Ask YC: "Why would I want to do that?" | Hacker News Reader

Ask YC: "Why would I want to do that?"

7 pointsmwmanning11 comments

I'm working with a friend on a chat application that we think is a unique approach to an idea that's been around for a few years but has never been implemented in a sensible way. When I tell people at work or at school about it, most of them get pretty excited, but I've noticed that I get quite a different reaction when I explain it to non-"tech-savvy" people. Their response is either, "I don't get it," or more frequently, "Why would I want to do that?"

At first, I found this response rather disheartening, since as an entrepreneur, my top priority is to make something that people are going to want. After some reflection, though, I think that this response is OK . . . at this early stage at least. I think about applications like Facebook and Twitter, both of which are hugely popular presently, but would have sounded tedious and pointless to Joe Sixpack a year or two before they were launched.

I'm crossing my fingers, and hoping that when I have a workable demo to show non-tech people, they will "get it" and be as excited as my technologically inclined peers. Is this leap of faith necessary, or am I being foolish in trying to sell people something that they may not readily understand?

Either way, I think my elevator pitch needs some work.

When I tell people at work or at school about it, most of them get pretty excited...

It's not clear what precisely you mean by "about it" here. Are these tech-savvy people getting excited when you tell them what your chat application can do for them -- or are they getting excited when you tell them how your chat application will work?

One of the common faults of hackers is that we tend to get excited about new technologies, and we'll often decide that a piece of software is "cool" because it uses "cool" technology (I'm reminded of recent discussions concerning Amazon's SimpleDB service and Erlang -- for many hackers, whether SimpleDB used Erlang was far more important than whether it was actually useful).

When presenting ideas to potential users, you should never mention how your idea will work; instead, present what it will do for them. When presenting to people who won't understand the technical details, this is easy; it requires far more willpower when dealing with a technically minded audience.

That is an important distinction. I hadn't really considered that. I think the reality is somewhere in between the two scenarios you outline here. I think my peers' technological knowledge helps them understand how this service will be useful; whereas laypeople aren't quite getting it because they don't have any current services to compare it to. Maybe I should frame it as "its the x of chat" where x is some service or product they're familiar with?

95% of human beings think Twitter is ridiculous. Don't sweat it.

Build the most basic thing you can, put it in front of your friends (and yourselves) and see if they love using it. If so, you win. Communication apps are inherently viral.

The game isn't "build something EVERYONE wants"... It's "build something some people want A LOT". The breadth of people you appeal to is important, but not nearly as important as how much people love you.

An elevator pitch in a space that doesn't inherently seem broken (chat) is hard. People don't KNOW chat is broken. It's not painful, so it's hard to describe the problem you're going to solve... Just like it's hard to explain why the iPhone is so much better than other phones.

Are you doing a demo of working code or are you describing unwritten code? If it is the latter then you can be expect confusion, even among techies.

You can describe your idea enthusiastically and people won't understand. You can sketch you idea on paper and people won't understand. You can make a mock screenshot and people won't understand. You can do a proof-of-concept implementation and people won't understand. So, you'll just have to code your app in full.

You're done when people only comment negatively about your graphic design. This is especially true if they've got less experience or aptitude in usability and graphic design.

Another thing to note regarding potential users who aren't as thrilled about what you're creating as more tech savvy people are: consider cell phones and pagers. When these devices came out, they were not exactly the coolest things. Only Doctors and lawyers could afford them, and only they had any real use for the devices. I mean really? Who needs some bulky cell phone or pager with them when pay phones are everywhere? Of course we know how this story ends today. Cell phones are everywhere, and used by everyone. Your job is to convince the average Joe that your application is as necessary as a cell phone.

Looks like you have one of these either-or products.

Either nobody will know what the heck you are talking about, even after you have a demo.

Or people will see its merits, think "how could we ever live without this?"

Unfortunately (based on empirical evidence) the chance of it being the first one is extremely small.

But if it is you change the world. So I would go for it...

Do you have a workable demo for us to check out? If we saw what your application did or could do, we might be able to give you more advice or suggestions on how you could prepare and present your elevator pitch.

Unfortunately, the demo is only about 80% done at the moment (we're trying finish it up a few weeks before the YC application deadline), but I appreciate the offer for advice and will pitch it to the community when it's ready.

"The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule

People asked the same things about Twitter.

Either way, I think my elevator pitch needs some work.

Huh? Was that it? I don't get it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com