[benjaminsull]

>That assumption is that you have something to learn from the market that you don't already know.

In the Lean Startup book, Eric Ries defines a startup as "a human institution designed to create a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty". "That you have something to learn from the market that you don't already know" isn't an assumption, it's a premise. If you already know about the market, then you aren't facing conditions of extreme uncertainty and you aren't, by Ries' definition, involved in a startup.

Lean startup doesn't claim to be the solution to every business' problems in the world. It's a solution that works really well when you're dealing with a lot of unknowns. One way that entrepreneurs deal with unknowns is by speculating and acting on assumptions, which often turn out to be wrong resulting in waste. Ries argues that this excessive waste is avoidable by taking a more scientific approach: identify your assumptions, validate them through measurement, adjust your product/strategy according to results, and let that process of validated learning pave a clear path for your business through the shadowy unknowns.

[khitchdee]

If you're planning to startup, what you'll here from most people is how you should follow lean startup principles. The point of this writeup is to give some breathing space to those entrepreneurs who have a top down idea. It's to encourage them to go for it instead of questioning themselves. Typically, the game changing ideas come top down and not bottom up. If you want to change the game everyone's playing, you have to step out of it first.

[jacques_chester]

The central question of the Lean Startup book is: how do you know that your top down idea is correct? Strictly speaking, until you go to market ... you don't.

There are two basic classes of strategy to doing anything:

* Commit all your resources in advance

* Incrementalism

In situations of uncertainty, the latter is a simple risk management strategy. Armies have scouts, marketers work in test markets, engineers build prototypes.

What Eric Ries is selling isn't strictly new. But it's a cohesive repackaging of extant ideas that in my opinion is useful for making a single universal feedback loop the basis of a business.

[khitchdee]

Going lean and incremental does reduce risk. It also reduces reward.

[jacques_chester]

> It also reduces reward.

How?

[khitchdee]

If you're going to drive your product based on customer feedback, its growth is necessarily going to be slower and more in line with existing conditions in the market. If instead, you drive your product based on a game changing idea, when you hit the market, your product will be completely different than what's available at the time. The statistics will therefore be completely new and in your favor. That's the theory anyways.

[jacques_chester]

Right, creating new markets. That's fine.

But basically the failure rate on it is atrocious. If you find a different new market that is immediately adjacent, what's the smart move?

When I studied nature-inspired computation, my professor quipped at one point that nature-inspired optimisation algorithms usually show what you got wrong about your problem definition.

Markets are the same. Nobody swoops down like Batman with a flawless plan and mastermind insight that turns out to be perfectly correct. The airport business books might give that impression, but it's total bullshit. What actually happens is that millions of men and women swoop down like Batman and discover that they're not backed by Bruce Wayne and a friendly script editor.

Once in a while somebody stumbles onto something good and then their history is rewritten to fit the monomyth.

[DividesByZero]

There is no such thing as an entrepreneur with a top down idea. You can be an ideas guy, but you can't be an entrepreneur without taking what you have to customers and iterating on it until it's right.

Please give an example of a game changing idea that came about 'top down' ? Where do these ideas come from, in your opinion?

[khitchdee]

An example of a game-changing idea that came top-down was the use of the touchscreen interface in the iPhone. Someone thought this would be a cool way to interface, worked down to a cool product and people liked it and used it a lot.

[noelwelsh]

The iPhone is just one point in a long line of evolution that started way back with Doug Engelbart's work, if not before.

Apple would like you to believe the iPhone sprang into existence fully formed, but that is complete bullshit. Apple experimented with touch screen interfaces with the Newton in the late 80s / early 90s, and completely failed. Palm showed how touch screens could work in the mid / late 90s. Numerous academic projects worked on touch screens. The iPhone was the right product at the right time, but it was not truly innovative in a technical sense.

[jacques_chester]

See, now we're well into the realm of arguing by warring definitions.

One of the points of the lean startup book is to go where the evidence points to go. Apple et al throw lots of features at the market and a lot of them die with a whimper.

Touch screens turn out to be really popular, so Apple has progressively doubled down on that.

And that's pretty much what the lean startup is arguing they should do. The main difference is that Ries made it an explicit loop that covers all activities in a company.

To me the most useful analogy is simulated annealing. Each startup is dropping into a chosen neighbourhood of the stupendously large space of possible businesses in possible markets in possible societies. Each strikes off in the direction it thinks is where the optimum lies.

What happens is that if you don't periodically check the slope, you'll run out of money. And if you don't periodically jump around the solution landscape, you may well miss out on a better optima and become stuck in a local optimum.

But like all multi-objective optimisation problems, both the solution and the search for the solution are riddled with unpleasant tradeoffs.

[nemothekid]

I'm not sure that is entirely valid. Most smartphones before the iPhone were touch screen - resistive and needed a pen, like the Palm Treo, and the many Windows Mobile Phones before it, - but still touch screen.

Having a capacitive screen only seemed like the next logical step, and of course to do it well, you will need to the change the UX.

In any case I think its disingenuous to contribute the iPhone's success to the top-down touch screen when many of the game changing features were brought to light after the iPhone went to market, such as the Apple-Controlled App Store.

Lastly, there is no way the touch screen could have been considered top-down from Apple in 2007. The touch screen interface had already been iterated numerous times starting in 1987 with the Apple Newton.

[DividesByZero]

Touch screen interfaces on smartphones existed long before the iPhone.