3 ms·

This is how it should work but it's not how it does work. If you approach an investor with the idea for a "bridge", they won't fund it because there's no proof

This is how it should work but it's not how it does work. If you approach an investor with the idea for a "bridge", they won't fund it because there's no proof people would use a bridge, and you can't prove it until you're funded. End of story. No bridge. Give them an feasible idea that is somewhat backed with a guarantee that the money they fork over for you to spend on developing the idea won't simply be copied - and the investor will take that over a terrible idea with someone they know. Please, point me to this investor. I think your hope of what it should be masks the reality of what it is. I'm with you; I wish it was that way too.

gatling1787 10y ago
By bridge I assume you literally mean a traffic or pedestrian bridge. Both are expensive and beyond what I read the OP as meaning by "funding an idea". Given this site, I read OP more as a software or hardware guy wanting to build something and get funding for it - something much smaller and less regulatory hurdles than an actual physical bridge. But, let's assume he did mean a complex, expensive bridge. If it truly was worthwhile location to build a new bridge, then why would it be hard to show that people would use it - it's more a matter of measuring existing traffic on other nearby bridges etc...
- david927 10y ago
  Sorry, I was talking symbolically, that if the concept of a bridge didn't exist and you wanted to show how valuable it would be, it would be difficult without an implementation. History is littered with ideas that are not obvious to consumers until they start using them. The automobile was considered a toy for more than a decade after its invention, for example. I'm specifically talking about this Catch-22: that you often can't create something revolutionary (e.g. build the first bridge) without investment and you can't get investment until it's built and demonstrating its worth. Your initial statement seems to indicate that it's relatively easy to raise funding if you have a 'good idea', yet a good idea is usually considered the modification of an existing idea ("Facebook with Twitter, but for dogs"). A revolutionary idea won't be as accessible (in terms of understanding) by investors or even initially consumers, and won't get funding for that reason. The irony is that it's the revolutionary ideas that everyone is seeking, yet the way funding works often precludes it, rather than encourages it, from happening.
  - gatling1787 10y ago
    > wanted to show how valuable it would be, it would be difficult without an implementation So implement it then. In the context of this site, we're talking software or hardware - what's it going to take - a weekend, a month, or a few months - nothing impossible or out of reason if it's a good idea and worth it.
    - david927 10y ago
      what's it going to take - a weekend Something revolutionary? No. Software like that would take more than one person over a few weekends. And that's the catch. You said, "Investors are looking to make money," and you're right. The problem I'm trying (and failing) to articulate here is that true revolution in software or hardware is not always something you can do over a weekend, and it's not something the customer might request (that works better for variations of existing products). Governments and large companies used to have bigger budgets to fund such research; they don't do as much of that anymore, so it's left to private investors, who understandably expect a clear return on their investment, but that precludes a deeper type of innovation in favor of shallower innovation. We would rather gather fruit than plant seeds. Gathering fruit is where the money is, so it seems to make sense. But that's short term borrowing from the long term. We're facing barren trees and scratching our heads. We're not out of ideas -- we just haven't invested in them.

gatling1787 10y ago

By bridge I assume you literally mean a traffic or pedestrian bridge. Both are expensive and beyond what I read the OP as meaning by "funding an idea". Given this site, I read OP more as a software or hardware guy wanting to build something and get funding for it - something much smaller and less regulatory hurdles than an actual physical bridge. But, let's assume he did mean a complex, expensive bridge. If it truly was worthwhile location to build a new bridge, then why would it be hard to show that people would use it - it's more a matter of measuring existing traffic on other nearby bridges etc...

david927 10y ago
Sorry, I was talking symbolically, that if the concept of a bridge didn't exist and you wanted to show how valuable it would be, it would be difficult without an implementation. History is littered with ideas that are not obvious to consumers until they start using them. The automobile was considered a toy for more than a decade after its invention, for example. I'm specifically talking about this Catch-22: that you often can't create something revolutionary (e.g. build the first bridge) without investment and you can't get investment until it's built and demonstrating its worth. Your initial statement seems to indicate that it's relatively easy to raise funding if you have a 'good idea', yet a good idea is usually considered the modification of an existing idea ("Facebook with Twitter, but for dogs"). A revolutionary idea won't be as accessible (in terms of understanding) by investors or even initially consumers, and won't get funding for that reason. The irony is that it's the revolutionary ideas that everyone is seeking, yet the way funding works often precludes it, rather than encourages it, from happening.
- gatling1787 10y ago
  > wanted to show how valuable it would be, it would be difficult without an implementation So implement it then. In the context of this site, we're talking software or hardware - what's it going to take - a weekend, a month, or a few months - nothing impossible or out of reason if it's a good idea and worth it.
  - david927 10y ago
    what's it going to take - a weekend Something revolutionary? No. Software like that would take more than one person over a few weekends. And that's the catch. You said, "Investors are looking to make money," and you're right. The problem I'm trying (and failing) to articulate here is that true revolution in software or hardware is not always something you can do over a weekend, and it's not something the customer might request (that works better for variations of existing products). Governments and large companies used to have bigger budgets to fund such research; they don't do as much of that anymore, so it's left to private investors, who understandably expect a clear return on their investment, but that precludes a deeper type of innovation in favor of shallower innovation. We would rather gather fruit than plant seeds. Gathering fruit is where the money is, so it seems to make sense. But that's short term borrowing from the long term. We're facing barren trees and scratching our heads. We're not out of ideas -- we just haven't invested in them.