= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on In praise of gullibility? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (106)
Because ideas are cheap. There an abundance of ideas but not enough people to execute ideas well. Executing ideas well needs focused effort which is easier when you have a company that can pay developers.
That doesn't mean that there aren't cases where the open source model makes sense, but quite often it's easier with a different model.
Ideas are cheap and plentiful. Good ideas are precious and rare.
The problem is that you don't know whether an idea is good if you don't try to execute on it. The way you show that an idea is good is to actually execute on it.
I don't think it's true. Take the reverse case: can you tell that an idea is bad without executing it? Yes, most of the times you can. Obviously, there is uncertainty, but usually you can get a decent estimate of the "quality" of an idea before you start to act on it. There are, of course, nuances and exceptions.
I agree that there are idea for which there are obvious reasons that the idea is bad but most of the time there isn't that certainty.
Many successful companies such as AirBnB or PInterest had a hard time raising money because investors thought those were bad ideas.
On element of a good startup idea is that there's little direct competition. If the idea is obvious there's usually competition.