The Fallacy of Execution, or Why Mark Doesn't Talk About Facebook's Origins | Hacker News Reader

The Fallacy of Execution, or Why Mark Doesn't Talk About Facebook's Origins

huffingtonpost.com

40 pointsthinkcomp32 comments

It's somewhat sad to see someone so obviously talented waste that talent on building a career focused on the resentful reliving of being ill-done by. No matter how successful the ill-doer became.

Aaron, don't let the facebook that got away be the defining chapter in your life; build something new and amazing that you will be remembered for.

I echo that sentiment. Enough with the Facebook envy. Whether right or wrong in this from a moral standpoint, there has to be something more productive worth doing with your time than to keep harping on about this sorry issue for the rest of your life.

Maybe you should have "won". Maybe not. We can debate this until kingdom come, to our collective embarrassment. The fact remains, Mark Zuckerberg is Facebook's CEO and you're not. Get over it. Start another company. Are you a one-idea man? Was this the only idea you were capable of having in your lifetime?

I make no judgement on the claims of idea theft (as porous as the very idea of idea theft might be), but leave you with an extract from this little big poem (http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poetry/Rudyard_Kipling/kipl...):

  (...)
  
  If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken 
  Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, 
  Or watch the things you gave your life to broken, 
  And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
  
  If you can make one heap of all your winnings 
  And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, 
  And lose, and start again at your beginnings 
  And never breath a word about your loss; 
  
  (...)
  
  Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, 
  And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

Time wasting fluff. If by some miracle you came here to the comments before reading the piece, skip it.

I usually read the HN comments before the article and so I didn't read this piece, but... I already bought and read Aaron's Authoritas book so have read 200+ pages of this sort of stuff before. Oops.. :) (Oddly, though, I'd still recommend the book. I couldn't put it down - it was like watching a car crash in slow motion.)

Out of interest, do you take any steps to ensure your viewpoint isn't biased by the comments before reading a linked piece?

Luckily, most of the posts on Hacker News that I find interesting don't lend themselves to biases (i.e. the non political or evangelical posts).

With the more political or evanglical posts, though, I think the human mind is wired to defend its initial opinion for a certain amount of time no matter what it reads ;-)

Thanks. I always check comments first. I read the last rant from Aaron on this subject, so think I'll skip this one.

Almost: I started reading, and stopped when I got to the sex analogy to see what the comments were saying. I have no intention of going back and reading the rest.

I really hate analogies in general because they always come up short. Of course, the degree of this depends on the one making the analogy... I'm not saying there's isn't such a thing as a good analogy, but they seem to be few and far between. The sexual reproduction vs. idea/execution bit... not a good analogy.

...of all the business clichés in the world, there is none that I hear more, and that I hate more, than the vague, poorly-defined and generally ill-conceived notion that "execution" is more important than "the idea."

Oh, how the truth hurts. I actually got this far before I bothered to read the name of the author. If Mark Zuckerberg made this point it would have weight, but as it stands it's just another bunch of sour grapes.

It can be both sour grapes and the truth.

I personally wouldn't suggest that you can get by with great execution on a crappy idea (or crappy execution of a great idea), but given the author's past history, one could easily make the conclusion that it's mostly just sour grapes. And while reading about truth is a good thing, I find it's not worth the read if the truth is wrapped in overblown angst and already-beaten-to-death accusations.

Wow the author obviously doesn't get "execution."

Of course "idea" and "execution" should be defined properly. When people say "execution is more important than the idea," the idea is what you come up with your unaided intelligence, and execution is your ability to refine that idea and stay objective towards your goals. In this case the "idea" is not important because when you "execute" it, any one idea will morph and change constantly. Even if considering the ideas you come up with collectively, it's still less important because improving an idea is always possible even if they are small improvements.

The author apparently doesn't really understand what "idea" means. So if I was dumb enough to try a disposable jumble jet, the original idea doesn't matter because after I try to create such a product and fail, I will choose to ditch that idea. Eventually my idea will get better as I continuously hit brick walls if they suck. The rate at which I can learn from mistakes and avoid brick walls is execution. While you can still improve your innate execution ability, it's much harder to improve that than the idea. For this reason, idea is less important than execution.

Simply put, the idea is the formula you come up with before testing it, and the execution is your ability to adapt your idea to reality. Your formulae will be plenty and disposable, your ability to be objective and adapt your formulae is much more important because it is the engine to which your formulae power.

Don't forget (and this is probably more important in this case than usual) luck. The nature of social networks favors one network that "everyone is on". Which one gets chosen probably has more to do with luck than the execution of the site. All it took was a few random people to stumble upon it and "but all my friends are on facebook" took it from there.

If you'd like a counterpoint that favors execution, I hear that you can do pretty well just selling shoes...

I believe personality is more important then luck, although some things are just lucky (pentyoffish.com) but people who have great personalities, you just like them but you don't know why, they usually succeed.

The reason execution is stressed over ideas is that non-businesspersons frequently think, "I've got this idea that's going to make me rich!"

It's actually incredibly common. Anyone that's been on the business side of a business doesn't think that way, and most engineering people don't think that way, but people that don't work hands-on with the grimy, mucky, slogging reality of business believe in the myth of a great idea.

Ideas without execution = nothing. Execution of even a mildly valuable idea = quite valuable. Most of the people I know who built large fortunes didn't invent something new or crazy. Lots of real estate and development, turning one space in the world into a more valuable space. One gentleman I know buys properties in high rent areas that are normally not profitable, and converts them into vacation/short term rental properties for businessmen staying in town who want a more "homey" place. So he's able to turn traditionally cashflow-neutral or negative properties into profitable ones with a just a bit of added active management and marketing.

Brilliant idea? Meh, not so much. Great execution.

There's lots more. I have one acquaintance who is investing and working on various technologies for spaceflight, so maybe he'll do some breakthrough crazy stuff later, but most of the wealthy people I know don't do anything so flashy or remarkable. It's just all execution of ages old ideas, like buy a space and renovate it into a nicer, more valuable space. Provide a service lots of people use for cheaper. Provide a higher quality service that is currently well used that people are dissatisfied with. Make people's lives more convenient, happy, or healthy. These aren't such new ideas. If I had to guess the ratio of a person that goes self made to holding more than $5 million in assets, I'd guess 95 to 98% old ideas with great execution, 2 to 5% new ideas. We lose sight of that in technology because we keep hearing about the new cool hotness, but most fortunes are built by fixing something in the world that you're using and aren't happy about the quality of. Hence, almost all execution, not so much having great ideas.

Yeah, ideas are mostly worthless.

Facebook's success certainly cannot be attributed to their "idea": the online community thing had been done thousands of times before. Just never executed well enough.

Google's success cannot be attributed to their idea, as there were numerous search engines before them. Execution is what propelled them to the forefront. Their search engine actually showed good results.

Amazon. They sell books. Not the most novel idea out there. They just did it better than anyone else. Zappos. They sell shoes.

For all the time people spend comparing their startups to the biggest players, it's quite odd that so few realize that it's not about the idea. It's about the execution.

An idea can be completely unoriginal and still be a good idea – an idea is still good even after it's been copied. So the article's contention that there can be no success without both good execution and a good idea is completely accurate. Selling books is a good idea, selling dead leaves isn't.

Also, I think you oversimplify the ideas of Amazon, Google, Zappo and Facebook. I would argue that Amazon's idea was more "selling a massive range of books online via a simple interface" not just "selling books". And there are many variations of the "online community thing". The idea for Facebook wasn't the same as the idea for Friends Reunited and it's easy to see how that helped one to prosper and the other to fail.

Sure, but even with your definitions of their ideas, they're not super-unique, certainly their ideas aren't the most valuable thing in the mix.

To illustrate my point; there was no need for either of the mentioned successful startups to keep their "idea" a secret until launch, in fear of someone "stealing" it.

What I mean is that had someone heard of their "idea" before launch, it would have changed nothing. It's all about the execution.

Conversely, many would-be startup founders I've talked to seem to think that their idea is the most valuable thing they have. That they need to keep their super-unique idea under wraps, for fear of it getting out and someone else doing it instead.

Good ideas can often be subtle. Boiled down to utter simplicity the difference between facebook and myspace may seem to be tiny. But that's not the case. Another term for subtlety may be "precision". The difference between facebook and some other seemingly similar site may seem subtle but by the same token it may actually be a difference in precision, with facebook hitting a tiny target (a correct mix of complexly interacting features and design) that others missed.

You see this sort of importance of precision/subtlety everywhere. The difference between the best selling automobile and the 20th best selling automobile in the same class is often a long list of subtle, yet important differences. Also, what may seem like subtle, some might say inconsequential, differences on casual inspection may in fact be jarring, fundamentally important distinctions. The addition of 1 tablespoon of salt to a bowl of soup instead of merely a pinch changes the flavor dramatically, even though in either case the salt is only just a tiny, tiny fraction of the ingredients.

Those subtle differences are execution. The idea is to build a better car.

In the end we come down to an unfruitful debate on the distinction between 'idea' and 'execution'. If you've got every last detail for a website planned out in your head but nothing implemented, that's still an idea, not execution.

In my opinion it goes like this:

* A bad idea is less than worthless

* Unoriginal good ideas are worthless

* Original but vague good ideas are worth very little

* Original and detailed good ideas are worth a lot, but still useless without fantastic excecution too

Yeah, ideas are mostly worthless.

Tell that to patent holders...like Facebook: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp?SEARCH_IA=US200808572...

you seem to be contradicting yourself here fella. Just because the ideas are old ideas, it doesn't make them any less idea-like. Nirvana is great idea and great execution surely?

As a developer I think I'm quick to shoot down ideas faster than most. Usually, we enjoy pragmatic thinking and GTD attitude towards problems. I didn't really think about ideas (not problem ideas, ideas ideas) until a met an artist on a train. We were talking and she asked me what I thought about a project she had envisioned. Naturally, I pointed out all the technical and financial pitfalls of her idea. This seemed to shut her down.

My wife, instead, asked me what it would take to do it and, quite naturally, I was able to list all the equipment and technical skills needed for such a project. It wasn't until I finished that I realized that the project was reasonable and doable.

It's very easy to dismiss ideas, even good ones. Dumb ideas can be as good as brilliant ones if executed right

Isn't "execution" the implementation of a combination of varying "ideas"? If not, then I guess most services wouldn't have competitive advantages and Facebook wouldn't be what it is today.

Actually, there are such stupid arguments in biology, namely nature versus nurture. Of course, most biologists are over that now, but the public certainly isn't.

The problem here is that the author is arguing with himself.

Execution means having lots of ideas and modifying them as conditions change and you learn more.

We talk about ideas vs. execution because big exciting ideas are all over the place (I know the author doesn't agree but from experience I've seen and heard a lot of really great ideas). What's missing is all the little ideas that come from those big ideas. Lots of folks have some vague, big-pictured idea. Not many people have the three thousand little ideas that support the big one. Execution means finding all those little ideas and testing them to see which ones work.

If I remember correctly, FaceBook didn't really take off until the FriendFeed feature was added. Once folks started getting real-time updates of their friends, it became addictive. Sure the big idea was there and succeeding, but it's those little tweaks that end up doing the trick.

That's just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. It's definitely a discussion worth having.

Just a reminder, "the author" is thinkcomp. No need to speak in the abstract third person.

> FaceBook didn't really take off until the FriendFeed feature was added

Well that isn't quite true, but the news feed was an important innovation, which did add a lot of momentum. Facebook actually had that before FriendFeed came along (which everyone seems to forget when they accuse Facebook of copying FriendFeed's features)

I feel like the author basically contradicts himself in the end. He talks about how there were plenty of "face books" at various colleges and how this idea is certainly not new. So why did Zuckerberg's Facebook get so big and popular wen the others are small and obscure? Execution, maybe?

this guy must be a glutton for punishment to submit this here. i've lost count of the number of times this subject has come up and been quickly put down. each time, the author comes off looking worse than the last time.

Thank you or abridging "sex" from the title. It's appreciated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com