3 ms·

> The best companies start out with ideas that don’t sound very good. They start out as projects, and in fact sometimes they sound so inconsequential the found

> The best companies start out with ideas that don’t sound very good. They start out as projects, and in fact sometimes they sound so inconsequential the founders wouldn't let themselves work on them if they had to defend them as a company. Isn't this just cherry-picking of examples that validate a preconception? What about Uber? Dropbox? Amazon? Xiaomi? Theranos: > In the fall of 2003, Elizabeth Holmes, a 19-year-old sophomore at Stanford, plopped herself down in the office of her chemical engineering professor, Channing Robertson, and said, “Let’s start a company.” http://fortune.com/2014/06/12/theranos-blood-holmes/ http://fortune.com/2014/06/12/theranos-blood-holmes/

volaski 11y ago
Does a limo service as a startup idea sound cool to you? What about just another online file storage service when there are hundreds of others out there already without any significant traction?
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  > Does a limo service as a startup idea sound cool to you? Do you think they didn't recognize the potential to move downmarket right from the beginning? Starting as a limo service was just a way to delay regulatory issues. Travis shot down Garrett's idea of owning the assets right at the beginning. > What about just another online file storage service when there are hundreds of others out there already without any significant traction? It definitely wasn't the presence of "hundreds" of competitors (at least not ones that didn't require sysadmin expertise) that people were criticizing at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
  - volaski 11y ago
    Your argument actually supports my argument. Yeah that's why the expression is "looks like a bad idea", not "it is a bad idea". It looks like a bad idea to others, but not to the founders because the founders obviously know (or believe) something that others don't. Otherwise, if the founders were working on something even they thought was a bad idea, that would be an idiot.
    - w1ntermute 11y ago
      No, you're missing the point. The idea was obvious to plenty of others (Box in the case of Dropbox, Lyft/Sidecar in the case of Uber). The difference for Uber was that they were able to raise an enormous amount of funding, then use it to subsidize their service to the hilt while expanding to as many locales as possible. It's still not clear that the business is sustainable: http://gawker.com/here-are-the-internal-documents-that-prove-uber-is-a-mo-1704234157 http://gawker.com/here-are-the-internal-documents-that-prove... In the case of Dropbox, they just eschewed profitability and instead pursued consumer traction, whereas Box pivoted to enterprise. And it's still not clear that Dropbox is a better company than Box, especially if Box can get its CAC under control. After all, most people are using Dropbox for free, which is one reason Box pivoted to enterprise: http://www.businessinsider.com/dropbox-ceo-drew-houston-growth-not-profitability-2015-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/dropbox-ceo-drew-houston-grow... The differentiating factor between the founding teams wasn't knowledge of some secret, but the social capital needed to raise the financial capital to run a lossmaking business for years on end.
- eric_h 11y ago
  > Does a limo service as a startup idea Does a mobile optimized, GPS optimized, delivery service startup idea sound good to you? Uber didn't solve the car service problem, they solved the getting you in a car right now problem. "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." edit: further reading suggests my comment is more or less in line with the parent's point - call it a wash :)
eloff 11y ago
DropBox fit that category. It was a solved problem for the people on HackerNews. "Oh we already have rsync for that". They had a very critical reaction here, most people thought the idea didn't have any value, but now look at where they are. I also think that back when Amazon started, a lot of people laughed at the idea of selling books online. In fact for many, many years with Amazon making huge losses people predicted they would fail. But I agree there are always exception to the rule. The question, I suppose, is which one is the rule?
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  > In fact for many, many years with Amazon making huge losses people predicted they would fail. Amazon has been making huge losses for many years because they were reinvesting in expansion, which is very expensive for them. Amazon's investors understand and support these efforts. That's different from something like Dropbox, where they can't get the majority of users to pay for the service: http://www.businessinsider.com/dropbox-ceo-drew-houston-growth-not-profitability-2015-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/dropbox-ceo-drew-houston-grow... The reason nobody else founded Dropbox was because they didn't have the luxury of running a lossmaking business for years on end.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Yes having to make a profit limits your business model options.
  - eloff 11y ago
    That's the situation now, and nobody is thinking they're going to fail now. But back in the early days of Amazon the sentiment was different.

volaski 11y ago

Does a limo service as a startup idea sound cool to you? What about just another online file storage service when there are hundreds of others out there already without any significant traction?

w1ntermute 11y ago
> Does a limo service as a startup idea sound cool to you? Do you think they didn't recognize the potential to move downmarket right from the beginning? Starting as a limo service was just a way to delay regulatory issues. Travis shot down Garrett's idea of owning the assets right at the beginning. > What about just another online file storage service when there are hundreds of others out there already without any significant traction? It definitely wasn't the presence of "hundreds" of competitors (at least not ones that didn't require sysadmin expertise) that people were criticizing at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
- volaski 11y ago
  Your argument actually supports my argument. Yeah that's why the expression is "looks like a bad idea", not "it is a bad idea". It looks like a bad idea to others, but not to the founders because the founders obviously know (or believe) something that others don't. Otherwise, if the founders were working on something even they thought was a bad idea, that would be an idiot.
  - w1ntermute 11y ago
    No, you're missing the point. The idea was obvious to plenty of others (Box in the case of Dropbox, Lyft/Sidecar in the case of Uber). The difference for Uber was that they were able to raise an enormous amount of funding, then use it to subsidize their service to the hilt while expanding to as many locales as possible. It's still not clear that the business is sustainable: http://gawker.com/here-are-the-internal-documents-that-prove-uber-is-a-mo-1704234157 http://gawker.com/here-are-the-internal-documents-that-prove... In the case of Dropbox, they just eschewed profitability and instead pursued consumer traction, whereas Box pivoted to enterprise. And it's still not clear that Dropbox is a better company than Box, especially if Box can get its CAC under control. After all, most people are using Dropbox for free, which is one reason Box pivoted to enterprise: http://www.businessinsider.com/dropbox-ceo-drew-houston-growth-not-profitability-2015-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/dropbox-ceo-drew-houston-grow... The differentiating factor between the founding teams wasn't knowledge of some secret, but the social capital needed to raise the financial capital to run a lossmaking business for years on end.
eric_h 11y ago
> Does a limo service as a startup idea Does a mobile optimized, GPS optimized, delivery service startup idea sound good to you? Uber didn't solve the car service problem, they solved the getting you in a car right now problem. "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." edit: further reading suggests my comment is more or less in line with the parent's point - call it a wash :)

eloff 11y ago

DropBox fit that category. It was a solved problem for the people on HackerNews. "Oh we already have rsync for that". They had a very critical reaction here, most people thought the idea didn't have any value, but now look at where they are. I also think that back when Amazon started, a lot of people laughed at the idea of selling books online. In fact for many, many years with Amazon making huge losses people predicted they would fail. But I agree there are always exception to the rule. The question, I suppose, is which one is the rule?

w1ntermute 11y ago
> In fact for many, many years with Amazon making huge losses people predicted they would fail. Amazon has been making huge losses for many years because they were reinvesting in expansion, which is very expensive for them. Amazon's investors understand and support these efforts. That's different from something like Dropbox, where they can't get the majority of users to pay for the service: http://www.businessinsider.com/dropbox-ceo-drew-houston-growth-not-profitability-2015-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/dropbox-ceo-drew-houston-grow... The reason nobody else founded Dropbox was because they didn't have the luxury of running a lossmaking business for years on end.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Yes having to make a profit limits your business model options.
- eloff 11y ago
  That's the situation now, and nobody is thinking they're going to fail now. But back in the early days of Amazon the sentiment was different.