"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.
"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.