren't willing to become a master at them.
I've sat down with many people who needed a technical person to implement their idea. But as they were talking it should have became immediately clear to anyone with technical knowledge why their idea was flawed in fundamental ways. But these people never delved into that side, so they figured programmers could somehow perform miracles and make it work, and had unrealistic ideas of deadlines, money that would be needed, etc. As a programmer, you don't want to have to deal with correcting many false assumptions someone is making and any others they will make as you build the product, when there are plenty of "technical enough" entrepreneurs who know whats possible and whats not.
I think we are in agreement here. My greatest strength as the "idea" guy comes from the fact that I was a developer at one point. I am technical enough to ground my ideas in reality.
The advice I did give to one person who asked me was to go get a job at a tech company. You don't have to code, but you have to know how technical products come together so that you can have an intelligent conversation with your future technical cofounder.
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.
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.
This is very hard for non-nerds. Imagine simply not knowing what Github is, or why you would look there, or having no concept that "Java EE backed by Oracle" is a different beast than "Ruby/Rails in front of PostGres". Imagine if one of your golf buddies knows a guy who knows a guy who is really "good at computers" -- whatever that means -- after all, that guy completely turned around their dot-net application and the seven VB developers in his department.
You've heard of Oracle, right? Microsoft? They're big. You own their stock. You know Linux is hot! Should you take the chance? Ask your nerd friends, like that guy you know who is an MCSE at a "Certified Solutions Provider." He'll know.
Simply knowing who to ask is a matter of chance, I think.
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.
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).
Good luck with that....and please....if you can make Bingo Card Creator with your free time I would consider you a highly skilled technical person...Most "idea-guys" have trouble making their wordpress blogs!
My point is not that you don't have to know how to code to make Bingo Card Creator, it's that you could outsource its development to odesk and get it for $50.
"Smart nerds" are useless in most cases. They're interchangeable. Marketing and finding a niche are far, far more important.
Based on your comments, I'm going to guess that you've never run any sort of technically demanding business. I absolutely guarantee you that you wouldn't get something comparable back from ODesk, because you don't know how to spec out what he's got going on under the hood there. It takes a smart nerd to do that effectively.
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!
I know a guy who majored in econ and attended bschool. He got into finance, and started writing code for finance. He got so into coding that he left finance, worked for various startups and big sv corps as a serious dev, and eventually got another ms in engineering. He's a very rare type though, this is a very unusual path. So overall id agree with you, though there are a few exceptions.
I too agree with you....Your example does prove that it is possible from a finance background!...but I would still point out that your guy had a sound mathematical mind whereas most MBA's and "idea guys" run the opposite direction when they hear any advanced math.
I work with a guy with an MBA in statistics and operations management. I don't know if he's "rockstar" programmer, but he writes his own Perl and shell scripts and SQL queries, I've heard he's pretty skilled in SAS programming, and I've watched him dig into some Javascript to figure out exactly why a particular A/B test was giving funny results.
Let me clarify what I mean by "rockstar programmer"....A rockstar programmer is someone who is orders of magnitude more productive that the average programmer of his generation....Someone who can build technologies himself that can disrupt entire industries...Some notable examples in this category are Linus Torvalds,Mark Zuckerberg,Doug Cutting,Mark Andressen etc....Now show me someone in this category from a purely business school background!
I am not talking about the business people who want to dig into Javascript (Although I have a lot of respect for the guy you are talking about).I am talking about someone who can build a technology like javascript.
well...I think creating a site like facebook in your dorm room as a college student and scaling it is significantly challenging (you are competing against myspace!)...but thats just my opinion!
But yeah I see what you are saying...Doug and Linus are pure technical problem solvers whereas Mark solved business and technical problems.
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.
"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.
You might have something interesting to say here but it is hard to tell because of the rhetorical contortions, the extensive listings, the amplifications. All these may make good play, but make no good HN comment.
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.