Ask HN: What do you do if some other startup got funding for your exact idea?

45 points by vishalzone2002 ↗ HN
We were working on an idea on the side. We also have an MVP. But the exact same idea got funding today from A list investors. I agree there are at least 2 sets of people working on same ideas but shall we keep going ?

44 comments

[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 92.8 ms ] thread
As long as you don't see any hurdles/impediments (i.e. legal, copyright, patents, etc) on your idea, then by all means keep pursuing it. Otherwise, it may make more sense to move on to the executing on your next idea.

I'd also like to point out that keeping pursuit of your idea, you should ensure that what you are offering would be at par or greater than the one which got recently funded.

thanks for your answer. We do not infringe any IPs neither do they. My concern is more about competing with someone funded while trying to bootstrap or pre-funded.
If you've found a meaningful product category, you're going to spend a lot of your existence competing with very well funded companies. Some will be well funded startups, some might be massive corporations that can leverage vast assets and an existing customer base. There is no escaping competition. You have to build a better product; you have to treat your customers better; you have to be more nimble than the big guy, move faster, execute better, provide better attention to your customers due to your size.
The only people you should worry about are your customers who don't know you exist, don't know someone else had a similar idea, and don't care that a small group of people who are generally appalling at picking good companies chose that one.
I'd say that it sounds like a bunch of A-list investors just co-signed and approved your business plan. That'd be a clear signal to me to keep pushing and turn the heat up! It's just validation; that other company isn't eating your lunch yet. Unless you let them!

To put it another way: If you had zero well-funded competitors, you might have to second-guess moving forward. This is the opposite; this is a great thing. You just have to focus on becoming the Google to their Lycos.

Offtopic: Positive responses like this are why I come to HN. Excellent response to OP.
Great response indeed. Employ n-th mover advantage.
You have put so much optimism in this situation :) Great insight.
And the fact that they just got funding means that they don't have too much of a head start on you. If you already have an MVP, you should be able to catch up fairly quickly, as fundraising should hopefully be much more productive now that the space has been validated.

Just a side note though: you might want to consider slipping something extra into your slide deck/whatever to mention the competition in the space and how you plan on adding value over your competitor's product. Good luck!

It depends why you want to start a company. If it's because "this product needs to exist", you may have lost your motivation. If it's because "this product is inevitable, and I believe I can do a better job than other people", then keep at it.
thanks !! this is a very valid point. We started with "this product needs to exists" though. I will probably post a comparison of ours to theirs on HN.
They've validated your space. Learn from their mistakes. Hijack their customer feedback. Do it better than them. Think of ways to partner with them. Keep your enemies closer. Make it simpler than they do for the consumer or enterprise. Yahoo, Excite, AllTheWeb, HotBot, Lycos etc were all search engines before Google. Compuserve, Geocities, TheGlobe, Friendster and MySpace were all essentially social networks before Facebook.
"If you give me an amazing idea, maybe I'll give you a dollar for it".

Good ideas are ubiquitous and are neither necessary nor sufficient for building a successful company.

They have spent the last few months raising money, not building a product. They will likely end up doing this again.

They now have a different incentives than you. Their investors will encourage them to sacrifice short term growth for potential explosive growth (likely to the detriment of the company).

think of competition as market validation.
Yes, your idea is validated, like everyone said. So that's good. But there's more...

Make sure your version of the idea is differentiated in a way that's not too easy to reproduce.

You make a good version of your idea => they have more money => they clone what you've done and market it more effectively => not a winner for you.

"Do it better than them" is the right idea, but they should be thinking the same about you.

On the plus side, think of it as a type of market validation. A bunch of investors think your idea is solid.

On the minus side, try to avoid focusing too much on competing and not enough on listening to the market directly and reasoning from first principles. It's good to watch this competitor and learn from them, paying particular attention to their weaknesses. But it's not good to fixate on them and direct your attention to trying to "beat" the other guy instead of giving the market what it wants. The market is your customer, not your competitor. It's also good to try to do things a little bit differently so your product doesn't end up being a mere imitation -- if you do that, you'll probably lose.

I was listening to a podcast the other day where the presenter asked their listeners if anyone hadn't heard of the ridiculously successful Serial podcast - he was bombarded with responses!

Unless you're Microsoft or Google, there are always audiences in your niche who haven't even heard of the other guys. I encounter this all the time in my own business.

So unless your business was something specific like creating a scheduling system for vetinary surgeons based in Utah, you've just had your business idea partially validated and you still have a huge audience who are not yet your customers. Be agile, outinnovate your competition, and use all the advantages you have. There's room for both of you.

Think of Paypal and X.com -- how'd that work out?
This is why you want to get patents before spending time and money.
Problem is, you have to spend time and money to get patents.
also i think a lot of ideas are not patent worthy
There's a bunch of VCs who will invest in a space, once another firm has made the initial investment in a different startup. The bandwagon effect is real. Your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to contact those other VCs, get funding, and ship a customer-pleasing product faster than the other guys.
Go out, go watch a movie or have dinner or hang out with friends or whatever. Get some sleep. Then wake up tomorrow and keep doing what you were doing anyway ... and do it better than them.
Thank them for market validation and get stuck into it. Lots of people have ideas and then produce MVP's. But execution and level of funding will determine who survives.

It's not a zero sum game.

Before Google there was Altavista.

Before WhatsApp there was ICQ.

Before Facebook there was MySpace.

First isn't always that important. Whatever your current vision is ... it's likely to evolve in ways your competitor may view differently. It's rarely about the original idea, but often way more about how you execute, and how your idea evolves over the long-term.

Before WhatsApp there was ICQ.

Pretty sure there were a few other IM platforms in that 15 year or so gap :-)

A list investors mostly fund companies that go bust by pushing to go big. They grow massive or fail or become irrelevant. Odds are you and the people you know use Facebook more than Myspace.
First of all will agree with whatever has been said so far, that this is a sort of validation that the idea is not totally bonkers. However the validation at the moment is from investors, not customers - which is much more important.

Also, you benefit from the second mover advantage in the sense that you get to learn from them and also benefit from the market they create and improve upon it.

However, one thing to note.. you said you're working on it "on the side", while the other company just got some funding which not only implies that now they have money but also that they were most likely already doing this fulltime. So, if anything, you need to make a serious decision right now - whether you want to drop it or pick it up fulltime. Most likely keeping on doing it on the side is not going to cut it anymore since the race is now on..

Definitely keep going, even if they seem better than you. Sometimes a VC track startup implodes fast while the turtle gets the prize. Things change quite a bit over time, in my experience.

What you have gained is free market research. Since they have funding, they are going to be fairly public about how they progress. Look at what they do, consider why they did it and weigh the responses. DON'T shy away from things that they are doing - if they had a great idea you didn't think of, TAKE IT. If they have the same idea, don't change it, look at their results and see if it can be improved. Otherwise, keep it the same.

You have the advantage of being reactive. Let them spend money and effort validating, you can focus more on executing.

I once listened to a talk from Alexis Ohanian about the founding of Reddit. He tells a story about how they found out there was this big new site called digg doing exactly the same thing their smaller site Reddit was doing.

They said cool, and kept on working.

It's not the idea itself, but the execution. Do you think Facebook was the first social network? Or Google the first search engine? Or Reddit the first social news site?
That's exactly what happened to me and I almost lost my house in bankruptcy going to the limit trying to compete. Ignore the advice that your market is validated - your market is gone is more the reality.

Cut your losses and move on. Seriously, there are plenty of other untapped markets to try out, don't burn your bank accounts needlessly like I did. I lost all my savings, my 401k and almost my house.

Don't want to rub it in, but I thought the rule #1 of modern start up is to never bet your own money.
A good rule for sure but also an easy rule to ignore because we always think we are the exception, surely I will turn the corner on this business, I've sunk a year+ into the code...

It's a lot harder to walk away than you might imagine.

Out of curiosity, what was your idea and why did it fail? Pls share your wisdom.
Depends on your idea and your plan of execution, I'd say.

If your idea is to build a social network or similar community thingy where value is directly proportional to how many people use it and your monetizing strategy is to get big enough to make money off of advertising, then you should pivot your idea.

On the other hand, if your idea is to provide a service or product that has value even if only 1 person ever use it (e.g. you file out people's tax forms with 1 click of a button, you host adult fetish videos, you write funny stories, you make ridiculous little wooden figurines of LoL / Dota characters, you make low-calorie edible women's undergarments for men, etc.), then you should keep at it.

Validation is cool. But there's a couple of questions you have to ask yourself:

1) Do I need to go from an "idea on the side" to full-time? Pretty sure the funded company has multiple full-time folks.

2) Is it possible to function without funding? This totally depends on your business. If it's a SaaS app that can be funded by customer payments, you're probably ok. If it's a consumer app that relies on network effect (marketing spend), you may have issues.

I've had this happen twice with ideas I was actively pursuing. Both turned into YC companies, both successful, the latter meteorically so.

How you should respond often is dependent on the situation. The hard part is that the only person who is truly acquainted with the relevant facts is you (and your co-founder, if you are so fortunate).

The first time, I was blindsided by the launch of a startup I should have known existed. Despite doing tons of market research, it somehow flew under my radar, and the result was that I ended up wasting months of my time.

In that case, deciding not to play catch up to a company with more traction, funding and resources than I had, in a space with very little room for differentiation, was probably the right call to make. It burned, but in hindsight the decision to move on was almost certainly for the better.

Using that experience as a catalyst for the idea that followed, the second time there would be no blindsiding. Instead, I became aware of the other startup almost as soon as it came into existence. While not a threat initially, I watched over the course of a year as it became more and more similar to what I was working on, gaining incredible amounts of traction along the way. It felt like my product was dying in slow motion before even being born.

The only difference this time, was the particular space allowed for quite a bit of differentiation. While that's a good thing, it also makes the questions you have to ask yourself that much harder.

After agonizing for quite some time, I came to realize most of my fears were irrational. Internalizing what it truly meant to have a second mover advantage helped tremendously on this front.

Now I think in terms of celebrating their success, and building off of it every way I can (in an ethical manner). The more successful they are, the more successful my product will be.

For anyone in a similar situation: chin up, don't torture yourself, and try to build off of it in a positive way. It might have been that you were only in competition with yourself.