HN won't probably like the tone of this one. But one thing I want to emphasise from the post: you don't need to be innovative
I see a lot of aspiring entrepreneurs wanting to build something, and get obsessed about finding a new idea that's never done before, and failing at it.
As if there was only one of everything in the world. There cannot be another restaurant in this city because there's already one. No one can make money selling phones, shoes, browsers, utility software, because they already exist. Nonsense. Either you have a new idea and invent a monopoly, or you have an old idea but you make it better. And you probably don't want to build a monopoly just yet, that's a whole other game.
The bonus of being a startup is that you can afford to try out new approaches to old problems. You don't need a crazy new idea, just to make a marginally better product than the competition. Effort > originality.
Absolutely this. Worse mistake I made was thinking a new business has to be innovative. Lost me years.
Anyone bootstrapping should make sure to copy an existing successful product or service. Copy it, copy its sales funnel, copy its ads, everything you can get away with.
Moonshots is for funded startups. Bootstrappers biggest risk, which will happen almost 100% if they have a technical background, is building stuff based on a logical "good idea", rather than mimicking what's proven to work as closely as humanly possible.
There's plenty of time for innovating later once the wheels are rolling and you're getting real time feedback.
> HN won't probably like the tone of this one. But one thing I want to emphasize from the post: you don't need to be innovative
I don't know anything about founding nor am I interested about it, but at least it was funny. On some other topic, I've found this kind of post to be refreshing and relieving, even if your inner voice says "yes, but...". It is kind of popping a couple of the nested bubbles you're in when you are deep in a project.
This line about innovation reminds me what one of the (founding) member of a band says in a masterclass session [1]: the music you make doesn't have to be entirely new all the time. They show an example with one of their own song and compare it to another famous one: "That's the same thing".
If you're above solving small problems that users say hell yes too, it's very difficult to build anything big with that kind of ego.
All big problems are very regularly a lot of small problems very well understood on their own and in between each other.
Innovation can actually be faster, better, and cheaper, and still charge more.
In the cases where people want to hide in academic style R&D with no real connection to operationalizing or commercializing .. the pursuit of innovation for recognition of some kind can oddly correlate with seeking significance/self-worth.. from others.
- The disease and illusion of externally reinforced innovation can be very challenging.
- It's one thing to have this disease, and another to be able to deliver on it. Very few can, let alone do. Even fewer sit with problems for the time needed to let the understanding form.
- Being the first is not usually best, or the best. Usually early an the worst. Learning market timing and meeting the market is so important.
- Being unique is not great either most of the time, there are so many challenges created in needing to create your own market, and educate them.... the very first time you're being an entrepreneur lol. YC has some good videos on this.
- Adding or creating value isn't just invention, innovation, or even commercialization. Adding value to making the lives of people is beneath someone, they might not be a founder, and more of a finder of one's self-worth.
People that do believe you need to be innovative are in for a rude awakening when they actually do something innovative successfully only to find out a year later there are now 5 competitors copying you, with decent success.
The will also be in for a surprise when they find out they can never be innovative enough to not have a group of people online downplaying the innovation, because of other things that came before it, or components and concepts that were used to create it.
Go all the way back to the first guy who made the first screw. A foundational innovation. The critics of the day might have said, “that’s not an innovation, he just wrapped an incline plane around a cylinder. What a joke.” Prior to that when the incline plane was described the critics may have said, “wow, what an amazing and ‘innovative’ scientist, he thinks he invented hills. Ha.”
There is no hard line that separates evolution from revolution at the design stage. It’s really up to the market. Seemingly small changes, like pre-sliced bread, can change everything. While things people think will be revolutionary fall flat… remember when the Segway (Ginger) hype, it was going to change the design of cities. It didn’t.
Just take a trip to your local grocery store and see how many water bottle brands there are, selling the exact same product that you get for free out of your faucet at home.
In my corner of Europe the cool kids from the business course all start some sort of bottled drink company. Getting picked up by the big supermarket chain is always commemorated with cringe LinkedIn posts.
I was at a local event my city was hosting and the only water option was Liquid Death. It felt criminal to charge as much as they did for water in a fancy can, but I wasn’t going to order soda just so I could feel like I’m paying for something. It was probably 2 years ago and I’m still bothered by it.
The world needs less of this, not more.
I’ve been to a couple cities in Europe that were very proud of their water. Hotels and restaurants advertised that they served tap water, and the bottled water was proudly bottled tap water. There were filling stations around town to get more of this water for free. I want more of this, and less Liquid Death. Invest in the local water supply, not marketing companies with the laziest product possible.
Where I live (Tacoma WA if anyone wants some) there are wellheads you can go to and get water for free. I use it for brewing beer (because of the mineral content). I've never seen anyone else filling. I was curious so I asked, and they measure how much water people take and it's only in the hundreds of gallons a month per wellfield. There has to be over 200,000 people within five miles of one of these wellheads.
I was in Lithuania recently and apparently they pump ground water directly into the city water system without any filtration. It's that clean, and it tastes amazing. Gotta watch out for old soviet pipes, tho.
My observation is the rate of innovation - acceleration I guess - has just been increasing uncontrollably, driven by technology and capital. Is anyone mindful of the risks? “Technologist” here, not a luddite at all.
Looking back 500 years or so, you can put your finger on some innovations that have changed the world positively - Enlightenment, printing press, steam/coal/etc power, assembly line etc. These have all had some unseen societal cost associated with them, where change propagates and feeds back leading to unknowable outcomes. We’ve gotten through it (well most of us).
Looking back just 50 years, computing, internet, globalization of trade, mass communication and media, social media/peer to peer, decentralization, and now AI; social mores have gone 180 degrees, social groups/religions that have persisted for centuries are falling away, hobbyists from across the globe can converge and share their interests with the rest of the world, and so can anarchists and bad actors. And if AGI happens, given we’ve trained it on 50 years of digitized “two feet on the accelerator pedal” innovating, I am not sure our civilization can take it. Or if anyone cares (besides a few anti accelerationists who are widely derided).
Well if you see other threads here today, it's all about finding product market fit in massive addressable markets that are absent of competitors. All the business advice here, in other words, are tailored for VC or hyper growth style companies that rely on scale, dominance and network effects.
Just to provide the contrarian view (== one of my specialties): what if you're in it to be innovative?
Some people want to start a company as a get rich or get influential scheme. It can work if you're cut out for it and you're lucky. This thread is arguing you're better off not being innovative. Perhaps, fair enough.
Some people need to start a company in order to improve something. It might be society in general, the way we use computers, or how we interact with one another. This is what motivates them and what makes them put up with the long odds and herculean requirements.
Fine. What I am trying to say is that if you truly innovate, it's a whole different ball game. You want to build a monopoly, have a large enough moat, patents, make it as hard as possible for a competitor to copy you and do a better job at it. You need good lawyers, and need to grow ASAP, you cannot afford to faff about if you're sitting on a golden idea.
No startup course or ebook even touch upon these problems, and it is exponentially harder than simply being a "regular" entrepreneur.
Many just want to be their own boss, and don't need to ever go down this route.
Patents can be pretty straightforward. If a monopoly is possible, it's usually a natural one, such as by controlling a standard, or with increasing returns like in social media. A first-mover advantage is the best ticket to a moat.
You don't necessarily need to grow ASAP. Not all innovative ideas are of the "crap why didn't I think of it" kind. Often, competitors either disagree with your assessment or just don't understand your plan until it blows up in their faces.
I would argue that it's not necessarily harder. You might have much more upside, even if the tail probabilities are thinner. This can comparatively help with financing and marketing. If your management team has blemishes, upside and hype are the best makeup.
I guess the interesting question is the ultimate financial return for the founder from (a) VC funded hyper-unique optimized lean startup, or (b) a somewhat boring, non-unique, well-executed business.
No doubt if you found Facebook and you swear blood about it he fine detail of SEO optimisation, there's no competition. But what about in average, where a realistic best case scenario is a fairly successful startup with a few 100m exit and a lot of dilution.
I don't know the answer but often wonder. Running a startup sounds fun, but also the whole VC treadmill sounds very stressful.
I don’t consider VC funded companies as startups. If you have to answer to a board to stay alive due to needing that next round of financing, you are no longer in control of your own company and simply work for someone else with a fancy title and some extra steps. We call those folks CEOs.
It’s been weird watching the term morph into what it is today over the past 25 years. So much for hacking on a startup in your garage with friends after collecting enough money from friends and family to bootstrap yourself. Once you are taking millions of dollars from investors while being valued in the billions you are simply a boring old corporate enterprise to me. And that doesn’t even get into the absurdity of 10 year old “startups” with hundreds of employees.
I think the term loses all meaning when you are talking about established companies with HR departments.
Another way of looking at it is that the day you take funding from that day you are trying to sell that company. Realistically how many companies will have IPO. Not many. So your next best option is to get bought out.
How fucked up is that. Think about it. You are starting a startup and you know that your end goal is to sell it off. Fuck that shit. It's not for me.
Yeah that. We just do what everyone else does in our sector. And do a 20% less shit job for 20% less money. And that not a hard bar to meet when everyone else’s products are dire and incredibly overpriced.
I see a lot of aspiring entrepreneurs wanting to build something, and get obsessed about finding a new idea that's never done before, and failing at it.
As if there was only one of everything in the world. There cannot be another restaurant in this city because there's already one. No one can make money selling phones, shoes, browsers, utility software, because they already exist. Nonsense. Either you have a new idea and invent a monopoly, or you have an old idea but you make it better. And you probably don't want to build a monopoly just yet, that's a whole other game.
The bonus of being a startup is that you can afford to try out new approaches to old problems. You don't need a crazy new idea, just to make a marginally better product than the competition. Effort > originality.