3 ms·
Through experience, I have come to believe that an idea could seem like all of these, but when a team starts to work on it, a lot of additional not-so-pretty as
by clnq 4y ago
Through experience, I have come to believe that an idea could seem like all of these, but when a team starts to work on it, a lot of additional not-so-pretty aspects of the idea generally get uncovered. They show up weeks, months, and years into development and are very difficult to predict upfront. And whether the idea is good or not seems to depend on what gets uncovered.
To use an example from my industry (video games), a game idea might seem good, implementable, easy to design, marketable and profitable. But in the process of implementing it (even very late sometimes), it might become very obvious to everyone that it's not fun and there's no way to make it fun.
I have also worked in an aviation startup where a software product we built was a good idea and already needed by some clients (govt/military), but there was interest growing in the business market. We developed it, govt started using it (with great feedback), we had enough funding for a few years, and we marketed it enough to start some b2b conversations and see some nice best case scenario financial projections. And it never sold at a price that would have kept the startup in business. We scaled down, founders worked unpaid for a while, and then it was passed on to a university for their students to maintain for experience and to fulfil govt needs. The final earnings from the tech and company sale after all legalese costs: not seven figures, not six, nor five - two. The final verdict for this idea: too ahead of its time for many potential clients who would have probably been late adopters (even if some were extremely eager to adopt immediately).
From my (limited) experience, it takes a lot of time and effort to see flaws with most ideas. I think it's very difficult to evaluate an idea upfront with some kind of rubric, even though many people suggest using theirs. And yours is not a bad rubric - it covers many obvious potential defects with a given idea.
- nonrandomstring 4y agoGood points. A commenter in this thread [1] said that's what agile is for (to make mistakes), but people are aftraid of doing real agile. What I wanted to advocate for is little pathfinder "probe teams" that can scout ahead with rapid POCs and find the pitfalls. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=33392241 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=33392241