3 ms·

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 ob

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
I think those are also smaller and smaller markets. [...] Not so low they are not worth doing, but low enough they won't support a rapid growth and investment seeking startup. I think we agree on the basic situation, just perhaps have a different idea of the scale. To me, having a business that has merely millions of potential paying customers, but where those customers have a particular interest in what you're offering and there is relatively little competition because you really are doing something new, is worth more by any metric I care about than having a business with billions of potential paying customers who have no particular interest in what you're offering and dozens of competitors offering something similar. About the only metric where this doesn't come out on top in B2C world is "probability of hitting it out of the park", which is of interest to VCs and serial entrepreneurs playing the long game, but possibly not so relevant if you're just trying to start a successful business for yourself. Your comment about "in an efficient world" is interesting, because I think this is where the received wisdom breaks down: the real world is nowhere close to an idealised efficient economy. Many people have the skills to use modern technology effectively, but a lot of them are working for someone else in some large business, and the overheads of that large business make many of these smaller projects commercially unappealing. The "correct" economic response for the people with the skills to take advantage of the market that would pay for them is for those people to break away and set up their own small, efficient businesses that can then make a very tidy profit by genuinely helping a lot of people who are below the radar of big business. Of course, that requires skills other than technical ones, and an awareness of the possibilities, and a willingness to take a risk with your income when perhaps you have a mortgage to pay and a family to support, and all of those things influence what actually happens. But that is why there really are still a lot of very lucrative (by individual/small business standards) opportunities out there for those who are willing and able to make that jump.

Silhouette 14y ago

I think those are also smaller and smaller markets. [...] Not so low they are not worth doing, but low enough they won't support a rapid growth and investment seeking startup. I think we agree on the basic situation, just perhaps have a different idea of the scale. To me, having a business that has merely millions of potential paying customers, but where those customers have a particular interest in what you're offering and there is relatively little competition because you really are doing something new, is worth more by any metric I care about than having a business with billions of potential paying customers who have no particular interest in what you're offering and dozens of competitors offering something similar. About the only metric where this doesn't come out on top in B2C world is "probability of hitting it out of the park", which is of interest to VCs and serial entrepreneurs playing the long game, but possibly not so relevant if you're just trying to start a successful business for yourself. Your comment about "in an efficient world" is interesting, because I think this is where the received wisdom breaks down: the real world is nowhere close to an idealised efficient economy. Many people have the skills to use modern technology effectively, but a lot of them are working for someone else in some large business, and the overheads of that large business make many of these smaller projects commercially unappealing. The "correct" economic response for the people with the skills to take advantage of the market that would pay for them is for those people to break away and set up their own small, efficient businesses that can then make a very tidy profit by genuinely helping a lot of people who are below the radar of big business. Of course, that requires skills other than technical ones, and an awareness of the possibilities, and a willingness to take a risk with your income when perhaps you have a mortgage to pay and a family to support, and all of those things influence what actually happens. But that is why there really are still a lot of very lucrative (by individual/small business standards) opportunities out there for those who are willing and able to make that jump.