Organic Startups have one huge advantage: They're significantly easier to build.
Organic Startups have one huge disadvantage: They're significantly easier to build.
The space for people-like-me startups is severely crowded due to an over-abundance of people scratching their own itch. On the other hand, markets that are the diametric opposite of silicon-valley-tech are ripe for the picking by any halfway competent team. Look at Club Penguin, acquired for $700M, all because they focused an "unsexy" niche.
The second type of startup is harder to build but it's not that much harder to build. More importantly, it's variably harder to build.
Some people are going to be naturals at it and not see what the big fuss is all about. Others will never have the necessary social intelligence. But the vast, vast majority of people will suck at it to begin with but then get better the more they try.
I've always been a big proponent of taking the road less taken. While every other uber-hacker is learning erlang & haskell, why not learn how to become better at designing for people who are not yourself?
The space for people-like-me startups is severely crowded due to an over-abundance of people scratching their own itch.
Empirically that doesn't seem to be true. E.g. there were not a lot of other startups doing Facebook at the same time as Mark. A couple, but not a lot.
Probably the reason is the point I mentioned in the essay: most people ignore their itches because they don't seem good enough sources of ideas.
Ironically, if people start doing what I suggest, it could cause what you're claiming to become true. But we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
there were not a lot of other startups doing Facebook at the same time as Mark.
Actually, I'd say there were. Not "doing Facebook", but scratching the same itch Mark was, which is connecting students on campuses. Some of them failed, some went in different directions -- Facebook itself has grown into what it is over the years.
Incidentally, Zuckerberg wasn't scratching his own itch; he took the idea of some other students who's site he was supposedly was helping them to build, and ran with/stole/took 'inspiration from' (depending on your point of view) the idea himself.
>>....he felt he could do a better job than ConnectU and was compelled to do so
If you are aware of the background to the story, it seems like he gave the impression to two fellow Harvard students that he would help them build an internal dating site for Harvard, but some time into the project he decided to stop communicating with them and used the code for what would eventually become Facebook.
I actually know something about this! My son's best friend's mother's sister's best friend (hmm, I think that's right) is the wife of the guy who started Club Penguin. He started it because he couldn't find anything good for his daughter to play at online. So yes, it was a classic organic startup. It matches the description in another way, too: no one would take it seriously. He tried to get the guys at the ISP he worked for to buy into it and they wouldn't. It was only once it took off with children that anybody gave it the time of day.
When something proposed as a counterexample turns out on inspection to be a classic case, I consider that pretty good evidence for a model.
I have to agree with pg. There's an abundance of itches out there waiting to be scratched. Just build something that scratches an itch not common among hackers.
Not all hackers have the same itches. Also, easier to build != less valuable.
The other thing is that there is a continuum between yourself and random people: yourself - family - friends - coworkers - acquaintances - random people.
And so even if hackers had similar needs/wants (still doubtful to me), it's very unlikely that their family and friends would all also have similar needs.
Curiously, PG has mentioned this before in a few essays, but for some reason omits it here.
What is getting good at designing stuff for others?
A central part of it is being able to put yourself in other's shoes. You can do that by already being in their shoes (designing for yourself), physically putting yourself in their shoes (becoming a direct marketer) or do it empathetically.
I agree that it's harder as you go down that path. But it is interesting that they are all relying on the same thing. You either design for yourself or you simulate designing for yourself.
Another point that's important to raise is that, if you have aspirations for your product to grow in number of users, it also has to grow in diversity of users.
At some point, the institution as a whole has to gain the ability to design for others or be relegated into a ghetto (cf: Crossing the chasm).
Now, a reasonable argument could be made that by the time this happens, it'll be possible to hire talent to help you scale, diversity wise. It's certainly possible but I wouldn't call it easy.
OTOH, I thinking baking in the assumption that you-are-not-your-user at the very early stages of the corporate culture makes that transition process significantly easier.
You have a point, but I still think it makes sense initially to build something that's just good enough for yourself. The you-are-not-your-user realization happens quickly after you get users who are not you.
Ease to build is important. Linkedin founder once said: software startup is about building the simplest thing which has a market. The power of organic ideas is that it is just less mental energy to start building it and ship it! Simplicity is beautiful and realistic. It takes several years to grow an idea to a real success. So the idea has to be simple, interesting and beautiful.
Actually, I don't think that the latter kind is harder to build -- sometimes it might be easier. What is more difficult is defining a solution for a problem someone else has; but in that case make sure you have one of those "someone elses" on board.
Organic Startups have one huge advantage: They're significantly easier to build.
Organic Startups have one huge disadvantage: They're significantly easier to build.
The space for people-like-me startups is severely crowded due to an over-abundance of people scratching their own itch. On the other hand, markets that are the diametric opposite of silicon-valley-tech are ripe for the picking by any halfway competent team. Look at Club Penguin, acquired for $700M, all because they focused an "unsexy" niche.
The second type of startup is harder to build but it's not that much harder to build. More importantly, it's variably harder to build.
Some people are going to be naturals at it and not see what the big fuss is all about. Others will never have the necessary social intelligence. But the vast, vast majority of people will suck at it to begin with but then get better the more they try.
I've always been a big proponent of taking the road less taken. While every other uber-hacker is learning erlang & haskell, why not learn how to become better at designing for people who are not yourself?