5 ms·
Startups should be based on an opportunity to solve a problem, not "wanting to do a startup." Check your motivations.
by Breefield 13y ago
Startups should be based on an opportunity to solve a problem, not "wanting to do a startup."
Check your motivations.
- jaf12duke 13y agoThat's a fair warning. I would also say that business in general is an opportunity to solve problems. Startups are a subset in which that opportunity starts with no resources. The big change over the last few years is that starting with no resources has become less of an obstacle.
- mathattack 13y agoYou hit the key point of the OP. I view his message isn't that everyone should do it. It's that starting a company has gotten so much easier that everyone serious about it should. Taking his reasoning a step further... Look what companies like Google and Amazon were able to accomplish starting in tougher times. Now it is much easier to start something new.
- Xcelerate 13y ago> Startups are based on an opportunity to solve a problem, not "wanting to do a startup." Check your motivations. So, I have an opinion that runs counter to almost everyone on HN, but I disagree with this. I see nothing wrong with wanting to do a startup for the sake of wanting to do a startup. That's a great motivation in itself for many people. There's no magic or scientific principle that says startup success must be a direct function of the type of motivation of its founders. Perhaps there are some correlations; Paul Graham could perhaps provide more insight into that... There are many highly motivated, hard-working people who have failed with startup ideas that elegantly solved novel problems, and then there are only somewhat-motivated people who just wanted to create a website that ended up taking off into something. Of course, once it "took off", if they didn't suddenly become motivated, of course their idea would go nowhere, but it's the kind/type of motivation in the initial stages that I think too much value is being placed on. It's nobel to think that everyone should want to start a company to solve a legitimate problem, but in reality I see absolutely nothing wrong with other motivators being the impetus for starting a company: boredom, money, curiosity. In the end, it's the result, not the motivation that ever mattered.
- byoung2 13y agoIt is much easier to get people to pay you if you solve a problem or make their lives easier. This is especially true for B2B startups where your customers have to justify every expense. In the B2C space, people might pay you money even if you don't solve a problem (e.g. entertainment). When a B2C company gains traction, it may have to pivot to solve a problem for either its users or other companies (e.g. selling advertising to its userbase like Twitter or Facebook).
- nostrademons 13y agoTrue, but you're much more likely to get that end result if your motivations align with it. If you just want to start a startup, you will likely start a startup, and...then what? If your goal is to "do a startup", you will probably do a startup, with all the networking events, hackathons, coworking, fundraising, PR drama, and emotional rollercoster that entails. It's the startup mythology you read on Hacker News, after all. And then your company will fail because you're not solving some actual market's problem. While if your motivation is to "solve a problem", you will likely solve a problem, and that's what people will pay you for. When startups succeed despite their founders just wanting to "start a startup" (eg. PayPal), it's usually because the founders managed to zero in on a problem they really wanted to solve before they ran out of money. That doesn't always happen.
- mindcrime 13y agoAnd then your company will fail because you're not solving some actual market's problem. I think you're imagining more of a dichotomy than really exists. I mean, I don't disagree that you need to solve a real problem, but if your motivation for starting is rooted more in the desire to build a startup, and then you go out and find a problem that you're legitimately passionate about, does it matter that you started from the desire to build a startup, and then navigated to the problem, instead of the other way 'round? I will posit that the answer is "no", and that it does not matter. What matters is that, at some point, by whatever means, you reach a point where you are working on something that you are both legitimately passionate about, AND that solves a real world problem. Some people just know they are meant for the startup world, and know that they are driven to build a company, before the necessarily know what company they will build. Maybe they just can't stand having a boss, maybe they relish the idea of building a company, maybe they just want to be rich, maybe some combination of all of the above. But I don't see a problem with starting from "I want to start a company" as opposed to "I want to solve problem X" as long as you ultimately arrive at both in the end.
- hvs 13y agoI think the type of people that want to do a startup would do it no matter what. It's the same reason that there are companies that sell urinal cakes. Wanting to build a successful company is not a bad reason to start a company. There are literally an infinite number of problems to solve. If you want to start a company, pick one.
- tvladeck 13y agoYou're not disagreeing. The first step in a startup (as far as my read on this world is concerned) is to identify and validate a real problem that you can solve.