4 ms·

I've always thought this was a great quote: "Here is what the success of everything depends...on seeing things in a way which afterwards proves to be true, eve

by F_J_H 16y ago

I've always thought this was a great quote: "Here is what the success of everything depends...on seeing things in a way which afterwards proves to be true, even though it cannot be established at the moment..." Joseph A. Schumpeter, Economist With everyone having access to mostly the same information and the same tools, it is the person who sees possibilities where others do not who is able to start something successful.

Gormo 16y ago
Isn't there a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem there? Perhaps your forward-thinking vision turns out to be true precisely because you were successful in implementing it. If I'm trying to scale what works in the immediate here-and-now into something that is sustainable in the long term, I'd prefer to be able to adapt my vision to changing circumstances, rather than stick with a single, consistent viewpoint in the hope that it later proves to be "true".
- johnrob 16y ago
  I'd say less of a chicken-or-egg, and more about making yourself available for luck. Founders and investors all have their opinions of what will or will not work. Nobody really knows though. And if the founders can get what it takes to build and push a product, the beauty is that everyone gets to find out. You might get lucky and have a hit, and you might not. But without building anything, you don't get the chance to be lucky. I'm not saying that success is solely due to luck. A smart startup will continually make itself available to luck by iterating the product and not giving up. If it's willing to do this indefinitely, success is almost a guarantee.
HilbertSpace 16y ago
"With everyone having access to mostly the same information and the same tools," Not even NEARLY true.
- F_J_H 16y ago
  From the article: You live in the era of the flat world where millions of people have access to technology, education, and a powerful sales, marketing, and communication platform (the Internet). You live in the era where the most powerful programming frameworks and tools are free, local broadband and high-availability servers are cheap, and world-class people are willing to work 60 hours/week in exchange for Ramen noodles and the chance to be a part of a cool new startup.
  - HilbertSpace 16y ago
    Your examples do not establish your point or contradict my claim. Really your examples reinforce my claim -- you "are digging in the wrong place". See my post above that starts "Look, guys, this thread and its article are making a big, gigantic, HUGE mistake." Look, I can mail you a copy of one of the crucial books, and it will still take you years to understand the thing. And, you will have a tough time finding anyone in information technology entreprenurship able to understand in less than years.
    - zackattack 16y ago
      Okay, Mr. HilbertSpace, would you please name a few such books? I think you're getting a bad rap in this thread. Feel free to email me if you want, my address is zackster [@] gmail [.] com
    - kznewman 16y ago
      So I would say your point hinges on the difference between access (information) and understanding (knowledge). Both can be true that the access is available to all, but the ability to understand and use something depends on a non-trivial amount of time that noteveryone invests.
avdempsey 16y ago
Agreed! Some of the biggest successes have this in common: they've gotten away with something that wasn't obviously possible/legal. Microsoft: you can make people pay for software. Google: you can index the web (and all online information).
- chc 16y ago
  How were either of those likely to be seen as impossible or illegal? Both commercial software and search engines were existing fields — heck, search was actually considered a mature field and the existing search engines had started branching out in other directions.
  - com 16y ago
    Bill Gates is actually famous for his "Open Letter to Hobbyists", making the case for commercial software in the 1970's. Up until that time, most software was bundled with hardware (a throw-away reference to this is in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software#History). At the time that Google began, it was assumed - and not just by me - that Altavista was the best we could do automatically, and that Yahoo! and other human catalogued sites were the only way that we could easily find websites that matched what we needed. Both were rapidly changing into portals to create a useful business model. The first time I used Google (a few months into the public beta I think) I was totally totally blown away by the fact that the obscure page I needed came first or second in the rankings. The "I feel lucky" button was a startling statement of self-belief by Google. So, yes, in both cases the broader market didn't believe that real innovation in product or business model was possible.
    - ghaff 16y ago
      Ref: Bill Gates/Microsoft and commercial software. Most operating systems were indeed bundled with hardware. For one thing, this eventually ran afoul of anti-trust in some areas. But there was certainly commercial software on large systems (although, to be sure, because software, hardware, and service all came from the same vendor much of the time, a lot of things ended up getting effectively subsidized by the high-margin hardware.)

by F_J_H 16y ago

Gormo 16y ago

Isn't there a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem there? Perhaps your forward-thinking vision turns out to be true precisely because you were successful in implementing it. If I'm trying to scale what works in the immediate here-and-now into something that is sustainable in the long term, I'd prefer to be able to adapt my vision to changing circumstances, rather than stick with a single, consistent viewpoint in the hope that it later proves to be "true".

johnrob 16y ago
I'd say less of a chicken-or-egg, and more about making yourself available for luck. Founders and investors all have their opinions of what will or will not work. Nobody really knows though. And if the founders can get what it takes to build and push a product, the beauty is that everyone gets to find out. You might get lucky and have a hit, and you might not. But without building anything, you don't get the chance to be lucky. I'm not saying that success is solely due to luck. A smart startup will continually make itself available to luck by iterating the product and not giving up. If it's willing to do this indefinitely, success is almost a guarantee.

HilbertSpace 16y ago

"With everyone having access to mostly the same information and the same tools," Not even NEARLY true.

F_J_H 16y ago
From the article: You live in the era of the flat world where millions of people have access to technology, education, and a powerful sales, marketing, and communication platform (the Internet). You live in the era where the most powerful programming frameworks and tools are free, local broadband and high-availability servers are cheap, and world-class people are willing to work 60 hours/week in exchange for Ramen noodles and the chance to be a part of a cool new startup.
- HilbertSpace 16y ago
  Your examples do not establish your point or contradict my claim. Really your examples reinforce my claim -- you "are digging in the wrong place". See my post above that starts "Look, guys, this thread and its article are making a big, gigantic, HUGE mistake." Look, I can mail you a copy of one of the crucial books, and it will still take you years to understand the thing. And, you will have a tough time finding anyone in information technology entreprenurship able to understand in less than years.
  - zackattack 16y ago
    Okay, Mr. HilbertSpace, would you please name a few such books? I think you're getting a bad rap in this thread. Feel free to email me if you want, my address is zackster [@] gmail [.] com
  - kznewman 16y ago
    So I would say your point hinges on the difference between access (information) and understanding (knowledge). Both can be true that the access is available to all, but the ability to understand and use something depends on a non-trivial amount of time that noteveryone invests.

avdempsey 16y ago

Agreed! Some of the biggest successes have this in common: they've gotten away with something that wasn't obviously possible/legal. Microsoft: you can make people pay for software. Google: you can index the web (and all online information).

chc 16y ago
How were either of those likely to be seen as impossible or illegal? Both commercial software and search engines were existing fields — heck, search was actually considered a mature field and the existing search engines had started branching out in other directions.
- com 16y ago
  Bill Gates is actually famous for his "Open Letter to Hobbyists", making the case for commercial software in the 1970's. Up until that time, most software was bundled with hardware (a throw-away reference to this is in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software#History). At the time that Google began, it was assumed - and not just by me - that Altavista was the best we could do automatically, and that Yahoo! and other human catalogued sites were the only way that we could easily find websites that matched what we needed. Both were rapidly changing into portals to create a useful business model. The first time I used Google (a few months into the public beta I think) I was totally totally blown away by the fact that the obscure page I needed came first or second in the rankings. The "I feel lucky" button was a startling statement of self-belief by Google. So, yes, in both cases the broader market didn't believe that real innovation in product or business model was possible.
  - ghaff 16y ago
    Ref: Bill Gates/Microsoft and commercial software. Most operating systems were indeed bundled with hardware. For one thing, this eventually ran afoul of anti-trust in some areas. But there was certainly commercial software on large systems (although, to be sure, because software, hardware, and service all came from the same vendor much of the time, a lot of things ended up getting effectively subsidized by the high-margin hardware.)