I do not understand the current open book orthodoxy. I have friends that have launched very successful startups that were extremely secretive prior to launch. I do not see why it should be a generalized statement.
If you know how to do due diligence and come from a background in business, why do you need to be open with everyone about what you're working on? Yes, if you're a young kid and green behind the ears, you should probably not be too secretive. But you can talk to a handful of trusted, knowledgeable people without needing to be completely open with everybody you meet.
Does 42 Floors write blog posts about all of their ideas and everything that they are developing? Maybe they do, I don't know. As soon as they have real competitors, they will stop - or maybe they will not and I think that decision will be a function of market position. If 42 Floors has an unshakeable market position, they will be as open as can be. If there is a threat and they've lost considerable marketshare to that threat, they will be less open about the competitive ideas they have going forward IMO.
We're working on a company right now that has competitors that, if they had the eureka moment that we have had, would run with it. There is no reason to even risk exposing them to our ideas. So we speak in very broad terms when we discuss what we are working on.
I am going to do some more reading but I do not understand the mentality of share all of your ideas openly and everything will be okay.
Can someone please ELI5 the logic underlying this orthodoxy?
Thanks and I post this with all due respect. It's not an attack. It's a confused man typing in public.
I should add: we will talk openly with people that we know and trust without a NDA but we are not going to walk around at a conference and spill the beans to strangers. They will be guarded conversations that remain in the realm of generalizations - and probably not even reveal our most exciting concepts.
Why don't stock traders tell other stock traders about positions they want to take before they've built their positions? Yes, I know the barriers are lower but unless you're enough down the road in building your product/position, why would you plant the seed of your idea in somebody else's mind?
I think the key qualifier is: have you done anything yet beyond come up with an idea? If you have not done anything but talk, then being secretive is pretty pointless. If your idea is in motion and will be to market sooner than later, talking about it openly is not a big deal.
1. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Your idea is most likely not nearly as unique or revolutionary as you think. Most people you tell it to will probably be neutral to negative, and the chance that you will tell it to someone that both thinks it is an excellent idea and have the resources in time and money to follow through on it is exceedingly slim.
2. You need the invaluable input from other people. Maybe your idea is crap, maybe it has already been tried, maybe no one is prepared to pay to solve that particular problem, maybe someone else is already doing whatever you want to do successfully and are years ahead of you. You better get to know these things before you spend 18 months coding in your basement.
And both those arguments apply to people that don't know how to do due diligence or lack significant experience in the industry that they are addressing. Somebody could be working on your idea in total stealth and unveil it tomorrow. It's impossible to have perfect due diligence in a non-transparent world. Yes, if you lack experience, you should definitely talk to a lot of people, especially prospective users.
What we are working on currently is a spin off of an existing company that we already run and we've spoken to numerous other users about it. It's a solution to a common problem in a particular industry that nobody has appropriately addressed. Until we launch, I do not see the wisdom of telling strangers what we are working on. There are existing very large companies that have certain pieces in place and if they had the insight that we do, could devote resources and beat us to the punch. Sometimes there is value in blindsiding your competition.
I simply disagree with complete openness as a universal rule. Maybe because of egos it's better to be open more often than not but it should be a carefully considered modus operandi.
We will be launching within 6 months and already are alpha-ing with users. You can take a measured approach to openness. It's not just complete openness with everyone you meet or complete cryptic, insular stealth mode.
If you know how to do due diligence and come from a background in business, why do you need to be open with everyone about what you're working on? Yes, if you're a young kid and green behind the ears, you should probably not be too secretive. But you can talk to a handful of trusted, knowledgeable people without needing to be completely open with everybody you meet.
Does 42 Floors write blog posts about all of their ideas and everything that they are developing? Maybe they do, I don't know. As soon as they have real competitors, they will stop - or maybe they will not and I think that decision will be a function of market position. If 42 Floors has an unshakeable market position, they will be as open as can be. If there is a threat and they've lost considerable marketshare to that threat, they will be less open about the competitive ideas they have going forward IMO.
We're working on a company right now that has competitors that, if they had the eureka moment that we have had, would run with it. There is no reason to even risk exposing them to our ideas. So we speak in very broad terms when we discuss what we are working on.
I am going to do some more reading but I do not understand the mentality of share all of your ideas openly and everything will be okay.
Can someone please ELI5 the logic underlying this orthodoxy?
Thanks and I post this with all due respect. It's not an attack. It's a confused man typing in public.