5 ms·

Hmm. My takeaway from this article is that the author simply doesn't have a burning passion to change something in the world or build something that should be i

Hmm. My takeaway from this article is that the author simply doesn't have a burning passion to change something in the world or build something that should be in the world, and so a startup has not come to mind. Which is the right course of action: do nothing. Just starting a startup for startup's sake is the worst possible reason. And sometimes the startups that are started are flukes, even obnoxious flukes like Harvard's TheFacebook, and the true business emerges because the founder(s) were smart enough to quickly figure out what was going (and catching) on, how the market was reacting, and they pursued that vigorously and executed brilliantly. I consider all the big widely covered stories, WhatsApp, Facebook, Airbnb, etc., random flukes that executed well with grit and a determination not to give up. But I don't find them very inspiring. All the startups I founded or co-founded (none located in Silicon Valley) were based on a burning desire to build something that wasn't available to the public but SHOULD be, and I was determined to make it available. Once I decided to go forward, nothing could stop me. Made a thousand mistakes, some in the end costing the respective company. But figuring out what to do as a startup was not typically the hard part. Not having enough good people or funding was. I hope to do another startup but right now I don't have any burning passion to build something that's not yet in the world except for stuff related to improving the way the voting public is informed by media (aka stopping how the public is misinformed by media), sustainable energy, improving health, and making people happier. We'll see if something emerges.

samg 11y ago
author here– agree with many of your points, except two: 1) I think great ideas are surprisingly rare, and are very difficult to recognize. It's especially hard because of how important execution is for 'uncovering' a great idea. Great idea, badly executed = looks like a bad idea 2) I think "burning passion" oversimplifies things. Many great businesses are built without 'passion' for the solution...just a passion for some part of the business...and sometimes that's just recognition of a great financial opportunity.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > I think great ideas are surprisingly rare, and are very difficult to recognize. Great ideas are super common. What is exceptional is great execution of those ideas. For every 'great idea' that you see around you go back to the root. Then you'll find many still born or eventually dead companies around that exact same 'great idea' but executed in a half-hearted or wrong way.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    > Great ideas are super common. What is exceptional is great execution of those ideas. I'd like to see this unpacked. What is it about an idea that makes it great? What's the difference between those and the bad ideas? How do you figure out whether your idea is great or whether it sucks? Is it really that the idea just doesn't matter? That's where I'm leaning. The idea itself as something that's iterated on until you get to some intermediate state between problem-solution fit and finding traction.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Let's just take a few examples: AltaVista -> Google Idea: search engine. Execution: AltaVista soso, Google: excellent Geocities -> MySpace -> FaceBook Idea: A place where people anchor themselves on the web Execution: geocities: hobbled by the tech available at that point in time, MySpace: a bit better but still missed the boat, FaceBook: excellent execution, more limited in presentation than the previous two and that became their strength. And so on. For every one of these the names I've listed there were already relatively successful companies validating the idea. But then a party came along that was excellent in their execution of the idea and they wiped the established competition off the map. If you go back further you'll find that the search engine was already a concept pioneered by many other companies, ditto the 'social network' or 'personal homepage'. An example from the physical world: Car companies, when the car was invented there were 100's of car companies all trying their hardest to get a share of the cake. But the majority of them absolutely sucked at execution. Take the UK brands, super nice to look at, occasionally brilliant ideas but absolutely horrible in quality in spite of having a head start post WW II they still had to have a bunch of guys with hammers at the end the production line to make the doors fit the chassis. In the end they simply could not compete. All the exact same idea: personal transportation. That's what competition is all about, excellence in execution, if you mess that one up in the long run you will not survive. This is one of the reasons why in spite of the network effects I see Ebay and LinkedIn eventually being replaced.
hunvreus 11y ago
Completely agree with this point of view. If you don't have an idea, sitting around trying really hard to come up with one sounds like a waste of time (and potentially VC money, but that's probably a lot less important). Doing your own thing will demand you to be resolute, for most likely longer than you'd like. Struggling to come up with a problem to work on in the first place is not a good sign.
paulsutter 11y ago
Agree, with a tweak. Conviction may be a more accurate word than passion. For example, a conviction that a current and large problem can be solved using recent developments in technology. Passion can improve determination, a nice boost to a person who is already customer focused. But an entrepreneur who is passionate and not customer focused will likely end up in the weeds.
- stalcottsmith 11y ago
  I started with the conviction that I wanted to be the owner of a successful business. I did this at an age where I already had experienced plenty of wonderful ideas. Ideas always come. I never worry about that. What is important is to be in a position to take something and run with it. For those of us who need an income, that means we have to design and build a business that provides for us (and others) while we await the next great idea. One such way to build a company is to bootstrap a services business and productize. This is a well-worn path to at least modest size. Another way is to create a studio to fire off many ideas and see what sticks. There are more than a few of these right now. Many companies and businesses are organically conceived and grown over decades. They are complicated. They start with one thing and move into another. They are not neat and pretty. They grow more based on the longevity, character and commitment of the founder than on the inherent brilliance of any one idea. You don't have to have a flash of inspiration which you test and walk away if it doesn't work. Once you employ people and cultivate their loyalty this type of approach is toxic anyway. It may only work in certain little islands like SV. Many large businesses are built on successive episodes of inspiration, revelation or innovation that occur over decades, with much perspiration in between. Business growth is like a multi-stage puzzle. Getting to $100k/yr is one stage. Getting to $1m/yr is another. Getting to $10m/yr is yet another. $100m/yr and so on... Business grows as you and your abilities grow. A creative person figures out how to solve the puzzles, unlock growth and move in new directions. Everything is possible if you are not beholden to one narrow model of how to start, finance and grow a business. The first key is to know yourself and what you want.

samg 11y ago

author here– agree with many of your points, except two: 1) I think great ideas are surprisingly rare, and are very difficult to recognize. It's especially hard because of how important execution is for 'uncovering' a great idea. Great idea, badly executed = looks like a bad idea 2) I think "burning passion" oversimplifies things. Many great businesses are built without 'passion' for the solution...just a passion for some part of the business...and sometimes that's just recognition of a great financial opportunity.

jacquesm 11y ago
> I think great ideas are surprisingly rare, and are very difficult to recognize. Great ideas are super common. What is exceptional is great execution of those ideas. For every 'great idea' that you see around you go back to the root. Then you'll find many still born or eventually dead companies around that exact same 'great idea' but executed in a half-hearted or wrong way.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  > Great ideas are super common. What is exceptional is great execution of those ideas. I'd like to see this unpacked. What is it about an idea that makes it great? What's the difference between those and the bad ideas? How do you figure out whether your idea is great or whether it sucks? Is it really that the idea just doesn't matter? That's where I'm leaning. The idea itself as something that's iterated on until you get to some intermediate state between problem-solution fit and finding traction.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Let's just take a few examples: AltaVista -> Google Idea: search engine. Execution: AltaVista soso, Google: excellent Geocities -> MySpace -> FaceBook Idea: A place where people anchor themselves on the web Execution: geocities: hobbled by the tech available at that point in time, MySpace: a bit better but still missed the boat, FaceBook: excellent execution, more limited in presentation than the previous two and that became their strength. And so on. For every one of these the names I've listed there were already relatively successful companies validating the idea. But then a party came along that was excellent in their execution of the idea and they wiped the established competition off the map. If you go back further you'll find that the search engine was already a concept pioneered by many other companies, ditto the 'social network' or 'personal homepage'. An example from the physical world: Car companies, when the car was invented there were 100's of car companies all trying their hardest to get a share of the cake. But the majority of them absolutely sucked at execution. Take the UK brands, super nice to look at, occasionally brilliant ideas but absolutely horrible in quality in spite of having a head start post WW II they still had to have a bunch of guys with hammers at the end the production line to make the doors fit the chassis. In the end they simply could not compete. All the exact same idea: personal transportation. That's what competition is all about, excellence in execution, if you mess that one up in the long run you will not survive. This is one of the reasons why in spite of the network effects I see Ebay and LinkedIn eventually being replaced.

hunvreus 11y ago

Completely agree with this point of view. If you don't have an idea, sitting around trying really hard to come up with one sounds like a waste of time (and potentially VC money, but that's probably a lot less important). Doing your own thing will demand you to be resolute, for most likely longer than you'd like. Struggling to come up with a problem to work on in the first place is not a good sign.

paulsutter 11y ago

Agree, with a tweak. Conviction may be a more accurate word than passion. For example, a conviction that a current and large problem can be solved using recent developments in technology. Passion can improve determination, a nice boost to a person who is already customer focused. But an entrepreneur who is passionate and not customer focused will likely end up in the weeds.

stalcottsmith 11y ago
I started with the conviction that I wanted to be the owner of a successful business. I did this at an age where I already had experienced plenty of wonderful ideas. Ideas always come. I never worry about that. What is important is to be in a position to take something and run with it. For those of us who need an income, that means we have to design and build a business that provides for us (and others) while we await the next great idea. One such way to build a company is to bootstrap a services business and productize. This is a well-worn path to at least modest size. Another way is to create a studio to fire off many ideas and see what sticks. There are more than a few of these right now. Many companies and businesses are organically conceived and grown over decades. They are complicated. They start with one thing and move into another. They are not neat and pretty. They grow more based on the longevity, character and commitment of the founder than on the inherent brilliance of any one idea. You don't have to have a flash of inspiration which you test and walk away if it doesn't work. Once you employ people and cultivate their loyalty this type of approach is toxic anyway. It may only work in certain little islands like SV. Many large businesses are built on successive episodes of inspiration, revelation or innovation that occur over decades, with much perspiration in between. Business growth is like a multi-stage puzzle. Getting to $100k/yr is one stage. Getting to $1m/yr is another. Getting to $10m/yr is yet another. $100m/yr and so on... Business grows as you and your abilities grow. A creative person figures out how to solve the puzzles, unlock growth and move in new directions. Everything is possible if you are not beholden to one narrow model of how to start, finance and grow a business. The first key is to know yourself and what you want.