[huhtenberg]

Frankly, I am getting tired of this "ideas are worthless, execution is golden" mantra. Of course, "let's build a online shop" idea is useless, but it's not really an idea to begin with. An idea that is worth discussing with others would typically include some minimal validation, an execution and marketing plan and, in general, some amount of thought put into it. Because otherwise it's not an idea, but a random brainfart.

Moreover, the value of a good idea is in that extra thought that was put into it, something that is well worth a bit of protection. This is not an abstract MBA point. I am involved with a project that can be fully described in just 4 words, and these are plenty sufficient to tip off the competition and loose the first-to-market advantage. Should we not have been careful with how we talked to other people about the idea, we might've lost it to the established players already.

(edit) I am not disagreeing that a lot of people asking for an NDA upfront are lunatics, because they are. It's the black and white take on the value of ideas that I have an issue with.

[wpietri]

I still think ideas are basically worthless. That's certainly true literally; 20 years in software and I've never heard of anybody selling one for significant money. First-mover advantage can sometimes be helpful, but it rarely determines success. Look at Amazon, Google, and Facebook, for example: leaders in their categories, but none of them was first.

A person with a brilliant idea who can't execute well is almost certainly screwed. A company that starts with a bad idea and executes well can turn out fine, though. That's because in the startup context, great execution involves a lot of exploration, validation, and the now-ubiquitous pivoting.

Take PayPal. Their first idea was two-factor authentication for handhelds. That turned into money transfer via handhelds. Which turned into a web-based money transfer product. But that wasn't the real deciding factor; the IP that let them win was anti-fraud software. And the reason there's a PayPal Mafia is that the execution-focused culture kept creating successes long after the original idea was played out.

Even supposing that there's an occasional rare idea that actually has some value, I think we should still keep the mantra because it's inarguable that there are an ocean of chumps who think that the idea is the hard part.

[cookiecaper]

Indeed, I think first-mover advantage is generally quite overrated. It helps to have some forerunners soften up the market to make your penetration smoother, and I can't think of many major players who are there simply because they were the first mover.

It can take some time to undo a company's market share if they were first to market, but better products generally win out even if they're comparatively late (as long as they're not too late).

[TomGullen]

If Google went around telling everyone about their Pagerank idea, writing about it online, etc, do you think this would be inconsequential to their success?

[wpietri]

You mean, say, if they published academic papers about it? Like these?

http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/ http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/

Of course, PageRank was only one of many relevant innovations. A key one was the open bidding for ads. Another was focusing on a high-quality user experience, which included no banner ads and highly relevant search results ads. Both of which were totally visible to competitors, and only came well after the business was underway.

They have kept two major sorts of innovation secret. One is their aggressive pursuit of very low cost computing infrastructure. The other is the relentless improvements to search quality. PageRank is only a small part of that now. That IP has a ton of value. Not because of some secret Big Idea, but because they have taken a lot of little ideas and relentlessly winnowed them, yielding actual knowledge.

[kbutler]

If the project can be "fully described in just 4 words", you're going to lose it to established players shortly after release.

First mover advantage is probably as overrated as the value of the idea.

[evincarofautumn]

Depends on what’s meant by “fully described”. Some ideas may be proposed succinctly, yet also be impossible to execute without a technical edge—how about a time machine?

It is precisely those “frighteningly ambitious” ideas, to borrow the term from PG, that can be succinctly described, have inherent value, and deserve to be capitalised on immediately. Specifically because it’s presumed impossible, there can be no established players to oppose you. Of course, there is always the immensely probable outcome that your edge is in fact not an edge at all…

[huhtenberg]

We'll see. I sort of know what I am doing here.

(edit) The value of a head start depends on the market entrance strategy. The core idea may not be that obvious until later stages, when the first-mover advantage has been utilized.

[jacquesm]

> First mover advantage is probably as overrated as the value of the idea.

If you squander your lead, yes. If you hang on to it it's worth a lot.

[adrianhoward]

If you squander your lead, yes. If you hang on to it it's worth a lot.

Genuine question - what examples are there outline of large money making businesses online that got there by being the first mover. I can't think of any off the top of my head...

[huhtenberg]

And the answer to that is another question - are you building a large money making business from scratch or an attractive acquisition target?

To each his own, basically. First-to-market advantage, coupled with an innovative, actually useful idea and polished execution is a sure way to build large user following quickly, which is typically one of early-stage startup's top priorities. Large money making comes afterwards and it requires an established business, which is a different context where first to the market advantage is of a lesser importance.

[andrewflnr]

Especially in software, ideas <-----> execution is a continuum. I think an idea, a well-thought-out idea, a spec, a program, maybe even machine code are just more-and-more detailed designs. More (and less obvious) detail is more work, and worth more.

Now that I think about it, the transition from program to machine code is interesting. I guess design stops when you can turn the design into a finished product via a mechanical translation. Similarly, a physical engineer's work is done when their design can be executed by "commodity" factories, workers, etc.

[gruseom]

Your idea is reminiscent of this influential article by Jack Reeves: http://www.bleading-edge.com/Publications/C++Journal/Cpjour2.... He argued that source code is design, and that "construction" or "building" of software happens in the "build" phase, i.e. translation to machine code, which has been automated for a long time.

[shasta]

Is one of the four words "awesome"? But in seriousness, I agree with you that in many endeavors the ideas are as important as the execution. Hell, in software, much of good execution is just good ideas on a smaller scale.

[jaysonelliot]

If this idea that needs protection can be fully described in just four words, what, in your opinion, has prevented the "established players" from coming up with this idea already?

[j_baker]

"A design is not finished when you have nothing left to add. It is finished when you have nothing left to take out."

I'd imagine narrowing the idea down to 4 words took a lot of work.

[darkstar999]

"Instagram, but for _________"

Four words. Took me all day to come up with.

[huhtenberg]

Lack of lateral thinking skills? Not fully understanding niche segments on a larger market, segments that add up to something substantial? Plenty of reasons.

[j_baker]

Ideas define execution. In the end, a poorly executed idea is worthless. But so is a bad idea that's executed well.

Because I know someone will point out the number of businesses that were copies of other businesses, I feel it's important to note that most of these weren't "true" copies. For example, you can't really consider facebook to be a true clone of myspace. Clearly Zuckerberg had some original ideas of his own.

[jmpeax]

I'm pretty sure that John covered, in his article, the semantics of the word "idea". He drew the line between an idea and your notion of "brainfart" with a 10 page business plan. I guess he was trying to make the point that if the idea is truly going to revolutionise whatever, then at least a 10 page business plan would not be a big ask, and would show that it is more than an in-shower brainfart.