[eterno]

Couldnt DISAGREE more. The advice is extremely banal bordering on common sense but most importantly discounts the fact that a lot of startups are built not to solve any existing problem but perhaps to just better an existing solution.

The semantics are crucial here, because solving a problem almost implies that it is something a customer 'understands' to be a problem and not just satisfed with the status quo - that is true for almost everything - give me a better house, car, laptop, email, search etc. etc. anyday and if its really good enough I will switch.

The biggest startups were not found by scratching an 'itch' but through founders idiosyncratic views of the status quo and how they belived (without an MBA, without a customer survey and without figuring out if it was really an 'itch') on what was a better way, and for a long time without any external validation.

Selling books online - how does that even make sense, the internet was supposed to get rid of books but Amazon found a way. The iPod - if no one even knew something like this can be built, how can it possibly be a part of their 'itch'. Twitter - I bet there was no itch here too.

[rgoddard]

But all of the examples you gave solve problems. With Amazon's kindle and associated service, they helped solved problems related to distribution of books, storage of large collections and portability. After having just packed up and moved my book collection, I can see real value in having something like the Kindle.

The iPod solved the problem of poor user interfaces and managing your music collection, and it did this better then any other current mp3 player on the market.

The main point of the article is to make something because it is of actual use and not just because it seems like a good idea. He never says only confine yourself to well defined problems, and he explicitly says to consider making something which is better then any of the existing solutions.

Your own idiosyncratic views of the status quo can allow you to see the situation in a different light and how things can be better. You may be the only one who thinks this way, and others will only understand that there was a problem only after seeing your solution. But that does not mean that the problem did not exist or that a better solution did not exist.

[jyothi]

I think its more of a change in the thought process. A lot of times identifying the problem you are trying to solve (lets say u did start thinking of that as an idea) - provides you the solutions for the market, positioning, pricing and more. So the author's point is if you don't have a real problem you are solving - you are probably not headed anywhere. Eventually even if u call it an idea - you still got to figure out the problem to tell the user why to adopt it.

The way I see it the take away is more about the way you think about your product than about where or how you started or what terminology you give.

And also as edw519 there would be very few outliers and of course they are a gamble. Every invention is. As you mention google and twitter you should also note that figuring out how to build a business out of these ideas is hard. All search engines faced the problem - advertising made it a huge success but did come very late. Twitter for a long time now has been on the same Q.

So it does make sense to think of your product as an idea to create something ground breaking but for most part, figuring out the problem you solve simplifies a lot.

[iends]

Your last little blurb is off the mark: Mp3 players existed long before the iPod, but they had poor usability and no centralized store to legally purchase music. Bookstores existed long before amazon, but their inventory was limited. Blogging existed long before twitter, but it was a bit overkill to use existing solutions for micro-blogging.

[ahoyhere]

Yes, but everyone was happy with the status quo of MP3 players at the time. Nobody wanted the iPod. Everybody said it would fail. And certainly no one was asking for a centralized music store. Pfff!

I don't really agree with OC on other points, but the iPod really didn't scratch an itch. It changed the game by creating something new, not something that "solved a problem."

To say the iPod solved a problem is pure hindsight.

[gnaritas]

> Yes, but everyone was happy with the status quo of MP3 players at the time

No they weren't, most people couldn't figure them out.

> To say the iPod solved a problem is pure hindsight.

No it isn't, the iPod brought it to the masses by making it simple enough for everyone to use.

[silentOpen]

I have to disagree with you here. I had a couple MP3 players before the iPod and it was obvious that they were pieces of crap. Very obvious. I didn't know how to make them better. I knew that they had unnecessary pain in syncing, control, and storage space.

I don't own any mobile Apple products now but the iPod really did make portable digital music players mainstream through its cachet AND the problems it fixed.

[lacker]

A lot of people weren't happy with MP3 players at the time. It's not like they were extremely popular before the iPod. Specifically, before the iPod there was no MP3 player that could both fit in your pocket and hold your whole music collection.

[edw519]

"The biggest startups were not found by scratching an 'itch' but through founders idiosyncratic views of the status quo"

These are outliers. For every Google, there are thousands of successful startups built to scratch an itch.