Comment by GeoffreyHull | Hacker News Reader

Comment by GeoffreyHull | Hacker News Reader

I'll probably get down-voted for this being as though this is Hacker News and the majority of people here are "tech types" as opposed to "biz types". However as a biz founder its probably necessary to speak up:

Common philosophies I hear exposited in tech circles is, "Biz co-founders are a dime a dozen" and “Good ideas, in and of themselves, are worthless”. The argument being everyone on the planet is capable of formulating ideas, thus “good” ideas can be found in overwhelming abundance. One may hear this suggestion advanced amongst mostly “tech types”, such as programmers, developers, engineers, etc. Many of them believe value is derived from the conversion of an idea into a physical product. What group of people are typically required to convert the idea into a physical product? Why the programmers, developers, and engineers of course! In this type of climate, the notion that good ideas alone being worthless or that biz co-founders are worth less than their tech counterparts becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This notion is advanced by none other than those that stand to gain the most from it: the programmers, developers, and engineers. Sorry guys. I don't buy it. Read more on this phenomenon here: http://thegeoffreyhull.com/post/3767537182.

Part of your blog is a verbatim duplicate of http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/we-dont-get-out-of-bed-for-...

For someone who values original ideas highly, this is a theft of the highest order. Wouldn't you agree?

Interesting how you completely missed the section where I cited Sebastian's blog as a source of inspiration for my article. To prevent any further misunderstandings, I've denoted the origins of the text with a big block of quotes to make it absolutely clear. I reject your assertion of "theft".

I never saw a link to Sebastian's blog in your original article. So, yes, maybe I missed it. However, it was not "inspired". It was a verbatim copy without any indication of it being so.

I am glad you edited the article to explicitly give credit where it is due.

My apologies. I'm hoping its more clear now

Speaking as a technical guy, this looks like a conflation of "idea person" with "biz person". I absolutely think biz people are critical, but I'd be looking for someone who can sell, network, and make deals - not someone with a good idea. It's not that good ideas are worthless, it's that having a good idea doesn't make you yourself particularly valuable. The reason is that tons of people have lots of good ideas, any of which would probably succeed with good technical AND business execution. I wouldn't team up with an idea person just because they had a great idea, but I would team up with a great salesperson who could do actual business development. Business is selling the ideas to customers, investors, and partners - not just having the ideas.

Certainly the execution _alone_ isn't the only thing that matters. The idea _alone_ also isn't the only thing that matters. Both engineering and product/biz types are needed to turn an idea into a good business. That's execution. Engineers aren't the only ones who can execute and pivot.

> Common philosophies I hear exposited in tech circles is, "Biz co-founders are a dime a dozen" and “Good ideas, in and of themselves, are worthless”.

If "the idea" is so valuable, why doesn't it survive first contact with the customer? Why the need to pivot?

You seem to think that "the idea" is valuable, so feel free to point out where "the idea" was a crucial factor in success.

Since it's fair for you to respond with "okay, but you point out where execution mattered", I will.

Amazon, Google, Apple (wrt IPhone and IPad), IBM, Intel, Walmart.

In all of those cases, a competitor had "the same idea", and was first and better funded.

If you think that that's unfair, feel free to give us some examples of actionable "ideas" that biz people had first.

A good way to lose any positive positioning your comment has is to preface it with "I'll probably get down-voted for this."

When some random relative tells you they have a great idea, and it's simply a punchline, that's what is worthless. That's different than when someone with extensive domain experience tells you they have a great idea, shows you they've put thought and research into it, and can articulate why it's better than other things out there.

Afterall, if ideas were worthless, wouldn't having a biz co-founder with domain experience be worthless? Or, really, for hiring anyone to do anything? Experience is important because it helps us recognize what is a bad idea in the given field, allowing us to save precious time on execution.

Execution seems little more than the filtering of good ideas from bad ones that you didn't know were bad.

Execution is prioritizing the good ideas.

I've thought a lot about this "Great Team v. Great idea" and I think what you're saying is partially true. You have great teams failing right this very second, and it's viewed as ok given that they are, well, great teams. But that still leaves them failing.

I think a major problem is that neither the biz nor the tech co-founders are the lynch pin, it's the correct combo of both + an amazing idea + that 'never give up' determination + timing.

I think there are a lot of people getting full of themselves, be it devs, biz people, or VCs. I think it would do us all well to realize that yes, we DO need each other.

Ideas vs execution is a long standing debate around here, and you make a valid point about the bias. All you have to do is a quick search for "Show HN" posts to see what execution of bad ideas look like. Don't get me wrong - Execution matters. A lot. But the worth of an idea matters equally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com