4 ms·

The two ways to build a product, according to Bezos

61 points by ttunguz 15y ago

cek 15y ago
This is so right on. I've always expressed it as There are two types of innovation: Aspirational and Reactionary _Aspirational Innovation_ - Where you, as the creator, aspire to provide something to customers they don't currently have or can't do. You believe there's a great new thing customers can have/do that they currently don't have/do. It solves a problem that customers don't know they have (yet). _Reactionary Innovation_ - Where your product addresses existing customer pain. It solves a problem that customers have today. It makes pain go away for the customers. Both types of innovation are hard. I have built products along both lines. Windows Media Center was Aspirational ("People want to record and watch TV on their PCs"). The challenge here was convincing the market that this is what they wanted. Windows Home Server was Reactionary ("Multiple PC's in the home are painful to manage"). The challenge here was convincing the market that the product actually made the pain go away.
- Hisoka 15y ago
  I may be arguing semantics but isn't the first a type of the second? It's STILL solving a problem people have today. It just is a problem that consumers don't recognize very clearly for some reason.. maybe because they framed an existing problem the wrong way (ie. they think problem X is a financial problem when it was really a psychological problem.) Twitter for instance solves the problem of not having our social/attention needs met. It's a problem that too's abstract for people to complain about, but it's there.
  - sokoloff 15y ago
    If you squint hard enough, sure. But that's not the point of dividing the space along these lines. Think of gunpowder, the steam and then internal combusion engines, electric distribution and lightbulbs, the automobile, heavier than air flight at all, helicopters. Sure, each of those solved actual pain that people had (otherwise they'd have not caught on as successful products). But the difference is that products in the first category solve problems that customers aren't complaining about, often because there's no frame of reference to allow them to complain about it. Their bow and arrows, oxen, gas lights, carriages, ships and hot air balloons are working just fine, maybe they just need a small tweak or two. (I even put TiVo/ReplayTV into the first category, even though we had VCRs at the time.)
alexro 15y ago
Isn't it exactly the answer that finally clarifies the idea vs. execution debate? You can't build a product to meet a vision if you don't have a compelling innovative idea, regardless of how good you execute. And the opposite is true in the established market. Trashing ideas just seems so wrong to me because the history proves otherwise, and now Bezos has made it profoundly clear.
- cek 15y ago
  Isn't it exactly the answer that finally clarifies the idea vs. execution debate? I don't think this provides the definitive answer to anything. It think it is just a very good taxonomy that people can use to be more clear in their thinking and communication. You can't build a product to meet a vision if you don't have a compelling innovative idea, regardless of how good you execute. I had a tough time parsing this. "a vision" implies "a compelling innovative idea", so I think you are saying "You can't build a product if you don't have an idea, regardless of how well you execute". Which is true. And the opposite is true in the established market. I don't think this taxonomy has anything to do with whether the market is established or not. There can be aspirational innovation (products) introduced to established markets.
  - alexro 15y ago
    I was following along Bezos, who of course can be wrong and you of course may be write. Bezos' point was: >> On the other hand if a market is established, to win market share startups must differentiate their products by better serving the customer. << And it generally means not coming up with an idea but following the already established customer pain. And in this situation execution matters more.
    - cek 15y ago
      I'll give Jeff the benefit of the doubt and assume he mis-spoke and is not actually wrong :-). As with any taxonomy (or tool) one can over analyze.
      - 15y ago
cateye 15y ago
There are a lot more ways for product development. Actually most products aren't in these categories. A lot of products are a sum of little innovations made by others. Combining the right elements id the key. Just one of these elementd id the market.
cateye 15y ago
There are a lot more ways for product development. Actually most products aren't in these categories. A lot of products are a sum of little innovations made by others. Combining the right elements is the key. Just one of these elementd id the market.

61 points by ttunguz 15y ago

cek 15y ago

This is so right on. I've always expressed it as There are two types of innovation: Aspirational and Reactionary _Aspirational Innovation_ - Where you, as the creator, aspire to provide something to customers they don't currently have or can't do. You believe there's a great new thing customers can have/do that they currently don't have/do. It solves a problem that customers don't know they have (yet). _Reactionary Innovation_ - Where your product addresses existing customer pain. It solves a problem that customers have today. It makes pain go away for the customers. Both types of innovation are hard. I have built products along both lines. Windows Media Center was Aspirational ("People want to record and watch TV on their PCs"). The challenge here was convincing the market that this is what they wanted. Windows Home Server was Reactionary ("Multiple PC's in the home are painful to manage"). The challenge here was convincing the market that the product actually made the pain go away.

Hisoka 15y ago
I may be arguing semantics but isn't the first a type of the second? It's STILL solving a problem people have today. It just is a problem that consumers don't recognize very clearly for some reason.. maybe because they framed an existing problem the wrong way (ie. they think problem X is a financial problem when it was really a psychological problem.) Twitter for instance solves the problem of not having our social/attention needs met. It's a problem that too's abstract for people to complain about, but it's there.
- sokoloff 15y ago
  If you squint hard enough, sure. But that's not the point of dividing the space along these lines. Think of gunpowder, the steam and then internal combusion engines, electric distribution and lightbulbs, the automobile, heavier than air flight at all, helicopters. Sure, each of those solved actual pain that people had (otherwise they'd have not caught on as successful products). But the difference is that products in the first category solve problems that customers aren't complaining about, often because there's no frame of reference to allow them to complain about it. Their bow and arrows, oxen, gas lights, carriages, ships and hot air balloons are working just fine, maybe they just need a small tweak or two. (I even put TiVo/ReplayTV into the first category, even though we had VCRs at the time.)

alexro 15y ago

Isn't it exactly the answer that finally clarifies the idea vs. execution debate? You can't build a product to meet a vision if you don't have a compelling innovative idea, regardless of how good you execute. And the opposite is true in the established market. Trashing ideas just seems so wrong to me because the history proves otherwise, and now Bezos has made it profoundly clear.

cek 15y ago
Isn't it exactly the answer that finally clarifies the idea vs. execution debate? I don't think this provides the definitive answer to anything. It think it is just a very good taxonomy that people can use to be more clear in their thinking and communication. You can't build a product to meet a vision if you don't have a compelling innovative idea, regardless of how good you execute. I had a tough time parsing this. "a vision" implies "a compelling innovative idea", so I think you are saying "You can't build a product if you don't have an idea, regardless of how well you execute". Which is true. And the opposite is true in the established market. I don't think this taxonomy has anything to do with whether the market is established or not. There can be aspirational innovation (products) introduced to established markets.
- alexro 15y ago
  I was following along Bezos, who of course can be wrong and you of course may be write. Bezos' point was: >> On the other hand if a market is established, to win market share startups must differentiate their products by better serving the customer. << And it generally means not coming up with an idea but following the already established customer pain. And in this situation execution matters more.
  - cek 15y ago
    I'll give Jeff the benefit of the doubt and assume he mis-spoke and is not actually wrong :-). As with any taxonomy (or tool) one can over analyze.
    - 15y ago

cateye 15y ago

There are a lot more ways for product development. Actually most products aren't in these categories. A lot of products are a sum of little innovations made by others. Combining the right elements id the key. Just one of these elementd id the market.

cateye 15y ago

There are a lot more ways for product development. Actually most products aren't in these categories. A lot of products are a sum of little innovations made by others. Combining the right elements is the key. Just one of these elementd id the market.