6 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoI'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.
- alexro 15y agoI think Bezos' argument is a very practical one. In the established market there are already lots of customers with pain. They know what they want and ready to pay for it. So you follow them and fulfil their needs. Then you have the resources to innovate.