I'm deeply skeptical of anyone who wants to start a startup. I'm very respectful of people who have great ideas. One thing about startup first is that it ends up with a lot of duplication. Granted Google and Facebook were duplicates. And so it's fitting that they are in essence aggregators.
But I'm an engineer (and not a VC) and I have a natural inclination towards the Woz approach. The magic happens in the process of work. It doesn't happen in office hours at an incubator.
I think a more useful article would be Ideas For Founder Teams. But that's some hard thinking.
It's true that a lot of startups have, well, a "startup vibe" at first. I many cases that seems to disappear as soon as external capital is poured in :-(
I met with a "startup" founder who wanted to "disrupt" hiring. His idea was to provide a platform for hiring which would be audio/video based and would use some magic to connect companies and people. As if parsing a resume wasn't enough and like recruiters don't know how to use Skype. All the time we were talking, he was explaining more about "disruption" rather than talking concretely about the idea itself.
Sam Altman, in the startup course in Stanford said a nice quote, " don't start a startup just because you want to start one, work on something and if it clicks, then start a startup"
> As if parsing a resume wasn't enough and like recruiters don't know how to use Skype
Actually, it isn't and no, they often don't. The way many recruiters behave makes you think they're not allowed to use the internet at all.
Recruiting or rather the market for expertise is broken. It's not a problem of technology though but one of cargo cult practices and entrenched middlemen.
If you respect Woz, you should also know that Apple was not the only company that was in the personal computing space when they started. They were just passionate about what they were doing and they did the best job at it.
I myself hate the cliche "Ideas are worth nothing it's all about execution", but at the same time I also have no respect for people who think they have the best ideas but never execute on them.
Ideas do matter, except that most ideas are too abstract, and you won't realize if your idea works or not unless you start it. That's why "idea people" with no execution are never respected by people who actually do stuff. Of course, that is, when we're talking about startups. if you're an actual philosopher who theorizes abstract things, you are an idea person and I totally respect philosophers
You are correct that Apple was a duplicate. At a certain level, just about all companies are. Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land. Same with movies. Do you really want to see something truly original because you will recognize nothing.
However, having no respect for people who think they have the best ideas but never execute on them is going a bit far. Arthur C Clarke wrote an article
It calculated the geostationary belt and showed that it could be applied to communications satellites. No patent, no possibility of exploiting it. Basically a really interesting blog post before there were blogs.
So I give credit to great ideas that are short of startup potential. What I yawn at is startups not based on great ideas. I'll grant that there are successful startups out there that aren't based on great ideas, just execution. But they don't interest me. So fundamentally, that's a personal evaluation.
"Great idea" is an extremely subjective thing, and I don't even mean it in a loose sense.
Many people think great ideas are things that are so obvious like flying cars or fixing cancer, fixing aging, going to mars, fixing racism, fixing global warming, etc. They are great ideas, but at the same time they are all just obvious ideas. If something is obviously a great idea and has great market potential, it would be stupid for a large company to be not working on it. That's why these ideas are mostly tackled by already large companies and almost never by startups. In fact I have never seen a startup that succeeded by working on an idea that was already obvious to the masses, nor have I seen world-changing come out of this. Most groundbreaking ideas started out as something you would think is not one of those "great ideas". Use the same Apple example, most people didn't think personal computers would change the world, they just thought it was some nerdy tech thing that would stay as a fringe culture. That's why IBM got into the game late.
That said, I am not disagreeing with you that philosophers are bad, I already mentioned that. I use the term "philosophers" loosely here. For philosophers, theorizing is execution, it's not like they can build something. And I totally appreciate thought experiments.
>I myself hate the cliche "Ideas are worth nothing it's all about execution"
I strongly agree, simply because I have worked at failed startups that executed well on bad ideas.
And yes, in reality you can't cleanly separate idea from execution. How much of Apple's success was transforming the idea "affordable personal computer" to "reimagine technology to become ubiquitous and indispensible to everyone on the planet"?
Anyone can think of ideas. I'm sure we've all got entire documents with lists of ideas we never followed up on.
The hard part is finding opportunities to create value for others (making stuff people actually want). Generally speaking, people already have the stuff they want that they can have. Now, I'm sure Paul Graham would say people's desires are infinite and there's still many unmet needs and wants. For All the stuff they don't have but want: well, there are major barriers to entry for those business ideas (flying cars), the exception being those ideas that were just recently enabled by another innovation (a Rare treat indeed). I think we've had this conversation before....
And, as he said in another post: you've got to be at the forefront of any industry. Live in the future. Meaning, use the latest tools and gizmos of any particular industry in order to help understand where things are and get a feel for them.
Adding to that I would say it's a little bit luck with an eye for disruption.
Look at slack. We thought people had all the stuff they wanted but slack came out of nowhere. We thought skype/sms/gtalk was good enough and came WhatsApp. And snapchat, now it might look like a neat idea, but imagine that couple of years back.
There is always room for disruption. Few categories of products are almost like fashion. There is no additional value they are bringing to the table. And there is no logical reasoning or no proper prediction possible on what becomes the next big thing.
Then there is this room for replicating similar succuccessful ideas in emerging markets. Hundreds of ideas waiting to be explored in hundreds of markets.
Then the unexplored beast of enterprise software. Not the makrt of consumer products rebranded as 'for' enterprise but actual tools or services that improves existing ones, many of which are decades old. But you need to be deep inside the domain to disrupt here.
And of course finally the innovative ones. Which are the hardest but perhaps the most publicised making an impression that startups are all about innovative ideas.
Nooooo we didn't. Skype is garbage (on Linux and in general), sms is fast and unreliable and expensive (to the consumers) but effectively free (to the gate keepers), gtalk was cancelled in favor of hangouts, which has lots of room for improvement (both in general and for organizations). Snapchat and WhatsApp are priming for their big sell outs where they transform into some nightmarish shitware/spyware/adware. IRC is cool for underground hacking circles, but without a good GUI and reliable offline messages, IRC is dead on arrival if you need non-techies involved in a serious work environment.
If anything, this market has been screaming and begging for disruption.
We can often misunderstood the value of ideas.
Like you mentioned - many people have thought about flying cars, internet or space travel. That doesn't make us smart or a visionary.
Ideas need to have a possible course of action.
Everything else is just a wishlist or a desire.
I actually think there's still potentially room for a new phone OS, though maybe only just barely.
iOS is in dire need of new UX patterns. Take the text selector for example, which felt like a stopgap when it was made and hasn't been changed since its release. There a ton of papercuts like this in iOS.
I don't use Android regularly so I can't speak as much to its weaknesses, but I believe there's a lot of room for improvement there as well, e.g. app discovery and distribution
There's a photo floating around of Paris Hilton holding 5 phones. It's comical but I think it also shows what's lacking. It'd be great if phones had sandboxed profiles, completely isolated from one another in true multiuser fashion. There are a lot of opportunities either for greenfield ideas or adopting existing computing ideas to phones. You might find at least enough market for a niche use capable of supporting a small to medium business
iOS is in dire need of new UX patterns. Take the text selector for example, which felt like a stopgap when it was made and hasn't been changed since its release.
I'm not familiar with touch alternatives to iOS' text selector. Do you know of better ones, or have ideas how it can be improved?
I have to admit that I'm not, but I do think that iOS's is deeply flawed, especially considering its snap to behavior which has no overrides or disambiguation for where to snap. I'm not a UX person and my mind doesn't naturally work on that domain, and yet I'm confident that UX people could improve the process.
One concrete idea comes to mind - why not a modal dialog that only has selection abilties. If the default behavior works, then use it and if not, move up to the modal
I'd love to hear more about your idea. Care to expand with an example of how it would work? What kind of overrides are you thinking of? What would the role of the modal dialog be?
A modal is the kludgiest way to accomplish it, but say you only wanted a portion of the text in the selected box. The modal would have dedicated selection inputs so that you could zoom and carve the block up. Frequently websites lock the viewport which makes it much harder to get the text you want.
Just in general I think the snap behavior needs to be massively overhauled
We need a full fledged OS for the mobile, despite the fact that Steve Jobs created iOS so that phone softwares won't be "baby software" we are still not seeing many apps which are mobile centered, they build the webapp first and as an after thought the mobile app comes into place.
I want my phone OS and my laptop OS to be in sync, I want to program using my phone and many many more features. But both iOS and Android lock us out of the real stuff by making locking things up. Just imagine how the computing landscape would have been if Linux wasn't open and as locked up as the "FOSS" android. We'd be still using and cursing Windows3.4
1. " I want to program using my phone and many many more features."
Yes--and yes! I actually don't have an activated smart phone. Partially, it's the monthly data cost--that just irks me. I think there's collusion going on. But a bigger part of me is I don't want to get used to just receiving information. I want to work on that little device. I want to build.
2. I want to see data costs go down. I would like to see more companies combining wifi, with cell signals. Someting along the line of what Republic Wireless is trying to pull off. Actually, I might just sign up for Republic wireless tomorrow. I think any smart phone that radically brings down monthly costs will be huge. Those $50 monthly phone bills are rediculious, at this point in the game.
Frankly, people overstate the lockdown-ness of Android itself. Maybe your specific model was particularly locked down, but introducing a new OS won't solve that problem.
I didn't say we need a new OS now, we need existing OSes to be a bit more open. Have you tried programming on an Android phone? I have, the experience is horrible. I used termux which is a full blown linux terminal. I installed python and wrote a few python script and later Go programs also. Wasn't able to get dependencies for Go programs because of root issue plus terrible experience with typing things on mobile. Maybe I didn't have the right tools.
I want all my OSes to be able to talk to each other, when I write code on my phone, I should be able to transfer it to my machine. There is a new project which aims to do this, mobile OS and PC OS are the same in it.
I've written code (mainly bug fixes) on my Android tablet just fine. Used a terminal with Vim, then used SGit to commit and push my code to Gitlab. I've also written Python scripts to use in Tasker.
Yes, typing is a pain, but that's an ergonomics problems, not a lack of openness. I got a cheap BT keyboard, which works fine on Android. You can also use a plain USB keyboard with an OTG cable, though power might be an issue.
What's wrong with rooting stock Android? I've done it multiple times to my Nexus, works fine. Nowadays it's just a matter of plugging the device and clicking a few buttons on a GUI.
Of course, there are devices which aren't as open as the Nexuses. But that's not a lack of openness by the OS.
56 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadThe idea is to have more authenticity from everyone... Just a thought.
Still too many?
- "Rubber up 'bruv", in the UK.
- "Rubber a brother" for the US.
Expand to CAAS (contraceptives as a service) when applying for second round, pre-ipo.
However with a premium delivery purchase, the drone will also work as an 'applicator'.
But I'm an engineer (and not a VC) and I have a natural inclination towards the Woz approach. The magic happens in the process of work. It doesn't happen in office hours at an incubator.
I think a more useful article would be Ideas For Founder Teams. But that's some hard thinking.
I somewhat think a bootstrapped-profitable business might be a better route though, if you can manage that.
And you can only learn it by running a company...
So if you want to be a "Professional Company Runner", you got to start somewhere.
I mean its as legitimate as being a professional programmer or a professional artist, etc.
Sam Altman, in the startup course in Stanford said a nice quote, " don't start a startup just because you want to start one, work on something and if it clicks, then start a startup"
Actually, it isn't and no, they often don't. The way many recruiters behave makes you think they're not allowed to use the internet at all.
Recruiting or rather the market for expertise is broken. It's not a problem of technology though but one of cargo cult practices and entrenched middlemen.
I myself hate the cliche "Ideas are worth nothing it's all about execution", but at the same time I also have no respect for people who think they have the best ideas but never execute on them.
Ideas do matter, except that most ideas are too abstract, and you won't realize if your idea works or not unless you start it. That's why "idea people" with no execution are never respected by people who actually do stuff. Of course, that is, when we're talking about startups. if you're an actual philosopher who theorizes abstract things, you are an idea person and I totally respect philosophers
However, having no respect for people who think they have the best ideas but never execute on them is going a bit far. Arthur C Clarke wrote an article
EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL RELAYS: Can Rocket Stations Give World-wide Radio Coverage? http://lakdiva.org/clarke/1945ww/1945ww_oct_305-308.html
It calculated the geostationary belt and showed that it could be applied to communications satellites. No patent, no possibility of exploiting it. Basically a really interesting blog post before there were blogs.
So I give credit to great ideas that are short of startup potential. What I yawn at is startups not based on great ideas. I'll grant that there are successful startups out there that aren't based on great ideas, just execution. But they don't interest me. So fundamentally, that's a personal evaluation.
Many people think great ideas are things that are so obvious like flying cars or fixing cancer, fixing aging, going to mars, fixing racism, fixing global warming, etc. They are great ideas, but at the same time they are all just obvious ideas. If something is obviously a great idea and has great market potential, it would be stupid for a large company to be not working on it. That's why these ideas are mostly tackled by already large companies and almost never by startups. In fact I have never seen a startup that succeeded by working on an idea that was already obvious to the masses, nor have I seen world-changing come out of this. Most groundbreaking ideas started out as something you would think is not one of those "great ideas". Use the same Apple example, most people didn't think personal computers would change the world, they just thought it was some nerdy tech thing that would stay as a fringe culture. That's why IBM got into the game late.
That said, I am not disagreeing with you that philosophers are bad, I already mentioned that. I use the term "philosophers" loosely here. For philosophers, theorizing is execution, it's not like they can build something. And I totally appreciate thought experiments.
I strongly agree, simply because I have worked at failed startups that executed well on bad ideas.
And yes, in reality you can't cleanly separate idea from execution. How much of Apple's success was transforming the idea "affordable personal computer" to "reimagine technology to become ubiquitous and indispensible to everyone on the planet"?
I had too many ideas to write them all down.
The hard part is finding opportunities to create value for others (making stuff people actually want). Generally speaking, people already have the stuff they want that they can have. Now, I'm sure Paul Graham would say people's desires are infinite and there's still many unmet needs and wants. For All the stuff they don't have but want: well, there are major barriers to entry for those business ideas (flying cars), the exception being those ideas that were just recently enabled by another innovation (a Rare treat indeed). I think we've had this conversation before....
And, as he said in another post: you've got to be at the forefront of any industry. Live in the future. Meaning, use the latest tools and gizmos of any particular industry in order to help understand where things are and get a feel for them.
Look at slack. We thought people had all the stuff they wanted but slack came out of nowhere. We thought skype/sms/gtalk was good enough and came WhatsApp. And snapchat, now it might look like a neat idea, but imagine that couple of years back.
There is always room for disruption. Few categories of products are almost like fashion. There is no additional value they are bringing to the table. And there is no logical reasoning or no proper prediction possible on what becomes the next big thing.
Then there is this room for replicating similar succuccessful ideas in emerging markets. Hundreds of ideas waiting to be explored in hundreds of markets.
Then the unexplored beast of enterprise software. Not the makrt of consumer products rebranded as 'for' enterprise but actual tools or services that improves existing ones, many of which are decades old. But you need to be deep inside the domain to disrupt here.
And of course finally the innovative ones. Which are the hardest but perhaps the most publicised making an impression that startups are all about innovative ideas.
Nooooo we didn't. Skype is garbage (on Linux and in general), sms is fast and unreliable and expensive (to the consumers) but effectively free (to the gate keepers), gtalk was cancelled in favor of hangouts, which has lots of room for improvement (both in general and for organizations). Snapchat and WhatsApp are priming for their big sell outs where they transform into some nightmarish shitware/spyware/adware. IRC is cool for underground hacking circles, but without a good GUI and reliable offline messages, IRC is dead on arrival if you need non-techies involved in a serious work environment.
If anything, this market has been screaming and begging for disruption.
iOS is in dire need of new UX patterns. Take the text selector for example, which felt like a stopgap when it was made and hasn't been changed since its release. There a ton of papercuts like this in iOS.
I don't use Android regularly so I can't speak as much to its weaknesses, but I believe there's a lot of room for improvement there as well, e.g. app discovery and distribution
There's a photo floating around of Paris Hilton holding 5 phones. It's comical but I think it also shows what's lacking. It'd be great if phones had sandboxed profiles, completely isolated from one another in true multiuser fashion. There are a lot of opportunities either for greenfield ideas or adopting existing computing ideas to phones. You might find at least enough market for a niche use capable of supporting a small to medium business
I'm not familiar with touch alternatives to iOS' text selector. Do you know of better ones, or have ideas how it can be improved?
One concrete idea comes to mind - why not a modal dialog that only has selection abilties. If the default behavior works, then use it and if not, move up to the modal
Just in general I think the snap behavior needs to be massively overhauled
I want my phone OS and my laptop OS to be in sync, I want to program using my phone and many many more features. But both iOS and Android lock us out of the real stuff by making locking things up. Just imagine how the computing landscape would have been if Linux wasn't open and as locked up as the "FOSS" android. We'd be still using and cursing Windows3.4
Yes--and yes! I actually don't have an activated smart phone. Partially, it's the monthly data cost--that just irks me. I think there's collusion going on. But a bigger part of me is I don't want to get used to just receiving information. I want to work on that little device. I want to build.
2. I want to see data costs go down. I would like to see more companies combining wifi, with cell signals. Someting along the line of what Republic Wireless is trying to pull off. Actually, I might just sign up for Republic wireless tomorrow. I think any smart phone that radically brings down monthly costs will be huge. Those $50 monthly phone bills are rediculious, at this point in the game.
There are also interpreters for many languages, various tooling and even full-blown ports of GNU/Linux distros: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cuntubuntu...
Frankly, people overstate the lockdown-ness of Android itself. Maybe your specific model was particularly locked down, but introducing a new OS won't solve that problem.
I want all my OSes to be able to talk to each other, when I write code on my phone, I should be able to transfer it to my machine. There is a new project which aims to do this, mobile OS and PC OS are the same in it.
Yes, typing is a pain, but that's an ergonomics problems, not a lack of openness. I got a cheap BT keyboard, which works fine on Android. You can also use a plain USB keyboard with an OTG cable, though power might be an issue.
Also I want the mobile OSes to be root friendly, I know it goes against their corporate goals. Cyanogenmod is also as good as dead now.
Of course, there are devices which aren't as open as the Nexuses. But that's not a lack of openness by the OS.
It was updated for 3D Touch devices. Granted, not even the newest iPad has 3D Touch.