4 ms·

There are plenty of people around here who keep saying it's the execution that counts, launch with a MVP because you need data so you can pivot, what matters is

by dhimes 14y ago

There are plenty of people around here who keep saying it's the execution that counts, launch with a MVP because you need data so you can pivot, what matters is having a great team, and all that. I've been calling bullshit on the "execution is everything" meme for a while now, but I hadn't thought of it as maybe a cause of increasing difficulty in the startup ecosystem. That is an interesting hypothesis.

acgourley 14y ago
The problem is you can stuff any meaning you want into the word "execution" - designers can stuff in beautiful design, programmers can stuff in cross platform deployment, etc. It should probably mean, "relentlessly finding market fit"
- Silhouette 14y ago
  [Execution] should probably mean, "relentlessly finding market fit" The trouble is, that doesn't really say much either. "Finding market fit" essentially means producing something good enough that people will pay for it, so arguing that execution is all that matters for success with that definition is a circular argument. On the other hand, if we contrast "execution" with "idea", as is often the case in HN discussions where the "ideas have little value" argument is made, we're effectively comparing having a good idea that we can make money from with having an arbitrarily bad idea and assuming that it can be incrementally adapted (<ahem> pivoted) into a good idea that we can make money from. I simply don't accept the premise that you can start from anywhere you like and always wind up making money as effectively as someone who started from any other point.
  - acgourley 14y ago
    > I simply don't accept the premise that you can start from anywhere you like Is anyone saying that? I believe it's a strawman. What people say is "ideas are worthless" which is quotable hyperbole used to club stubborn NDA wielding entrepreneurs over the head. What people mean is: ideas are effectively worthless because until you start executing you don't have a good way to know if the idea is good or not. So yes, starting point matters. Unfortunately, until you start to execute, you only have the an extremely hazy understanding if your starting point was good. Sure you can weed out absolute loser ideas, and you can get an idea of the risk profile of the venture, but not much more.
    - Silhouette 14y ago
      Is anyone saying that? I believe it's a strawman. What people say is "ideas are worthless" which is quotable hyperbole used to club stubborn NDA wielding entrepreneurs over the head. That is surely how it started, but I'm not sure everyone on the start-up scene today got the memo. Unfortunately, until you start to execute, you only have the an extremely hazy understanding if your starting point was good. I still respectfully disagree. Some of the most successful small businesses I'm familiar with started out with a disruptive idea in a specialised market that was so far beyond what was available at the time that there was never really any doubt that it would be viable and a successful company would result, the only question was how successful. The common factors in each case were founders with a shared interest in/understanding of some specific field, often an existing support network in that field, a solid combination of general technical and non-technical skills, and most importantly, going where no other team with those combined strengths had been before. If you stop trying to appeal to the entire planet and start looking into niche areas (which does not necessarily imply tiny markets, just smaller than "everyone"), it's amazing how many opportunities there are to apply modern technology to do things qualitatively or at least order-of-magnitude quantitatively better, and how many real problems you can solve for businesses and private individuals alike. Many of those businesses are also counterexamples to the popular wisdom that if you have no competitors in a market then that's a bad sign because there isn't really a market there. Sometimes you really are just that much better than everyone else, because if your market isn't full of geeks who build their own hardware or write software just for fun, even applying quite basic (by geek standards) skills can put you far beyond old school, manual ways of doing things.
      - acgourley 14y ago
        So I concede your point, but I think those are also smaller and smaller markets. In an efficient world those obvious-at-the-start ideas are only unsolved AND obvious because they perceived value of solving them is low. Not so low they are not worth doing, but low enough they won't support a rapid growth and investment seeking startup.
        Silhouette 14y ago

by dhimes 14y ago

acgourley 14y ago

The problem is you can stuff any meaning you want into the word "execution" - designers can stuff in beautiful design, programmers can stuff in cross platform deployment, etc. It should probably mean, "relentlessly finding market fit"

Silhouette 14y ago
[Execution] should probably mean, "relentlessly finding market fit" The trouble is, that doesn't really say much either. "Finding market fit" essentially means producing something good enough that people will pay for it, so arguing that execution is all that matters for success with that definition is a circular argument. On the other hand, if we contrast "execution" with "idea", as is often the case in HN discussions where the "ideas have little value" argument is made, we're effectively comparing having a good idea that we can make money from with having an arbitrarily bad idea and assuming that it can be incrementally adapted (<ahem> pivoted) into a good idea that we can make money from. I simply don't accept the premise that you can start from anywhere you like and always wind up making money as effectively as someone who started from any other point.
- acgourley 14y ago
  > I simply don't accept the premise that you can start from anywhere you like Is anyone saying that? I believe it's a strawman. What people say is "ideas are worthless" which is quotable hyperbole used to club stubborn NDA wielding entrepreneurs over the head. What people mean is: ideas are effectively worthless because until you start executing you don't have a good way to know if the idea is good or not. So yes, starting point matters. Unfortunately, until you start to execute, you only have the an extremely hazy understanding if your starting point was good. Sure you can weed out absolute loser ideas, and you can get an idea of the risk profile of the venture, but not much more.
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    Is anyone saying that? I believe it's a strawman. What people say is "ideas are worthless" which is quotable hyperbole used to club stubborn NDA wielding entrepreneurs over the head. That is surely how it started, but I'm not sure everyone on the start-up scene today got the memo. Unfortunately, until you start to execute, you only have the an extremely hazy understanding if your starting point was good. I still respectfully disagree. Some of the most successful small businesses I'm familiar with started out with a disruptive idea in a specialised market that was so far beyond what was available at the time that there was never really any doubt that it would be viable and a successful company would result, the only question was how successful. The common factors in each case were founders with a shared interest in/understanding of some specific field, often an existing support network in that field, a solid combination of general technical and non-technical skills, and most importantly, going where no other team with those combined strengths had been before. If you stop trying to appeal to the entire planet and start looking into niche areas (which does not necessarily imply tiny markets, just smaller than "everyone"), it's amazing how many opportunities there are to apply modern technology to do things qualitatively or at least order-of-magnitude quantitatively better, and how many real problems you can solve for businesses and private individuals alike. Many of those businesses are also counterexamples to the popular wisdom that if you have no competitors in a market then that's a bad sign because there isn't really a market there. Sometimes you really are just that much better than everyone else, because if your market isn't full of geeks who build their own hardware or write software just for fun, even applying quite basic (by geek standards) skills can put you far beyond old school, manual ways of doing things.
    - acgourley 14y ago
      So I concede your point, but I think those are also smaller and smaller markets. In an efficient world those obvious-at-the-start ideas are only unsolved AND obvious because they perceived value of solving them is low. Not so low they are not worth doing, but low enough they won't support a rapid growth and investment seeking startup.
      - Silhouette 14y ago