Hacker News Reader

Comment by tjogin | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com