6 ms·

I don't think this approach is appropriate for the vast majority of entrepreneurs. Mr. Jobs was a unique character with a perspective on the world that few othe

I don't think this approach is appropriate for the vast majority of entrepreneurs. Mr. Jobs was a unique character with a perspective on the world that few others (appear to) share. It seems that entrepreneurs these days are concerned with "building something awesome (to also make money)", and that's not what Steve Jobs did.

lutusp 14y ago
> I don't think this approach is appropriate for the vast majority of entrepreneurs. Only the successful ones. It's one thing to create a product that answers an existing need (and that may already have competition). It's quite another to create a product that people don't realize they need until they see it. The classic example is the personal computer. Steve Wozniak tried and failed to interest HP (his employer at the time) in backing his personal project, a small, one-board computer that anyone could own. HP didn't see the potential, so Woz was allowed to carry the idea away from his employer and pursue it on his own. As Jobs often said, it's the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary. Don't get me wrong -- I personally never got along with Jobs and couldn't work with him, but in this respect, he was often proven right.
- danso 14y ago
  I don't know if I agree that your Woz example is the best one...it's one thing to not be able to convince management, it's another not to be able to convince the average Joe.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > ... it's one thing to not be able to convince management, it's another not to be able to convince the average Joe. I agree with your point, but Woz and Jobs convinced both -- they convinced both financial backers and the public. I'm just saying it's possible, and such stories often accompany noteworthy technological breakthroughs.
freework 14y ago
"unique character with a perspective on the world that few others (appear to) share" Thats called "being a great entrepreneur". And yes I agree, few people share.
- nicksergeant 14y ago
  Exactly. So suggesting to all entrepreneurs that their product is possibly failing because they haven't convinced people why they want it yet, is a bad idea.
  - derefr 14y ago
    Let me rephrase that. We both agree that it's fine in the case of great entrepreneurs, so let's subtract those out from your statement: > So suggesting to bad entrepreneurs that their product is possibly failing because they haven't convinced people why they want it yet, is a bad idea. When said this way, I don't see why it would be true. You don't give illiterate people different advice if they want to write a book: you tell them to read lots and lots of books. The fact that they can't, simply means that they can't, if-and-until they change themselves so they can. Similarly, the fact that bad entrepreneurs can't convince people to want something, simply means they fail as entrepreneurs. They don't get a handicap lane to execute in; there's only one market. If they want to succeed, they don't need a crutch; they need to become better entrepreneurs.

lutusp 14y ago

> I don't think this approach is appropriate for the vast majority of entrepreneurs. Only the successful ones. It's one thing to create a product that answers an existing need (and that may already have competition). It's quite another to create a product that people don't realize they need until they see it. The classic example is the personal computer. Steve Wozniak tried and failed to interest HP (his employer at the time) in backing his personal project, a small, one-board computer that anyone could own. HP didn't see the potential, so Woz was allowed to carry the idea away from his employer and pursue it on his own. As Jobs often said, it's the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary. Don't get me wrong -- I personally never got along with Jobs and couldn't work with him, but in this respect, he was often proven right.

danso 14y ago
I don't know if I agree that your Woz example is the best one...it's one thing to not be able to convince management, it's another not to be able to convince the average Joe.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > ... it's one thing to not be able to convince management, it's another not to be able to convince the average Joe. I agree with your point, but Woz and Jobs convinced both -- they convinced both financial backers and the public. I'm just saying it's possible, and such stories often accompany noteworthy technological breakthroughs.

freework 14y ago

"unique character with a perspective on the world that few others (appear to) share" Thats called "being a great entrepreneur". And yes I agree, few people share.

nicksergeant 14y ago
Exactly. So suggesting to all entrepreneurs that their product is possibly failing because they haven't convinced people why they want it yet, is a bad idea.
- derefr 14y ago
  Let me rephrase that. We both agree that it's fine in the case of great entrepreneurs, so let's subtract those out from your statement: > So suggesting to bad entrepreneurs that their product is possibly failing because they haven't convinced people why they want it yet, is a bad idea. When said this way, I don't see why it would be true. You don't give illiterate people different advice if they want to write a book: you tell them to read lots and lots of books. The fact that they can't, simply means that they can't, if-and-until they change themselves so they can. Similarly, the fact that bad entrepreneurs can't convince people to want something, simply means they fail as entrepreneurs. They don't get a handicap lane to execute in; there's only one market. If they want to succeed, they don't need a crutch; they need to become better entrepreneurs.