4 ms·

It would be empty. The second somebody with technical ability came up with an idea, they'd think, "Hey, why don't I just build that myself?" If someone withou

by NSX2 19y ago

It would be empty. The second somebody with technical ability came up with an idea, they'd think, "Hey, why don't I just build that myself?" If someone without the ability to develop the idea had a good idea, they'd wonder why they should do the idea-thinking for programmers who'll then dismiss the idea-generation with some VC-inspired platitude about how "it's all about the execution" or something. So there you go. Progress halted by the best of the human condition: arrogance, greed and suspicion of the "other." On the other hand I've always thought that if you get people who normally would never talk to each other in everyday society together and got them drunk, tons of good exchanges would occur resulting in who knows how many great new companies. Sigh ... dreams ...

mixmax 19y ago
A friend of mine and I kept a folder once with ideas that had to be both patentable and useful. When we had around 50 we just got depressed and stopped, knowing that there was no way we would ever be able to implement them all. I would gladly give away ideas. I know there's a long way from idea to product - even if you can program it yourself.
- NSX2 19y ago
  Patentable and useful doesn't necessarily mean good business. I'm assuming the "bored developer" wants to start a business around whatever idea he can't think of. There are ideas, some useful, some even patentable, but to make a business you need not so much patents but the ability to present it in such a way that a prospective customer thinks, "That provides me with more value than the price they're asking for, so I should buy it." Think of it this way: are Starbucks lattes patentable? But they are a good value to half-dead zombies on their way to work/on their way back from a grueling day of work. That makes them I think like 10 billion a year, roughly same revenue as Google. BeOS was awesome and technically advanced and I'm sure had many patents. Who paid for it? Nobody. Company's gone. There's a difference.
  - mixmax 19y ago
    Useful implies that a potential customer in the specific market would want to pay for it. ;-) Regarding your starbucks example: the value of Starbucks is not in the idea but in the execution, and that is not what this thread is about. And while I don't mind giving away ideas I can't help anybody execute. Unless I get paid to do so of course ;-)
    - NSX2 19y ago
      Useful implies nothing but useful. People don't "want" to pay for anything. People want to keep their money in their pockets. They reluctantly pay for things whose usefulness, real or perceived, substantially exceeds the asked price. Gmail is "useful" but I sure's heck wouldn't pay for it. As for Starbucks, it illustrates my point perfectly: (1) Starbucks is mostly neuro-marketing. I guarantee you that the buzz people get dopamine-wise from expecting the "reward" of a sugar/caffeine rush is much more important (again, the "idea") than the execution, which counts to about 1% of the customers. I know when I need a quick fix 9X out of 10 I couldn't care less if they got the wrong number of pumps of whatever in there. (2) To illustrate the value of an idea, the Frappucino was the idea of 1 store manager. Cost: peanuts. Contribution to bottom line: about a billion a year directly, who knows how much indirectly as a "gateway drink" for non-caffeine drinking teens ... The point was not about the execution, it was a manager thinking, "Within the realm of what we can execute fairly easy, what is a good idea that takes what we can do and adds more value quickly and easily?" And in the larger context, Starbucks doesn't "execute" anything better than countless immitators these days can; but the idea in my mind is "a special little treat I deserve after a long day." A perfectly executed drink with the same stuff in it just wouldn't make me feel the same if I got it in, say, a sushi place. Again - it's the idea of Starbucks = sexy drinks for sexy people. They're not executing that, I'm imagining it. It's an idea.
      - mixmax 19y ago
        I've got a great idea: Crappucino - A frappucion with extra sugar on top. Where are my millions? Sorry but I don't quite think you know what execution is about.

by NSX2 19y ago

mixmax 19y ago

A friend of mine and I kept a folder once with ideas that had to be both patentable and useful. When we had around 50 we just got depressed and stopped, knowing that there was no way we would ever be able to implement them all. I would gladly give away ideas. I know there's a long way from idea to product - even if you can program it yourself.

NSX2 19y ago
Patentable and useful doesn't necessarily mean good business. I'm assuming the "bored developer" wants to start a business around whatever idea he can't think of. There are ideas, some useful, some even patentable, but to make a business you need not so much patents but the ability to present it in such a way that a prospective customer thinks, "That provides me with more value than the price they're asking for, so I should buy it." Think of it this way: are Starbucks lattes patentable? But they are a good value to half-dead zombies on their way to work/on their way back from a grueling day of work. That makes them I think like 10 billion a year, roughly same revenue as Google. BeOS was awesome and technically advanced and I'm sure had many patents. Who paid for it? Nobody. Company's gone. There's a difference.
- mixmax 19y ago
  Useful implies that a potential customer in the specific market would want to pay for it. ;-) Regarding your starbucks example: the value of Starbucks is not in the idea but in the execution, and that is not what this thread is about. And while I don't mind giving away ideas I can't help anybody execute. Unless I get paid to do so of course ;-)
  - NSX2 19y ago
    Useful implies nothing but useful. People don't "want" to pay for anything. People want to keep their money in their pockets. They reluctantly pay for things whose usefulness, real or perceived, substantially exceeds the asked price. Gmail is "useful" but I sure's heck wouldn't pay for it. As for Starbucks, it illustrates my point perfectly: (1) Starbucks is mostly neuro-marketing. I guarantee you that the buzz people get dopamine-wise from expecting the "reward" of a sugar/caffeine rush is much more important (again, the "idea") than the execution, which counts to about 1% of the customers. I know when I need a quick fix 9X out of 10 I couldn't care less if they got the wrong number of pumps of whatever in there. (2) To illustrate the value of an idea, the Frappucino was the idea of 1 store manager. Cost: peanuts. Contribution to bottom line: about a billion a year directly, who knows how much indirectly as a "gateway drink" for non-caffeine drinking teens ... The point was not about the execution, it was a manager thinking, "Within the realm of what we can execute fairly easy, what is a good idea that takes what we can do and adds more value quickly and easily?" And in the larger context, Starbucks doesn't "execute" anything better than countless immitators these days can; but the idea in my mind is "a special little treat I deserve after a long day." A perfectly executed drink with the same stuff in it just wouldn't make me feel the same if I got it in, say, a sushi place. Again - it's the idea of Starbucks = sexy drinks for sexy people. They're not executing that, I'm imagining it. It's an idea.
    - mixmax 19y ago
      I've got a great idea: Crappucino - A frappucion with extra sugar on top. Where are my millions? Sorry but I don't quite think you know what execution is about.