Ask HN: What are problems that need to be solved?
So we've kept on getting threads like "Would this idea be cool?" on HN, and I've always thought that this wasn't the correct approach in creating a startup. The problem should be recognized first. So HN, what are problems that you face everyday that need to be fixed or remedied?
157 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 223 ms ] threadMeanwhile you can stop trying to be more productive. It is really overrated. Try taking a Saturday off and do nothing but read, watch good movies you have been putting off, and just relax overall.
Maybe I am abnormal here, but there is nothing in this world I could enjoy doing everyday for most of the day.
I need the reverse of an alarm clock: A clock that somehow makes me sleep.
Because otherwise not only will my brain function worse, but the additional stress may actually shorten my life, which pretty much screws up the goal of getting more hours out of life!
Try setting the alarm for when you should sleep, instead of wake.
I need to do this myself, and reading your thoughts made it clearer to me. (Doubt I'll actually do it though...)
I'm not sure it is as easily fixable as your comment suggests - I'd argue it is as non-trivial as stopping aging.
I'd argue it is the other poster who has become set on a theory. :-)
No aging -> people still get sick occasionally -> it costs money to fix them -> it had better cost less than they earn between sicknesses, else they die
Or, at the moment healthcare is O(1), based on a lifespan of N, but if the lifespan is extended radically, it will become O(N). So, if eliminating ageing causes N to tend to infinity, then I suppose healthcare costs will also tend to infinity. But then so will the accommodation costs, food costs, toothbrush costs, internet access... Healthcare looks like capex at the moment; if we lived much longer it'll look more like a variable cost.
a) Have a quite sudden and very severe overpopulation problem, or
b) Are forced to ration babies.
Both of these are pretty damn dystopic.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to live forever, but not necessarily at the cost of having everyone else live forever too.
I think we can do better than c, but it's a lower bound: it avoids your concerns and is still a large improvement over the status quo.
I'd like to live forever
Curing aging doesn't let you live forever. There would still be diseases (at a much lower rate), accidents, murder, suicide, natural disasters, etc. All it would do is prevent the deterioration of our bodies and often our minds that generates large medical expenses, prevents us from being productive, and impairs our quality of life. It would also give us the option of living for several centuries longer than we do today, which we could take or not.
I'm rather unconvinced that's an improvement over the status quo... you've just granted the government the power to euthanize people. And you just know that they're going to find a way to abuse that. They'll start by giving extensions to really valuable people we don't want to lose; great scientists, artists, writers. And then it'll be "gee, I guess politicians are pretty awesome as well, perhaps politicians should get another hundred years too..." Pretty soon it's effective-immortality for political favours. No thanks, I'll take my chances with old age.
The best solution is:
(d) Build starships and expand into space.
But I worry that curing aging might come first.
We can agree on that at least. Our eggs definitely need more than one basket.
It's truely a very short "maximum productivity time" we have. Possibly as little as 10 years. And in many cases it's that very time where most real progress is made.
Could you imagine if Einstein were still at work today with the mind of a 25 year old? Or Von Neumann with today's technology?
I think that most problems presented in this scenario could be solved.
We don't talk about it much here at hn, but think about it. Every man-made object you encounter every day was manufactured somewhere. And moved, more than once. Now add in all the sales, marketing, customer service, operations, accounting, finance, human resources, etc., etc., etc. needed to support that manufacturing and distribution. Next, add financial markets, healthcare, energy, entertainment, etc., etc., etc. and you have tons of stuff. But you don't see it and rarely think about it. Kinda like most of the iceberg being underwater.
And all of this needs software. And most of what they have sucks. I mean really sucks. Enterprise software is so bad that there are multi-billion dollar industries devoted to consulting on how to use it, how to share it, and how to store it in data warehouses and harvest it. It's so bad that lots of people have to dump the data out of their enterprise systems and into Microsoft Excel just to get anything done.
When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said because that's where the money is.
What banks were in the 1930's, enterprise IT is in the 21st century.
In a sense that is what the App Store does. You build the software (your main skill) and you do not even need a website. You could take it further and pay another company x% of revenue and they take care of marketing, another will do your customer service for y% etc...
This integration leads to better information sharing on projects, more aligned incentives for people in the project, and at least in some cases can lead to better products.
Can you throw some more light on these marketing companies?
I've even seen instances where excel exports are used as disaster recovery mechanisms.
I keep wondering what a next-generation replacement might look like?
This fails in Word--it tries to make the table fit onto a printed page--about 6" across. It doesn't work very well in my [old] copy of Dreamweaver.
Two months later, I built some software for it with some friends and now we're getting close to being able to launch it to the world :) Every day I walk by 2-3 barber shops and salons in NYC without computers or with old Windows 3.1-esque programs.
Word produces acceptably formatted acceptably cross platform documents with low effort and a PDF export option for the last three years too.
(I probably should have entitled grandparent, "Enterprise/SMB software sucks" to be more precise.)
That's because Enterprise Software is actually an arbiter of controlling people through controlling workflow. It's solidified corporate politics!
Entrenched interests within a company don't want to optimize the company's bottom line. They want to optimize to further their own interests.
I once posted about a transatlantic E3 line that was going unused in my former company. The original project that was to use it disappeared. Afterwards, the VPs of different groups fought over it, ensuring no one would get it. The company paid $300k a year to keep that thing open for a long time.
The way to fix this is through highly granular free market economics. Let a company set standards and empower multiple groups to compete to those standards.
This sounds good to hackers like us who work at small companies, but it's actually fairly dangerous for a big company to do this. One of the groups might risk the company (rather than just themselves) in order to make largish profits.
An extreme example of this: suppose AIG Financial Products is independent of AIG Boat Insurance. Then AIG Financial Products might make really risky bets which, if they go bad, could also take out AIG Boat Insurance and AIG Event Liability Insurance.
Building enterprise software is not only about building software, it's also about processes. Every company with more than a dozen employess has processes for dealing with just about everything. How information flows from A to B, who controls it, who can edit it, who can view it and who approves it.
This is primarily a strategic decision. Enterprise software has to accomodate processes and play by the rules, powergames and politics set forth by the firm it is used by. This is different than building B2C apps where the goal is more transparent. If you build dropbox the goal of the software is pretty obvious. If you build enterprise software there are a lot of stakeholders with diffferent agendas and priorities, and if you want to sell to them you need to accomodate all of them. So you need to knwo how firms operate behind the lines, and you definitely have to know how to sell to them. How good the software is is only one of many priorities.
There's a lot of money to be made for those willing to cut through the bullshit, but be aware that there's a lot of bullshit to cut through.
So in that sense, most enterprise software is good. It just depends on whose definition of good you're going with.
If you try to make any kind of software that competes even tangentially with SAP, Oracle, etc...you lose. If someone at a big corporation hasn't already heard of your company, the odds of them using your software drop to almost nothing. Because no one has ever been fired for going with IBM. Because big companies are playing strategic games many levels up and don't care about day-to-day employee software usage. Because a startup with a silly name just seems silly, and people willing to fight for adoption from the inside are few and far between.
I'm staring to think that the real game isn't figuring out how to make enterprise software better, but to figuring out how to hack the system itself so that new ideas even have a chance.
Companies are willing to pay any price for a piece of software, but only if it meets their needs. As a result, products come out which are made to meet every possible need, which is sort of the opposite of what a good consumer product tries to do. The software sucks as a result.
My opinion is that it's not the software that sucks, insomuch as the process behind it which makes it suck.
So I've come to believe the solution to the enterprise problem will be bottom-up as much as top-down. One programmer (or a small team) who knows the client and the software can do things which would be science-fiction in a top-down approach, in terms of costs and delivery time.
The model has two problems though. First I have no idea how to find new clients - so far all have been through what can be best described as chance. Second, I'm not very sure what the right pricing is. My personal guess would be that a good software is worth for a company about as much as a small paycheck, and grow in about the same manner. But selling this, especially the growing part, has been difficult so far.
It's worth noting these are marketing problems - as far as the operational part goes, both me and the clients are happy with the arrangement.
This is the difference between inductive and deductive analysis. Deductive would be tasking a student with applying pattern matching to a known domain to find an expected result. Inductive analysis is when you don't actually know if there's an answer to be found. Obviously this is a bigger challenge with a more interesting payoff, but I believe inductive analysis is a skill that can be practiced.
Demand Media realized that humans were really bad at coming up with problems to solve, so they started buying bulk search engine results and harvesting queries where people did not find what they were looking for. They then farm out these non-obvious (and often highly specific) needs to videographers to produce low production value clips that nail these never sexy "how do I fix the towel rack in my bathroom?" type questions.
They then dominate the search results advertising for the extreme long tail of semantic Q&A on the web. Last I heard they are releasing thousands of videos a day, and making hundreds of millions in revenues.
If you want to solve a big problem, apply the same inverse deduction logic to the question of which start-ups are really needed (vs. the ones people keep building over and over) and you will be the next Richard Branson.
http://rethink.unspace.ca/2010/6/11/what-are-the-problems-th...
I think today's problem is that people figured out the needs and figured out how to satisfy them while making a profit. What's left are the needs that are hard to fulfill or the ones that we weren't aware of before.
I saw a link recently to a "bring your own container" type of grocery store that was in NYC. It was so small though, and I've never seen anything like that around where I live. We need something like that but on a massive scale to invoke a fundamental shift in the way every single person does grocery shopping.
I don't see it happening any time soon though, unfortunately. I mean, how are plastic bags still legal in so many places? How are people still not using reusable grocery sacs at this point?
It's just so frustrating to think about how many perfectly good containers are being thrown away every second of every day. Why are we so damn wasteful?!
edit: interesting article related to this stuff http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/03/11/OldBottles/
I didn't realize that didn't also happen in the states, though I guess glass bottles in general are really only used for beer (though I'd imagine if you go to the store and grab a 'Mexican Coke' you'll likely find it to be a recycled bottle, or at a taqueria or whatever).
I'm pretty sure I've heard of it in the US as well.
That sounds less like giving people what they want and more like giving people what you think they ought to have.
Correction: some people want this. Some people want to wear hair shirts of inconvenience in order to impress some narrow circle of like-minded friends with how environmentally-friendly they are. But there's a limited number of hair-shirt people out there, and there's already massive competition for their dollars.
I think he's saying there should ideally be more demand, not that supply should be forced.
narrow circle of like-minded friends
There really are informed consumers out there who evaluate products based on all available information, and the people who trust them may take the lazy route and imitate. That can look like wankery if you dismiss informed consumption outright.
I drive about 15 minutes out of my way to go to this place, but it's worth it to me for many reasons. Plan ahead and you can do all your shopping for weeks in one trip.
Another cool thing this place does is put out used boxes by the checkout, so their own waste gets recycled directly. If you forget your re-usable bag you can just grab a box and feel good about it.
In order to reach more people in developed countries you need to make things more upscale. You need high quality, long lasting, "designer" containers.
Also, a trade-in program would help a great deal. Many people don't know they want something until they see it, and they hesitate to buy a new container on the spot if they already have one. If they can simply redeem their old ones for a large portion of credits it would put their minds at ease.
The trade-in stations will need automated cleaning, since you can't guarantee their hygiene. In the end lazy folks will just swap in their dirty containers with clean ones every time they head for the shop, which also alleviates the mental hurdle of cleaning.
I'm not sure how to properly attract and keep talent in the city.
2. Pittsburgh loses hackers because they prefer to live elsewhere. To fix this make the culture, neighborhoods, or climate more attractive to hackers. (Easy to say, but hard to attempt and perhaps impossible to achieve.)
> (Easy to say, but hard to attempt and perhaps impossible to achieve.)
Absolutely. That's the hard part. ;)
2. And yet, Pittsburgh's has been consistently at the top of various "best places to live" lists for the past 5-10 years.
Or, if you just happen to find an error, send that back. But the service is free if you don't!
These faculty complain about getting e-mail spam and sometimes even visits and phone calls out of the blue from people who claim to have solved it and want their proofs checked.
If you're using the XML config it resembles:
Usually forums, IRC, blogs help in getting immersed with anything, but I have a feeling that a startup with the primary purpose of "Enlightening" its users has yet to come.
edit: Basically what I'm shooting for is: how to get rid of the crappy forums and allow a truly easy and fun way to go about learning new things.
People go to college to learn about how things should be, but not how they are. Waste of time and money, sometimes.
http://curiousreef.com/
Note: This same question came up a few months ago. Said the same thing then. I really want to gain some traction here :)
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1424520
Some of this is "company culture" but technology can help it along a lot more than it currently is. There is a lot of software out there that addresses this issue, but it's just not solved because it's NOT THAT WAY at 99.99999% of companies. Great technology should be able to make this seamless.
This is not a spec for a software product because I don't know what spec would solve the problem. That's what makes it valuable.
Basic math and science literacy for a large percentage of people (in the US at least, but I suspect many other places as well).
The pipeline from childhood to the ability to make something people want.
Access to the opportunity to gain economically valuable skills for those who happen to be born in poor families, neighborhoods, cities, countries.
1. Everyone I know has a few CRT TVs they want to get rid of. I don't know how to solve this, but surely there's a startup idea in here somewhere.
2. This thread establishes that there is a problem figuring out what problems need to be solved, otherwise it wouldn't exist (maybe that one was too easy though).
Lots of progress has been made but something fundamental could really solve this problem.
Here's a good idea that almost gets there:
http://gizmodo.com/5047798/blindingly-fast-touchscreen-text-...
Is it possible to have anonymity, security and generally-usable accessibility? Not necessarily speed -- latency can be acceptable when the user isn't stuck waiting in real time on a spinning circular icon.
There are a few semi-exceptions (Sketchup for mechanical CAD and Eagle for PCB layout) but neither is strong competition for the market leaders.
Solution: Create a B2B network that automatically finds and eliminates cycles in the A/R-A/P graph. For example, let's say that company A owes $100 to company B, which owes $80 to company C, which owes $50 to company A. The settlement network could tie into the accounting systems of all 3 companies, identify the debt loop, and instantly apply the appropriate credits and debits. It would need strong controls against fraud and some ability to stand behind transactions that had to be unwound later.