[davemp]

Odd. This seems to go against one of PG's essays.

> School

>

> That's what I'd advise college students to do, rather than trying to learn about "entrepreneurship." "Entrepreneurship" is something you learn best by doing it. The examples of the most successful founders make that clear. What you should be spending your time on in college is ratcheting yourself into the future. College is an incomparable opportunity to do that. What a waste to sacrifice an opportunity to solve the hard part of starting a startup — becoming the sort of person who can have organic startup ideas — by spending time learning about the easy part. Especially since you won't even really learn about it, any more than you'd learn about sex in a class. All you'll learn is the words for things.

[1]: http://paulgraham.com/startupideas.html

[lacker]

What part of this essay is in conflict? The essay is advising that you not take entrepreneurship classes, but instead take classes in futuristic stuff like genetics. It doesn't have anything to do with whether it should be possible to apply to YC early.

[davemp]

You raise a good point.

I see it encouraging students to come up with ideas for YC companies inorganically. Obviously that is not the intent, but I see it as a very likely side effect.

If the student organically has a great idea, then sure this has nothing to do with it. For the ones that didn't and wasted time in college? I guess they should have read some of PG's essays. ;)

[codetrotter]

Off topic but that essay was great! I’ve read several but not all of PG’s essays and this was one of the ones I hadn’t previously read.

In particular, this struck a cord with me:

> So if you want to find startup ideas, don't merely turn on the filter "What's missing?" Also turn off every other filter, particularly "Could this be a big company?" There's plenty of time to apply that test later. But if you're thinking about that initially, it may not only filter out lots of good ideas, but also cause you to focus on bad ones.

I have a follow-up question to the text I quoted though.

I’ve recently been thinking about a software product that I wish existed but which doesn’t quite exist.

The product I have in mind does seem to fit the criteria laid out in the essay quite well. Even down to the question of “if someone else built it, would you use it?” Yes, I absolutely would.

But what I am wondering is not so much “how big could my company become”, but rather: Is this product idea sufficient to build a startup around at all? Is it even necessary to try and build a startup around it?

Details about the product don’t matter but in short it would be a particular kind of music creation and performance software for the iOS platform.

Actually I can motivate why it should be a startup. Because implementing it will require more people than just myself. I am confident that I can build an MVP on my own, but I am also certain that more man power is needed in order to develop the product into a useful state. Great!

[heurist]

There are a few ways to start a software business:

1. Build a tool and start trying to sell it

2. Survey the market and figure out what's missing, then GOTO 1

When starting with 1 you run the risk of making something no one else wants and will likely need to substantially correct to market values. But if you want the tool to exist and are willing to build it purely for yourself, then you might as well build it. You'll be in a much better position for fundraising if you do, and if nothing else you can add it to your portfolio for your next job search.

Also keep in mind that markets do not need to be large to be profitable. Large markets can make reaching customers much easier but also starts you off as a blip in a sea of noise. If you can build something a few customers love, warts and all, then you're well on your way to viability.