

Ask HN: Do forced startup ideas work? - dereking

Let me begin by clarifying the term &#x27;forced&#x27; - in this context I would describe it as any idea that was artificially realized against a criteria, rather than an idea that naturally evolved as a need to solve a problem. For example;<p>Forced: <i>There is a lot of growth in X market, lets think of something new within that area</i><p>Natural: <i>Booking taxis is such a pain, wouldn&#x27;t it be nice for them to see my GPS coordinates</i> - Uber is conceptualized.<p>That being said, how many of you have successfully built a startup based on an idea that was retrofitted to a set of criteria&#x27;s (eg. Paul Graham&#x27;s startups we&#x27;d like to fund essay) rather than as a solution to any of your problems.<p>Is a natural idea more likely to succeed than an artificial one?
======
davismwfl
When shit hits the fan and life sucks because things just are not going right
for a time, passion, execution, belief and determination are what pulls you
though. If you don't have those items about the idea, then it doesn't matter
how the idea came about.

As for what historically has been more successful, I don't know of any real
metric that defines it. But I'd say from perception I have formed over the
years, Natural ideas seem to win in terms of companies with a long term
positive outcome.

~~~
dereking
Very true, I have always had the same perception maybe even treated it as an
undisputed cliché in every startup pitch.

But as time goes on, I seem to be getting more cynical to the perception and
start believing a lot of the ideas are just more successful because of the
'market analysis' done before hand (with the exception of trend-makers, for
example AirBnB)

Look at Blippar for instance, the startup that triggered this realization when
I heard about it.

Augmented Reality has existed for quite some time, there have been countless
applications, from real estate to navigation, yet many of similar start-ups
have faded as time went on, but they on the other hand have remained due to
targeting a cash rich market (Advertising) even though it solves no problem.

I know the above statement is quite simplistic, and surely it does not make
the Blippar team justice for all the effort, strategies, etc that they
employed. However, the idea of (what I perceive to be artificial) and yet has
been so successful in such a short period of time is a bit of an eye opener.

~~~
davismwfl
I get what you mean.

I think the Natural idea that sucks (has no market or solves no need) will
still suck regardless of how much passion and energy that you put into them,
maybe just suck a little less. To me an idea still has to either have an
existing market, or a definable market with a way to monetize the
product/service. Otherwise what is the point, other than if you want a
lifestyle business?

From my experience, it seems like when advertising products/services is
involved (like Blippar), companies and investors do seem more willing to toss
some money at the less defined markets and wackier ideas and see if they stick
or create change. So at least from the very tiny bit I read about Blippar, my
initial impression is that is where they fit in today. Effectively, a concept
that got tossed a little money to see if they can make something stick with
consumers and test out some technology that might benefit Qualcom (assuming
Crunchbase is right about who their seed investment was from). And who knows
how they are paying bills otherwise, maybe it is with significant market
consulting to learn about problems which also gives them more runway
prolonging an idea that is doomed to die (not saying they will, just a point).

To your other point, I think timing is critical too, there have been some
really good ideas that were just to early for the market to accept, yet 10
years later a startup tries it and is successful. Happens to really well
funded projects from large investors and firms, e.g. Microsoft, Apple etc.

------
jmngomes
Your chances are seriously increased if you are addressing a real and
_validated_ market need such as "Booking taxis is such a pain" and you get the
method to solve the problem right e.g. "wouldn't it be nice for them to see my
GPS coordinates".

In any case, conceptualizing is merely the beginning of building a business
around an idea.

------
idoh
A really interesting question. I think that artificial ideas are the way to
go, provided that you can find a way to develop a strong interest in the
subject somehow. In my personal life I tend towards minimalism, but in my
professional life I really enjoy the simple act of making the numbers go up,
so it works for me.

In the recent past I've found good success in the birthday ecards space, and
the astrology space, and both are "artificial". Right now I'm exploring
religious themed apps in Android and iOS, and that seems to be going really
well too, even though I am not an evangelical christian.

Anyway, without strong interest in a topic you cannot succeed. But it is
possible to develop an interest in a subject ex post facto.

------
js4
It doesn't really matter because epiphanies dont exist.

People often times think that ideas just come randomly while you are walking
down the street. In reality good ideas come when you are executing on
something and in the thick of it you see an angle.

People may argue that you need passion for a startup idea, but you alway end
up falling in love with an idea over time, not from day one. Arguably if you
are in love with an idea from day one its dangerous because you are likely to
miss an angle or clear warning signs that you are doomed.

~~~
dereking
You touched on another opened wound - "falling in love with the idea over
time"

For me I experienced the opposite. A while back we were working on and idea
which we believed to have a lot of potential and opportunities to do something
of actual positive impact in society.

Long story short, as time went on, I personally started feeling like it was
not that great of an idea, like if it would be awesome someone would have done
it by now, etc. For other circumstances the team drifted apart geographically
and the startup slowly reached development stagnation.

Not that long after, 2-3 very similar ideas emerged in the market - one of
them from a startup's partnership with PayPal.

Needless to say, I both felt sad and happy. The first is pretty self
explanatory, while the second felt like a nice validation pat on the back.

But I digress...

Thanks for the comment, really insightful.

~~~
js4
This is just part of the game --its happened to me.

I had a company that had some investment $$ and realized that it wouldn't work
like I thought it would. So I did the responsible thing and found a buyer so
that I could get my investors out of the deal.

------
coralreef
I think the data shows forced ideas are less likely to succeed. The reason is
you are less likely to understand the problem (you may or may not have lived
it). You are also thus less likely to have any domain advantage over anyone
else, or knowledge of any secrets. It may also affect your conviction; you may
be less likely to believe in your idea when times get tough, because it is not
deeply rooted in your experiences.

~~~
js4
The MSFT crew didn't set out to make windows, they took advantage of a market
opportunity by buying DOS from one guy and selling it to another.

Billions of dollars in value is made by people who analyze markets looking for
an angle.

~~~
coralreef
No doubt, but how they were able to see the opportunity for an operating
system stemmed from their work with the altair. They found these opportunities
because they loved computers. They didn't say, "this looks like a promising
space", and then proceeded to learn about programming. They were already at
the forefront of a rapidly changing industry.

------
brudgers
Both are very likely to fail. Execution and luck swamp any factors stemming
from missionary versus doggy style conception.

~~~
dereking
> Both are very likely to fail

Applies if the execution and luck of the founders is rather poor - something
that will normally be true in all cases.

My question focuses on the likelihood of success based solely on the method of
idea acquisition.

~~~
brudgers
To a first approximation: zero in both cases.

It's not a place for meaningful optimization. See JustinTV.

~~~
cnasillo
What does 'It's not a place for meaningful optimization' mean?

~~~
brudgers
It matters less than cashflow.

