Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Okay, I've been researching and reaching out to various entities for, well, going on a couple years now regarding my "start-up" concept of a company that creates some inventions, brings to market, and licenses technology as another revenue stream. Yes, it's not a software-oriented business, but it's a viable entity with multiple prospects. Thus, the following line doesn't really ring true to me:

>One important counterintuitive reason for this is that it’s easier to do something new and hard than something derivative and easy. People will want to help you and join you if it’s the former; they will not if it’s the latter.

In every single instance where I actually get a response, there's a consistent chorus of "this doesn't fit the model of what we support" and, basically, I chalk it up to an investment environment that actually, truly targets the derivative and easy moreso than the unique and difficult.

That's why I'm still slogging along in the self-directed patent process. Nobody is interested in helping (beyond some constructive comments I've received here from community members - thank you!), and certainly not in contributing financial backing. It is what it is...but that claim? I don't really buy it.




I think the point is that if the problem is interesting you can get people onboard helping you as ex. tech founders.

But if your problem is trivial (build a en ecommerce website) then they want you to pay them hard cash.

I agree though that some problems might be hard to articulate and so you end up with having a problem getting people to believe in your project.

I personally was trying to convince developers to join me on a venture I wanted to do and had no luck. Then I decided to just pay someone to do a small fraction of what I wanted to do and which I knew I could pay for and now that developer I paid to do my first project is now partnering with me in my next project.

Sometimes you have to look at your idea and see if you can create a much smaller product from what you want so you can get started on someting at least. Then if it's successful you will have people wanting to join you.


Thanks for your response and reasoning as to the circumstance, I follow what you're pointing out. Your last line, about getting started, is the reality I've decided to deal with - enough with dreaming of getting a jump start from anybody else. A co-worker of mine obtained a device patent and has been very encouraging that I pursue the same route - if the idea is to be as successful as intuition and market review indicate, then might as well reap all the rewards first and foremost.

I guess I'm just rather frustrated at the "start up culture" of claiming to invest in new things, in risk-to-reward principles, while in practice it's a lot more akin to the RIAA big-label approach of "we'll give you money only because we know you'll make us more money in this proven areana of pop/country/rap/etc" in a lot of respects.


You are welcome.

I have written a little about it here https://medium.com/black-n-white/the-problem-with-problems-4...

Perhaps that can provide you with a perspective to think about it.


This might sound harsh, but nothing you've said has indicated to me that you idea is actually one of those new and hard startups. Developing foo technology with a business model of licensing it is pretty derivative. The hard problems are in bringing technology products to market.


Well that's a fair point, but the 'new and hard' component of one or more devices that exist in the physical realm is - by all accounts told to me - harder than deploying some kind of software. Many more challenges in development, cost analysis, manufacturing, and obtaining market share combine to inherently be more difficult than some SaaS product. Or, in other words, developing a concpet like Slack is a cake-walk of difficultly compared to making a wearable device or something like a Segway.

>The hard problems are in bringing technology products to market.

That's exactly my point - investors and the start-up community isn't interested in actual hard problems. It's more infatuated with SaaS or wearable devices, rather than actual products/inventions which have a traditional path of inception-growth-profit. Basically you've backed into making my point in a way.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: