I synthesized the advice:
Find a little-recognized but massive problem with no good solution, that affects you personally, where early adopters will love even the crappy MVP and pay $50-$250/month for it ($600-$3000/year), and where you can bust out a marketable early version in weeks. Be specific about the problem, solution, and customer (ideally a business). Find a business that can become enormous and that intrinsically tends toward monopoly.
Make sure the reason the idea is neglected is something like "it's intimidating" or "it's uncool" or "it's a weird super-specific niche almost nobody's ever heard of" or "the timing wasn't right until just recently." Be on the bleeding edge of some industrial frontier to find these ideas, and be capable, willing to sacrifice, flexible and adaptable and a great fit for the work so that you can execute.
Don't compromise on any of this.
Thanks, I think that is a concise and helpful way of framing things! However, I have two critiques:
Extremely yikes. I'm curious about folks' thoughts on how to make this become bad startup advice - in particular, the tending towards monopoly and needing to be business targetted. If we can disrupt most startups that attempt those two things, the world would be a much better place
How familiar are you with the reasoning behind these ideas?
The tending-towards-monopoly idea is most clearly articulated (AFAIK) by Peter Thiel in his book, Zero to One. A marketplace or social network would be an example, where the bigger you are, the more value you provide to users and thus the harder it is for a competitor to get established. Contrast this with an artificial monopoly for a product that ought to be a commodity good, but that is a monopoly because of corporate shenanigans. Standard Oil would be a classic example.
Businesses don't need to be targeted, but because they have a focused, more or less rational agenda, and deep pockets, it can be easier to conceive of and demonstrate the value of products that meet their needs and get well-compensated for it.
I don't find either of those ideas objectionable, but if you do, it might be helpful to explain why.
The tending-towards-monopoly idea is most clearly articulated (AFAIK) by Peter Thiel in his book, Zero to One. A marketplace or social network would be an example, where the bigger you are, the more value you provide to users and thus the harder it is for a competitor to get established
Right. So, how can we prevent companies from being able to use that strategy anymore? seems like a lot of it is that things that are natural monopolies should be open sourced. So, if you see a way to open source a natural monopoly before others do, please try, so that it doesn't get monopolized. Because natural monopolies get so big, you can probably make plenty of money with eg mere donations, using a federated model.
Thiel is not someone to take advice from without taking a step back to figure out why he gave the advice and how to prevent people in economic situations like his from benefiting from your work.
My goal with this comment is not to make money, but to ensure that malicious ways of making money stop working. If your goal is to make money by getting there first and camping on a natural resource, then you're a rent seeker, and others should do what they can to stop you.
ah, i see what you're driving at. I'm not sure if I see Amazon.com becoming what it is now via a nonprofit model, but it's plausible to me that could have worked for facebook. But I'm not sure if they could support the staff and hardware it takes to keep it operational using a donation-based model. Mainly, I'd rather get these products into existence than capture additional public value by open-sourcing them, and that seems like a tradeoff to me. what do you think?
It depends on the product. Another option is profit caps - I've seen businesses starting to adopt those, and I certainly will buy from those corps preferentially.
Now that I've synthesized the advice, we can work backwards to figure out how to find good ideas:
Get deeply involved with a weird industrial/technological niche that nobody understands very well and get to know all the pain points in that sector from personal experience. Be trying to do stuff that nobody's done before in some domain, where fundamental ideas have barely been reduced to practice. Make friends with the most capable people you meet along the way. Come up with ideas as often as you can, then find the cheapest, fastest ways to rule them out until you find something you just can't get away from. Then take a month to build it and try to sell it immediately.
I'd also note that the whole class of "good tech startup ideas" has been under optimization pressure for decades now, which means that these ideas, which may have accurately reflected where to find alpha when Paul Graham was making his first billion, may not apply any longer. By the time you have this much advice easy consensus available by proven experts, it might be the worst sort of advice to take.
Do most good startups begin with people who want to start a startup and need an idea for it? Or do they begin with people with an idea, who think, "this should be a startup"?
I'm not sure about most, but I think the probability of success with the latter is higher. See Organic Startup Ideas. However, although that fact might be helpful to investors, I don't see how it can be helpful to prospective founders.
I've been ready to start a startup for a few months now. However, I haven't been able to think of any ideas. Well, I've thought of many ideas. It's just that none have seemed worth pursuing.
I need an idea worth pursuing. I think it makes sense to take some time to get a little meta and investigate the question of how to get startup ideas. That's what I'll do in this post.
If you'd like to skip the fluff, start at the "Advice" section.
Preliminary notes
First, some preliminary notes.
Goals
I think that it's important to start off by talking about goals. Are you trying to make some side income? Quit your day job? Retire early? Be a billionaire?
I find that a lot of the people who offer startup advice do so with the assumption that you're trying to be a billionaire. The advice for someone who's trying to be a billionaire will be different from the advice for someone who's trying to quit their day job though, so if you're just trying to quit your day job it's important to keep this in mind. Especially because the people who offer startup advice often make this billionaire assumption quietly or silently. It's easy to miss.
How exactly is the advice different?
Market size is the main consideration that I'm aware of. And to me, it seems like the only one that is widely agreed on. If you're trying to be a billionaire, you need
number of users * revenue per user
to be really large. If you go after a small market with a product that isn't crazy expensive, you won't end up as a billionaire.Other than market size, I'm not sure. One thing is that it might be important to be passionate about the domain if you're trying to be a billionaire whereas if you're just trying to quit your day job it's fine to solve some mundane business problem that you aren't passionate about.
Why do they make the billionaire assumption?
There are two things that come to my mind here.
The first is that a lot of the people who make this assumption are investors. If you're an investor, the way to make money is to invest in 30 companies, have 29 of them fail, and have one of them become a multi-billion dollar unicorn. Upside is the name of the game for them. I think they're just used to thinking about business this way, although maybe that's too charitable.
The second is that, at least to some people, the 1) potential and 2) desire to be huge is precisely what makes a startup a startup. So then, if we're talking about startup advice, it's implied that we're trying to build something huge.[3]
Should you try to be a billionaire?
We're getting dangerously far from the topic of this post here, but I do have a few comments.
In his famous essay How to Start a Startup, Paul Graham says the following:
This never made sense to me though. You don't need a billion dollars to solve the money problem! It's more like a million.[4] Which is much, much less.
A large majority of the time, I think the reason to aim for being a billionaire is altruism. With personal happiness, there are huge diminishing marginal returns as you increase your net worth: being 1000x wealthier isn't going to make you 1000x happier. It very well might increase your altruistic impact 1000x though.
Methods
I looked around for various blog posts, interviews and videos where people give advice on how to get startup ideas. From there, I tried to pull out the pieces of advice that were offered.
Given what we talked about in the "Goals" section above, I didn't want all the advice to come from VC types so I made it a point to also look for what indie hacker types have to say. I wanted to get even more diverse viewpoints than that, but I think "VC types" and "indie hacker types" are the two main categories.
LessWrong is another place I looked but I didn't find much.
I also spent some time looking into what academics who study entrepreneurship have found. Unfortunately, it was very underwhelming.
Here is the list of resources I used. I also read/watched other things that I didn't take anything away from and thus am not including here.
Venture capital aligned:
Indie hacker aligned:
LessWrong:
And here are the notes I took: Google Doc.
Paul Graham stood out to me as the most insightful person on this topic. Patrick McKenzie and Eliezer Yudkowsky stood out as the people I'd like to hear more from.
Advice
Here are the pieces of advice I've heard over and over again. I've divided it up very loosely into five categories: product, market, founder, business and other.[5]
Each piece of advice will have two sections: "Excerpts" and "My thoughts". The "My thoughts" sections are meant to be treated as conversation starters moreso than something well written that I'm very confident in.
Product
Make something people love
Excerpts
My thoughts
Related: Painkillers Not Vitamins and Hair On Fire Problems.
Having users love your product this much is clearly a desirable thing. It'd be great if they were banging down your door and rushing to tell all of their friends about it. I think the difficult question is how important this is. Should you actually keep looking for ideas and/or iterating until you reach this point?
Here is how I am thinking about it. Imagine a spectrum where a 10/10 means that they LOVE LOVE LOVE your product omgsofuckingmuch, and a 0/10 means they are indifferent to it. If you held out for a 10/10, you'd be ideating and iterating forever. On the other hand, if you pulled the trigger on a 3/10, you're very likely to fail. That establishes a sort of upper bound and lower bound. But that isn't actually helpful because of how wide the gap is between a 3/10 and a 10/10.
I think that where the lower bound is probably depends a lot on the context. Suppose you are selling enterprise software for $1,000/month. You are focused on bringing in enough revenue to allow you to quit your day job, and for that you'll need 10 customers. Should you wait until you've reached 10/10 on that scale? I think the answer is pretty clearly "no", and I think that the authors of the quotes above would agree.
On the other hand, imagine that you have a consumer product that you are charging $1/year for. Revenue per user is low enough where ads won't work as an acquisition channel. You need your product to spread via word of mouth. And for it to spread via word of mouth, I think the bar is super high and you do really want to be aiming for something like a 9/10 or higher.
Overall, I find myself wanting more nuance and clarity here. Do people think you almost always want a 9/10 or higher? If you have a consumer product? An enterprise product? If you're trying to make a billion dollars? Trying to quit your day job?
Problems not solutions
Excerpts
My thoughts
I think there are a couple of things going on here.
Sometimes people suffer from the infamous "solution in search of a problem". Yeah, don't do that.
Another thing is that, when brainstorming, people dismiss ideas too quickly. They've identified a problem, don't see a solution, and move on. In reality, the problem they've identified is very important and worth holding on to. Maybe it's more solvable than it initially seems.
That is very believable to me. Seems like a good thing to keep in mind.
Scratch your own itch
Excerpts
My thoughts
Let's think about what's actually going on here.
One thing is that if you yourself actually have the problem, well, you know it's a real problem. This is important because a lot of people build a product that isn't actually solving a real problem and end up with zero users.
You might worry that there aren't enough people out there like you. Often times, there are. It reminds me of what they used to say in school about asking questions during class: if you are confused about something and have a question, chances are you're not the only one.
Another thing is that if you yourself don't have the problem, you won't be able to do a good job of solving it. You need a deep understanding of the problem to build a good product.
I think it's important to realize that scratching your own itch is a means, not an end. A damn good means, but not the only one. The ends you're actually after here are 1) make sure the problem is real and 2) make sure you have a way to build a good product.
Scratch others' itches
Excerpts
My thoughts
Yeah, so people do acknowledge that, although desirable, you don't need to have the itch yourself. We'll revisit this more in other sections like B2B.
For now I just want to call out what Paul Graham said about Viaweb. With Viaweb, he was scratching someone else's itch. Specifically, people with online stores. In the third excerpt above he was saying that if he could go back he'd open an online store himself in order to better understand users. In other words, he would have put himself in a position to try his own dogfood instead of asking others how it tastes. I think that is a really, really great thought.
Talk is cheap
Excerpts
My thoughts
This definitely blends into the "validating" stage rather than the "idea generation" stage but I think it's also relevant to the idea generation stage.
I've been bit by this one myself. Twice. In both of the startups I founded. I trusted people when they told me my product was cool and they were excited. It'd be a mistake to assign zero Bayesian evidence to such data points, but I think it's wise to take whatever evidence you'd intuitively assign to it and cut it in half a few times.
Novelty
Excerpts
My thoughts
I see novelty as a nice to have, definitely not something that's necessary. Especially if you're not swinging for the fences. But even if you are, there's lots of counterexamples. Facebook wasn't the first social media site.
Be specific
Excerpts
My thoughts
Specificity is extremely important. I think people get this one wrong.
Market
B2B
Excerpts
My thoughts
This all just makes a ton of sense to me. B2B is something I'm pretty bullish on. I'll return to it later in this post.
Offer something that doesn't suck
Excerpts
My thoughts
Interesting! Makes a lot of sense to me. And I think it opposes the ideas of "novelty" and "others are skeptical". In some sense at least. And to a lesser extent, the idea of "make something people love".
Higher priced
Excerpts
My thoughts
I like this a lot. I think a lot of people should focus more on products with higher price points. This hit me when I was reading through Justin Shapiro and Demand Curve's content on marketing. Here's how I'd sum it up.
There's actually not that many ways of marketing a product.
It seems easier to hustle to get sales of a higher price point product or to spin up some Google ads than to get a consumer product to go viral. At least more straightforward.
Of course, this is just a heuristic. There are also good ideas at lower price points. Or at really high price points. Don't ignore ideas that seem good because of the price point. Just be aware of what you're getting yourself into. Low price points mean people have to tell their friends. Super high price points mean dealing with weird drawn out enterprise sales processes. And speaking of weird drawn out enterprise sales processes...
Underexplored
Excerpts
My thoughts
Ahhhh I love this! Schlep blindness! Such a good idea. And title for an essay.
Niche
Excerpts
My thoughts
Makes sense to me. Good idea for people who aren't swinging for the fences. If you are swinging for the fences, think about whether there'll be a path to grow out of the niche. And of course, like most things, it's just a rule of thumb, not a hard and fast rule.
By the way: the example that comes to my mind when I think of niche success stories is Patrick McKenzie's Bingo Card Creator. I'm having trouble digging up the source, but I remember reading about Patrick talking about this.
Sell bingo cards to school teachers? How is that ever going to work? How many school teachers are there out there who need bingo cards? And who are willing to pay for them? His dad was making these objections. Patrick went through the numbers explaining how, actually, you don't need that many customers. And the world is a big place. Even if the percent of schoolteachers who adopt it is small, it's plausible that it's large enough.
Don't worry about competitors
Excerpts
My thoughts
This one has always seemed weird to me. Competitors aren't good! I dunno. I guess it makes sense that if your product has a good competitive advantage you don't have to worry much about competitors. Especially when the market is big enough such that a slice of the pie is still satisfying, not just the whole pie, which is often the case.
What about barriers to entry though? I know that's a thing that I've heard before. And Peter Thiel talks a lot about it with the "monopoly is good" stuff. PG is saying it's super rare and you just don't need to worry about it at all? Something about that just seems off. I don't think I'm smarter than Paul Graham, I just sense that something about his intended message is getting lost in translation when I read it.
Market timing
Excerpts
My thoughts
Meh. I like Julian Shapiro a lot and put a good amount of weight in his opinions, but this way of thinking about startup ideas doesn't really click with me. Maybe it is effective for others.
Founder
Able to build it
Excerpts
My thoughts
Yeah, makes sense. You could totally start a startup and have someone else build the actual product for you. It's just easier if you are able to do it yourself.
Leading edge
Excerpts
My thoughts
This one is really interesting to me. I'm not sure what to think.
Passion
Excerpts
My thoughts
I'm pretty bearish about this. I think what Cal Newport says about passion in the context of (normal) careers is applicable. Passion grows. You don't need to start out with it.
Yes, it grows when things are going well. I guess that doesn't address their point of it sustaining you through the tough times. I'm just not sure that's so important. Sometimes it's the right move to quit. Being so passionate that you're resistant to quitting doesn't actually seem like a good thing.
Well, maybe this is one of those things where it depends if you're trying to be a billionaire or not. You don't need to be passionate about inventory management to make $21k/month solving that problem for SMBs, but maybe you do need to be passionate about something if you're going to grow it into a unicorn.
Then again, I feel like there are just so many examples of successful companies where the founders weren't passionate about the domain. Was Brian Chesky of Airbnb passionate about hospitality when they got started?
Uniquely qualified
Excerpts
My thoughts
Closely related to "Leading edge". Meh.
Business
Upside
Excerpts
My thoughts
This really just depends on your goals, as discussed in that section earlier. Maybe you want to be able to quit your day job. Maybe you want to be a billionaire. If it's the former you probably don't need something with much upside. If it's the latter you do.
Barriers to entry
Excerpts
My thoughts
This is very related to the "Don't worry about competitors" section. My feelings are that it's definitely something to think about. Maybe, based on what Paul Graham said, competitors aren't quite as big of a risk as you'd intuitively think. You definitely can't ignore them though.
Oh, also, you should consider whether (or really when) AI will come along and disrupt your business. I think that's a very practical and relevant thing to be thinking about.
Acquisition channels
Excerpts
My thoughts
100%! Definitely something you need to think about, and something that people seem to fail to think about. If you have a good product but no way to get it in front of prospective users, you will, with certainty, fail.
Monetizable
Excerpts
My thoughts
This makes a lot of sense to me. Treating monetizing as something that you can just figure out later sounds very unwise.
Well, possibly not. This is a bit of a steelman, but if your goal is to get acquired, maybe you can just focus on growth. Or if your goal is to keep raising VC rounds - A, B, C, D - and then make money via salary or equity or a golden parachute or whatever (yuck), maybe you could do that with high growth and no plan for monetization.
It's also possible that I'm wrong and monetizing is easy when you have high growth.
Other
Check all of the boxes
Excerpts
My thoughts
This right here is probably my favorite piece of advice.
In that interview with Justin Jackson, the host Courtland Allen gave an analogy that I really liked: a car with three wheels isn't going to run. I'm definitely going to steal that and use it myself.
So yeah, you have to check all the boxes. If one of them is unchecked, you fail.
That's probably not an exhaustive list, but I think it gets the message across.
Fail fast
Excerpts
My thoughts
I think this is super important and underappreciated. Also just very logical.
Everything we've discussed so far is about the potential benefit, but what about the cost? The cost is usually just time but can also be money and energy. You can't ignore that part of the equation.
For example, if one idea would take three months to pursue and another would take three weeks, all else equal, the three week idea is better. You can pursue four three-week ideas in a span of three months.[7]
Everything's a trade off
Excerpts
My thoughts
I love this piece of advice as well. Definitely an important thing to keep in mind.
Activation energy
Excerpts
My thoughts
What a great analogy. It comes from chemistry. If two molecules start off in state A but "want" to be in state B, they won't just move from A to B. It takes a "kick".
Same thing with products. If you have a product that is 5% better than the competitor, users won't automatically switch to your product. You have to get past this sort of activation energy barrier, which I think could be pointing to various different things. Discussing them all would make for a great essay.
Brainstorming
Excerpts
My thoughts
I don't have much to say here. I find it to all be pretty thought provoking.
Compelling to you
Excerpts
My thoughts
I'm not sure what to think of this. It sorta seems like a high bar, but also seems wise. I lean moderately strongly towards the latter. Towards waiting for an idea that meets the bar of being something you'd describe as compelling.
Be careful though: this is probably a "necessary but not sufficient" sort of thing. You might get really excited about a product, feel very compelled to pursue it, but not have considered how you'd actually get it in front of users. Or maybe you considered it but are so excited that you dismiss it as something you'll "figure out later". Again: check all the boxes.
Indulge
Excerpts
My thoughts
Meh, I don't really love this. I feel like it goes against the "check all the boxes" idea. Maybe it serves as a weak heuristic though.
Organic
Excerpts
My thoughts
I guess it makes sense that organic ideas tend to do better. I just don't see how that would be actionable.
Well, PG does talk about things you can do to increase the likelihood of coming across ideas organically, like being at the leading edge of a field. That sort of stuff just takes so much time though. If you're a college student who wants to start a startup one day, maybe that is helpful, but someone who wants to start one in the next few months, not so much.
Copy
Excerpts
My thoughts
To be clear, the idea here isn't just to clone some existing product and make trivial changes. It's to find something that works in one field and explore whether it can be applied somewhere else. I haven't thought much about this but my initial thought is that it seems like a decent thing to explore.
My plan
Personally, I would like to start something that makes me enough money to retire.[8] After that I'd like to start something that makes billions and then use that money to do something good for the world. First I want to retire though.
So then, the question I want to think about right now is how I should proceed to find a startup idea that allows me to retire. Fortunately, I think that most others have the same goal (as opposed to making billions or just having a little side income). This means, hopefully, that talking about my plan will be helpful to others. I'll do that in a follow up post.
I think it's the sort of thing that some college or grad student could spend months writing a paper on. However, I also sense that there's somewhat large diminishing returns to investigating it more than I did.
I'd like to write about the the extent to which ideas matter one day. Now isn't the time though. If you want to read something about it, my favorite post on the topic is Ascending to Angelhood, Version 1.
I think a big part of the problem here is that we don't have the right words. What do you call the startup equivalent of an SMB? Indie hacker? That's describing the person, not the business. Same with "maker". Maybe a lifestyle business? Meh, doesn't seem right.
If you want to live a Mustachian lifestyle, it's more like $500k. And if you want to move to a cheap country, maybe it's only $200k.
Categorizing was hard so don't hate.
Well no, you can hate. I think it'd be cool to see how others would divide things up. Just know that I didn't feel particularly motivated to do the best job with the categories when I wrote this.
Also, I included some counterexamples in the excerpts at times because that seemed useful.
Stuff like SEO can also work but I think it's underrated just how tough SEO is. If the keywords are competitive, are you really going to be able to produce content so good that it kicks out the incumbents? Is that part of your skillset? Are you ok with waiting 12+ months for it to happen?
Well, in theory. In practice you might need to take a break in between ideas.
Well, I don't want to retire in the sense of sipping drinks on the beach. I want to 1) free up the 9-5 hours of my days so that I can pursue bigger things, 2) give myself the peace of mind that financial security provides and 3) prove to myself that I can do it.