
The two ways to build a product, according to Bezos - ttunguz
http://tomasztunguz.com/2011/09/20/the-two-ways-to-build-a-product-according-to-bezos/
======
cek
This is so right on.

I've always expressed it as

    
    
       There are two types of innovation: Aspirational and Reactionary
    

_Aspirational Innovation_ - Where you, as the creator, aspire to provide
something to customers they don't currently have or can't do. _You_ believe
there's a great new thing customers can have/do that they currently don't
have/do. It solves a problem that customers don't know they have (yet).

_Reactionary Innovation_ - Where your product addresses existing customer
pain. It solves a problem that customers have today. It makes pain go away for
the customers.

Both types of innovation are hard. I have built products along both lines.
Windows Media Center was Aspirational ("People want to record and watch TV on
their PCs"). The challenge here was convincing the market that this is what
they wanted. Windows Home Server was Reactionary ("Multiple PC's in the home
are painful to manage"). The challenge here was convincing the market that the
product actually made the pain go away.

~~~
Hisoka
I may be arguing semantics but isn't the first a type of the second? It's
STILL solving a problem people have today. It just is a problem that consumers
don't recognize very clearly for some reason.. maybe because they framed an
existing problem the wrong way (ie. they think problem X is a financial
problem when it was really a psychological problem.) Twitter for instance
solves the problem of not having our social/attention needs met. It's a
problem that too's abstract for people to complain about, but it's there.

~~~
sokoloff
If you squint hard enough, sure.

But that's not the point of dividing the space along these lines.

Think of gunpowder, the steam and then internal combusion engines, electric
distribution and lightbulbs, the automobile, heavier than air flight at all,
helicopters.

Sure, each of those solved actual pain that people had (otherwise they'd have
not caught on as successful products).

But the difference is that products in the first category solve problems that
customers aren't complaining about, often because there's no frame of
reference to allow them to complain about it. Their bow and arrows, oxen, gas
lights, carriages, ships and hot air balloons are working just fine, maybe
they just need a small tweak or two. (I even put TiVo/ReplayTV into the first
category, even though we had VCRs at the time.)

------
alexro
Isn't it exactly the answer that finally clarifies the idea vs. execution
debate?

You can't build a product to meet a vision if you don't have a compelling
innovative idea, regardless of how good you execute. And the opposite is true
in the established market.

Trashing ideas just seems so wrong to me because the history proves otherwise,
and now Bezos has made it profoundly clear.

~~~
cek

        Isn't it exactly the answer that finally clarifies the idea vs. execution debate?
    

I don't think this provides the definitive answer to anything. It think it is
just a very good taxonomy that people can use to be more clear in their
thinking and communication.

    
    
        You can't build a product to meet a vision if you don't have a compelling innovative idea, regardless of how good you execute. 
    

I had a tough time parsing this. "a vision" implies "a compelling innovative
idea", so I think you are saying "You can't build a product if you don't have
an idea, regardless of how well you execute". Which is true.

    
    
       And the opposite is true in the established market.
    

I don't think this taxonomy has anything to do with whether the market is
established or not. There can be aspirational innovation (products) introduced
to established markets.

~~~
alexro
I was following along Bezos, who of course can be wrong and you of course may
be write. Bezos' point was:

>> On the other hand if a market is established, to win market share startups
must differentiate their products by better serving the customer. <<

And it generally means not coming up with an idea but following the already
established customer pain. And in this situation execution matters more.

~~~
cek
I'll give Jeff the benefit of the doubt and assume he mis-spoke and is not
actually wrong :-).

As with any taxonomy (or tool) one can over analyze.

~~~
alexro
I think Bezos' argument is a very practical one. In the established market
there are already lots of customers with pain. They know what they want and
ready to pay for it.

So you follow them and fulfil their needs. Then you have the resources to
innovate.

------
cateye
There are a lot more ways for product development. Actually most products
aren't in these categories.

A lot of products are a sum of little innovations made by others. Combining
the right elements is the key. Just one of these elementd id the market.

------
cateye
There are a lot more ways for product development. Actually most products
aren't in these categories.

A lot of products are a sum of little innovations made by others. Combining
the right elements id the key. Just one of these elementd id the market.

