Both points-of-view are a little one-sided (although martin explains why), but yours is too aggressive.
Vision and execution together give the value, not one or the other. That's why YCombinator and PG focus so much on the team: you need complementary skills.
While I can't fully agree to "ideas worth nothing, execution is 100%", the fact is people come up with your idea independently. The value of it will be show by the ones who execute it.
This "you are easily replaceable" thinking is probably the worst way to think of getting into a startup or any kind of business partnership.
To not make this any longer: startups are like a marriage. Is your wife (/husband) easily replaceable?
Yeah, not disagreeing. But the way I interpret the conclusion of this story, is that this wasn't a particularly startup friendly idea. I'm sure it's somewhat salvagable with the right strategy.
My greater point is that ideas set the boundaries for what's possible in execution, which in turn means ideas are critical. If they were unimportant a shit idea would have little impact on the outcome, which is clearly not true. They could still be "overrated" though, but then we should use that language.
I disagree. If you have a flawed business model, or a product that's simply not that desirable, then execution doesn't matter. Junk ideas remain junk, regardless of how well they are marketed.
In this case, it's my opinion that the startup in question was just never a good idea to begin with. No solid business model and no good reason why it would be widely adopted.
I've heard multiple times that for a startup to succeed, it needs an idea, a great team to execute it and funding, and that it is enough to have two out of these three. Invariably, the people that say the latter are the ones that have no ideas.
I think the reason we're not seeing eye to eye is that we're applying different standards. That quote makes a point PG has made (IIRC). He concluded that great startups don't naturally follow from great ideas. That's because ideas alone are seldom so great that they do all the work on their own: you still have to execute, and good execution is underrated.
This article is claiming to have an idea so great that literally anyone can employ it and benefit from it, though, and that's an awfully high standard.
I don't agree. I think they are somewhat independent. Of course you have to be very careful that you don't take a bad startup idea and do it simply because you want to do a startup, but IMHO startup desire is often and important pre-requisite for doing anything with your idea. I've know plenty of people (myself included) who had good ideas at times when they didn't have the desire to execute on them, and they are just a fun lunch conversation and nothing more. But when you have that backing desire and the right idea comes to you that you believe in, the magic can happen. With a truly great idea sometimes the desire can follow the idea, but that in my experience is the exception rather than the rule.
That's true, no idea by itself is sufficient to becoming successful unless there is solid execution/implementation. However, in the case of startups that are "inventing" a product instead of making something existing better the initial idea becomes the "moneymaker". Startups applying for YCombinator to improve on an existing product (social networking, social news, finance softwares) don't have to worry about giving away an idea that they have been brainstorming for months. They primarily are banking on the fact that their approach is solid and the engineering of the product is high quality (no easy task either).
The idea is a very necessary factor, but yes not by itself sufficient. The Paul Graham article "How to Start a Startup" assumes that a startup is only developing something to improve on an existing idea/technology.
A startup inventing a product would be taking a huge leap of faith by believing that a power broker like Y Combinator would not be tempted to (in the event they came across an idea that they felt was revolutionary) to not farm out the engineering/business dev to seasoned developers; especially if they lacked faith in the approach/abilities of the founders. After all the process of execution/development is pretty much a commodity task.
I think anyone who is in the HN environment has already realized that the people and, likely more importantly, the ability to execute* is the #1 secret in a successful startup. People outside the HN circle don't understand this though. I have friends who are still looking for that perfect idea and then they'll start working on something on the side. I just don't see it working that way, instead you keep working on the side until you morph whatever you have into that perfect idea.
*Execution really is king, but is greatly helped by being smart and fast. Basically if you have all three you can take a whim idea do it quickly and see 'what if.' The faster that someone can iterate through that process the more chances they can give themselves at finding a good business.
Isn't the usual refrain "the idea is useless, it's the execution that matters"? Or does that only apply when it's a startup and not a big evil company?
This approach fails when hard obstacles start presenting themselves. The founder is not bought into the idea so much that he/she cares to see it through. The VC sees it as 1 of a large portfolio of ideas. And if you look through the history of startup ideas, (as you've said) the execution helps bring the team unique insights to help with pivots.
I've seen this type of thing work inside companies though, where people work in an incubator like YC, except there are shared resources and the incubator is an umbrella company.
I'm actually hoping someone will reply and show me why I'm wrong, because it's a scary view. As a software engineer in the startup scene I personally don't see how they could care about the idea deeply, based on all of my experiences. I'm hoping someone has an experience that proves me wrong.
i disagree, and here's why: most of the applications that we see developed are based on ideas that flow from the common experience, then crystallize via a good idea. regardless of how good your idea is someone else is thinking of it too, and it becomes a question of who can get it to market fastest. if you're a part-timer competing with someone who isn't (as i was in a previous project) you're going to ultimately lose, as your potential users will latch on to the thing that fulfills their needs first, even if doesn't do so best. when that happens, your userbase's growth curve will be slowed.
a few months ago i quit my full-time job to pursue a startup with only $6k in the bank. yeah, food is slim pickins, but we launch stage 1 tomorrow and it feels darn good.
none of this is to say you can't take on a few hours/week of contract work of some kind, but your startup should be your primary focus.
Execution is what matters in startups, if they either can't find developers who are halfway decent or if a cofounder wrote this, that's a major red flag that they don't know how to execute.
I mostly disagree with this article. Disclaimer: I live in NYC and not the valley, but I think this just makes my point stronger.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Many can be great. Execution is what separates the wheat from the chaff. And most of the time, the Minimum Viable Product has become cheaper to produce and iterate, than ever. So the startup costs are minimal.
I would actually say the opposite. People live lives, companies create products. You will have MANY ideas in your life. Make sure to maximize your chances of succeeding in your first venture. If you do, and then you exit, you will have connections, a reputation, a track record, lots of money, and you will be able to own the crap out of your next companies and do whatever you want.
That probably means your first venture shouldn't be the next Google or Facebook, so that you can bear giving away equity in it to people and give them responsibilities. Investors, mentors, coders, designers, marketers, etc. People who do things better than you in their respective fields. If you are reluctant to give up equity, your first startup will be hobbled in its resources, you will have to wear many hats and wear yourself thin. Why do it?
Companies create products. People live lives. Enjoy yours while you are young. Create a group around you that is passionate. What was that Aesop's fable? Oh yes:
I think that the individualistic culture in the USA has produced some amazing things, but the power of groups is just beginning. The open source movement is a great example, but as people get better tools to organize themselves, groups will become more and more efficient.
The nice thing about groups is that they can do more. An individual is just a group with one person. If set up right, larger groups are also not as fragile, if one member leaves or decides to take a break. They have more connections, they have more resources to grow.
In short: you will have plenty of ideas. Don't make your first one into something that you will take responsibility for and take on the risk all by yourself. Rather than letting it consume your life, land your first success. You will always be able to own and enjoy your next ideas, and have more OPTIONS to execute them how you want.
I'm afraid this article will lead people to mis-prioritize their decision making. When doing a startup, all of your focus needs to be on the building the best product possible. If you can do that as a single founder, great! But if you need more people, you should do that if that's what the product calls for. In my opinion, making decisions based on future equity and payout is poor management.
Everyone complains about coporate CEOs who are so focused on the stock price that they forget to make good products. Focus on the product, and the $$ will take care of itself.
It's absolutely correct that technical ideas are worthless without effective implementation. That said, I strongly suspect that the current crop of startups, as a consequence of being overcapitalized by the current bubble, are also over-staffing their engineering teams. You don't need a dozen developers to write a me-too photo sharing app.
Yeah. Personally it feels like people who are obsessed with the security of their idea are also the ones who over-value ideas over execution.
And ultimately a startup is nothing but relentless, on-point, highly competent execution.
But in any case that may be ascribing psychology where there is none. Invariably though the founders I meet who are like that are also very inexperienced and 100% of the time have never built a product before, which is probably why they value idea over execution.
Vision and execution together give the value, not one or the other. That's why YCombinator and PG focus so much on the team: you need complementary skills.
While I can't fully agree to "ideas worth nothing, execution is 100%", the fact is people come up with your idea independently. The value of it will be show by the ones who execute it.
This "you are easily replaceable" thinking is probably the worst way to think of getting into a startup or any kind of business partnership.
To not make this any longer: startups are like a marriage. Is your wife (/husband) easily replaceable?
reply