Billion Dollar Startup Ideas [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Billion Dollar Startup Ideas [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YKNr-LiblI&feature=youtu.be
120 comments
> Most of these ideas fold because travel is very cold market for an investor and most dont want to invest.
This isn't true. For example, AirBnB has plenty of funding.
Investors as the constraint currently happens for capital-intensive opportunities, like nuclear fusion. There's plenty of investors for software as a service.
There are lots of other reasons why there aren't more "apps for x." The main barrier for any app is that it has to improve on the alternative. In this case, tech services like AirBnB and TripAdvisor are competing with DIY search, or simply talking to a friend or travel consultant and having a human conversation.
This isn't true. For example, AirBnB has plenty of funding.
Investors as the constraint currently happens for capital-intensive opportunities, like nuclear fusion. There's plenty of investors for software as a service.
There are lots of other reasons why there aren't more "apps for x." The main barrier for any app is that it has to improve on the alternative. In this case, tech services like AirBnB and TripAdvisor are competing with DIY search, or simply talking to a friend or travel consultant and having a human conversation.
The killer feature that AirBnB cracked was scaling.
Travel advice inherently doesn't scale -- you saw it with Frommers et al. pre-web.
High investment to develop content, constant need to update, and your success cannibalizes your own business. The sorts of people who want travel advice are typically not the sort who want 1,000 other jackass Americans (said as a travelling American) showing up at "that tiny gem of a restaurant."
I'd say Yelp is the most useful travel-related app, precisely because they targeted a different market: what you want now, here (not the best in the world).
Travel advice inherently doesn't scale -- you saw it with Frommers et al. pre-web.
High investment to develop content, constant need to update, and your success cannibalizes your own business. The sorts of people who want travel advice are typically not the sort who want 1,000 other jackass Americans (said as a travelling American) showing up at "that tiny gem of a restaurant."
I'd say Yelp is the most useful travel-related app, precisely because they targeted a different market: what you want now, here (not the best in the world).
AirB&B was not easyly funded at first. It seemed very very foolish at the time to rent your place to a stranger.
The did revolutionis the touristic rental market, and as for any revolution, it was very very difficult at the begining to have followers ( finance, customers, accomodations).
The did revolutionis the touristic rental market, and as for any revolution, it was very very difficult at the begining to have followers ( finance, customers, accomodations).
> AirB&B was not easyly funded at first
More on the early history of the company: https://medium.com/@jasper_ribbers/the-airbnb-founder-story-...
More on the early history of the company: https://medium.com/@jasper_ribbers/the-airbnb-founder-story-...
I said that based on experience as a travel entrepreneur. There is a sentiment in investors about travel being a cold market, and many arent interested outright(regardless of traction).
Airbnb was an exception given they had good people backing them (PG et al) just based on team and they competed in a different segment and that they had enough funds to actually show repeats and retention (something many others lack). It did spawn a few clones all over which got funded, but folded very early. This indeed helped Airbnb in later rounds as they virtually had no competition.
> There's plenty of investors for software as a service.
True when the Gross Margins are 60-80% and not about 5-10% as in case of travel.
> tech services like AirBnB and TripAdvisor are competing with DIY search
Travel planning is an experience in itself, and hacking those prices/places gives a dopamine hit which no app can compensate for imo. People like to try out the app and use it once, but the retention for these apps are low. Users tend to forget about these apps next time they travel.
Airbnb was an exception given they had good people backing them (PG et al) just based on team and they competed in a different segment and that they had enough funds to actually show repeats and retention (something many others lack). It did spawn a few clones all over which got funded, but folded very early. This indeed helped Airbnb in later rounds as they virtually had no competition.
> There's plenty of investors for software as a service.
True when the Gross Margins are 60-80% and not about 5-10% as in case of travel.
> tech services like AirBnB and TripAdvisor are competing with DIY search
Travel planning is an experience in itself, and hacking those prices/places gives a dopamine hit which no app can compensate for imo. People like to try out the app and use it once, but the retention for these apps are low. Users tend to forget about these apps next time they travel.
Haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I will push back on some of the popular mythology that everyone thought successful startups we're just toys or would fail in their early days. IMO that's mostly bullshit.
Amazon, Google, Uber, Facebook (despite some cherry picked article from the video about it never being able to hit profitability) were all hugely popular right off the bat, and indeed, many people saw them as being more worthy successors to what were already huge businesses (e.g. the pre-Google search engines, MySpace).
In a similar vein, you often here how pg and other top VCs thought AirBnB was a horrible idea early on. Well, that's just their own individual myopic vision IMO. Couchsurfing was already very popular, as were other vacation rental platforms like VRBO - it's not hard to see how AirBnB could grow into that space.
If anything, what I see as the common thread is that the most successful startups executed extraordinarily well at just exactly the right time (e.g. there were other video sites before YouTube, but you didn't really have enough broadband adoption until the late 00s the make it viable).
Amazon, Google, Uber, Facebook (despite some cherry picked article from the video about it never being able to hit profitability) were all hugely popular right off the bat, and indeed, many people saw them as being more worthy successors to what were already huge businesses (e.g. the pre-Google search engines, MySpace).
In a similar vein, you often here how pg and other top VCs thought AirBnB was a horrible idea early on. Well, that's just their own individual myopic vision IMO. Couchsurfing was already very popular, as were other vacation rental platforms like VRBO - it's not hard to see how AirBnB could grow into that space.
If anything, what I see as the common thread is that the most successful startups executed extraordinarily well at just exactly the right time (e.g. there were other video sites before YouTube, but you didn't really have enough broadband adoption until the late 00s the make it viable).
All this hoo haa about startup ideas - Just make products that excel at every aspect of what it does and make sure there is a demand for such a product. I see people making a better soap dispenser, the hardware equivalent of what most SaaS startups are working on. You need to invent a new kind of soap that is better than anything else out there. It should take the grime off of everything from kitchen to bathroom scum. It replaces IPA, Acetone, LimeOff, EasyOff, Ivory bar, Dawn soap, and Gojo. You've got an explosive popularity just around the corner. Popularity isn't luck. It germinates from knocking people's socks off when they use your product.
I equate startup advice to those "Teach you how to become a millionaire" books you find at grocery stores. If these people really were good at making soap, they wouldn't be around giving advice. That includes my own advice in this comment ;-).
I equate startup advice to those "Teach you how to become a millionaire" books you find at grocery stores. If these people really were good at making soap, they wouldn't be around giving advice. That includes my own advice in this comment ;-).
I've actually funded 9 unicorns in the past 8 years and work with startups at the earliest possible stage, writing checks of $1M to $5M. And I give this advice away for free, because I find those "get rich quick" guides to be totally misleading.
I'm doing YouTube mainly to directly get the things I think work for founders out to people, just to help. So, I'm with you— but you have to understand my intention for the videos is to be something very different than those millionaire books.
I'm doing YouTube mainly to directly get the things I think work for founders out to people, just to help. So, I'm with you— but you have to understand my intention for the videos is to be something very different than those millionaire books.
> I equate startup advice to those "Teach you how to become a millionaire" books you find at grocery stores.
Without these books, finance wouldn’t have enough money to play with. Schmucks are a key ingredient of the ecosystem.
Same for startups. You need a substrate of failed founders and employees to create the raw materials that feed the successful juggernauts.
Without these books, finance wouldn’t have enough money to play with. Schmucks are a key ingredient of the ecosystem.
Same for startups. You need a substrate of failed founders and employees to create the raw materials that feed the successful juggernauts.
Method soap is the example of a better soap dispenser like you say. It doesn't work on everything but it had the uniqueness that it was made with natural ingredients, so much that you could drink it, which the founders did to demonstrate that fact.
I used Method foaming hand soap for a while. I probably went through about 10 bottles, and I'd say at least half of the dispensers started experiencing pumping issues before they were empty. So, in my experience, they were actually the worst soap dispensers I ever purchased.
Well, I don't know about the dispenser but the soap is pretty good. What did you think of it?
The soap was great. However, I don't know how much of that was the soap itself and how much was simply the experience of using foaming soap compared to liquid soap for washing my hands. If the dispensers actually worked, I would have kept buying it.
I never heard of Method Soap before now, but that pitch just makes me want it. Good example!
You should check out the How I Built This podcast, it has an episode about Method. Great story.
At the same time, selling ordinary things in a better way has also built many fortunes. I know several self-made people running ecommerce businesses in the most mundane spaces. There's plenty of opportunity everywhere.
Yes, you're 100% right. I meant "startup" in the sense of silicon valley rush to become a unicorn giant.
Soap dispenser business is in own right quite interesting. If you made a substantially better soap dispenser, it won't be in the newspapers. It has a shorter lever, but a good business nevertheless.
Soap dispenser business is in own right quite interesting. If you made a substantially better soap dispenser, it won't be in the newspapers. It has a shorter lever, but a good business nevertheless.
List some examples.
Toothpaste (as pills rather than paste), chewing gum (nootropics/flavors), sneaker care stuff, home decor, and a very specific set of auto repair tools.
Those are 5 completely separate businesses ranging from 500k/yr to 5m/yr. Only the first is a "new" product.
Those are 5 completely separate businesses ranging from 500k/yr to 5m/yr. Only the first is a "new" product.
99% of those examples are either fake or grossly overstated
Really? Haven't really looked into indiehackers, but are you implying that it's mostly a platform for attracting investors through fake growth stories like in the good old crypto days with fantastical IPO's?
Just because there is demand for something does not mean it is a viable business idea. There is tons of demand for food yet the margins selling food are tiny and it is very competitive. There is tons of demand for listening to music online, yet it was never profitable until Spotify came along. There is huge demand for watching videos online yet YouTube ran at a loss forever. Everyone thinks that their product is great and will stand out among the competitors.
OP probably meant demand is a requirement, not a guarantee, to ensure your product will be successful.
> Just make products that excel at every aspect of what it does and make sure there is a demand for such a product
Or, just make a mediocre product and make sure you have a big enough moat that competitors don't stand a chance.
Or, just make a mediocre product and make sure you have a big enough moat that competitors don't stand a chance.
Amazon had its ups and downs, but with them and Uber it was never a great intellectual leap to see how they could be very profitable. That's not at all the case for Google or Facebook. As late as 2002 Google itself wasn't convinced that it could succeed by selling ads, and their next best idea for making money was so uninspired that Silicon Valley spent several seasons mocking it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search_Appliance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search_Appliance
Exactly!! I always wondered why it took so many years for someone to figure out a revenue model for couchsurfing ('couchsurfing' website started in 2003 and AirBnB in 2008). AirBnB is just that (atleast at start)
Actually there is no fundamental difference between VRBO.com and Airbnb.com, with VRBO predating Airbnb by a lot, except for a more slick execution.
Edit: Per Wikipedia VRBO was launched in 1995.
Edit: Per Wikipedia VRBO was launched in 1995.
The folks at the famous ad firm Widen and Kennedy like to say "the best story wins." AirBnB did have one thing different in it's story vs VRBO, which was that it was initially pitched at people's spare bedrooms, not owners of vacation properties. It's a small difference, but meaningful in how the marketing message spread imo, even if AirBnB did come to be dominated by "professional" hosts.
Yes, I agree. So in a way it was a cross between VRBO and couchsurfing - which as you say made a much better story.
> with VRBO predating Airbnb by a lot, except for a more slick execution.
And "the more slick execution" was key. VRBO was until quite recently basically just classified ads - all transactions were done off platform, which was a major PITA and left a huge vector for fraud. I remember back in the late 00s I rented a place in Europe, and the only form of payment the owner would take was cash, so I showed up and paid 1200 euros in cash like I was buying half a kilo of heroin.
AirBnB solved the transaction issue right from the get go, with all payments going through their system and the owner not getting paid until like a day or two after the guest checked in. In addition, AirBnB worked off a commission model, which makes much more sense from a business perspective and which VRBO finally switched to a couple years ago.
And "the more slick execution" was key. VRBO was until quite recently basically just classified ads - all transactions were done off platform, which was a major PITA and left a huge vector for fraud. I remember back in the late 00s I rented a place in Europe, and the only form of payment the owner would take was cash, so I showed up and paid 1200 euros in cash like I was buying half a kilo of heroin.
AirBnB solved the transaction issue right from the get go, with all payments going through their system and the owner not getting paid until like a day or two after the guest checked in. In addition, AirBnB worked off a commission model, which makes much more sense from a business perspective and which VRBO finally switched to a couple years ago.
Off-topic but this seemed off to me:
> paid 1200 euros in cash like I was buying half a kilo of heroin
and luckily, the UN has some nice historical data on this [1]. Looks like the EU averaged 50 euros per gram or so. You’d have only gotten 25 grams :).
[1] https://dataunodc.un.org/drugs/heroin_and_cocaine_prices_in_...
> paid 1200 euros in cash like I was buying half a kilo of heroin
and luckily, the UN has some nice historical data on this [1]. Looks like the EU averaged 50 euros per gram or so. You’d have only gotten 25 grams :).
[1] https://dataunodc.un.org/drugs/heroin_and_cocaine_prices_in_...
If you looked at the user experiences of the two sites, they couldn't be more different.
User experience and design matters a lot.
User experience and design matters a lot.
Same with stackoverflow. I remember thinking when reading Joel saying they were doing this "what's the point, I can find answers on the web already"
Joel said from the beginning that their goal was to kill Experts Exchange, which at the time was a scammy site that used dark patterns to lure people into paying for answers, but still popped up all the time on Google. And although I often found my question posted on other forums, I swear that half the time the only response was "Never mind I figured it out" or "Just Google it."
> e.g. there were other video sites before YouTube, but you didn't really have enough broadband adoption until the late 00s the make it viable
Also YouTube was founded by Jim Clark’s son in law.
Also YouTube was founded by Jim Clark’s son in law.
MySpace was massive when Facebook was a year or two old. I had accounts on both and MySpace looked way more attractive compared to FB (it had the feel of Instagram).
So no, FB did not take over overnight. And even a few years into FB, no one (yes, no one) knew that FB will go past MySpace and there will simply be no comparison between the two 10 or 15 years down the road.
When FB took over MySpace a full FOUR years in [0], investors knew FB had momentum, but no one (yes, no one) had any idea why.
Not only that, many investors had no second thoughts about MySpace, and it felt like a competition space, instead of a winner take all. There was still an opinion that MySpace will retake the top spot again 'any minute now.'
So why FB took over MySpace? We don't know. Yes, we don't know in 2020, 16 years later.
(I'm not dismissing hard work, marketing, execution, commitment. But it was there for both FB and MySpace. It's a pre-requisite. You think MySpace folks slacked off and that's why FB got ahead? think again).
Stop monday morning quarter backing.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=when+did+facebook+overtake+m...
So no, FB did not take over overnight. And even a few years into FB, no one (yes, no one) knew that FB will go past MySpace and there will simply be no comparison between the two 10 or 15 years down the road.
When FB took over MySpace a full FOUR years in [0], investors knew FB had momentum, but no one (yes, no one) had any idea why.
Not only that, many investors had no second thoughts about MySpace, and it felt like a competition space, instead of a winner take all. There was still an opinion that MySpace will retake the top spot again 'any minute now.'
So why FB took over MySpace? We don't know. Yes, we don't know in 2020, 16 years later.
(I'm not dismissing hard work, marketing, execution, commitment. But it was there for both FB and MySpace. It's a pre-requisite. You think MySpace folks slacked off and that's why FB got ahead? think again).
Stop monday morning quarter backing.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=when+did+facebook+overtake+m...
I wish I could downvote you, but as a direct reply I'll have to settle for replying instead. You seem to have completely misunderstood my argument. I'm not "Monday morning quarterbacking", and I in no way think that Facebook's success was guaranteed.
The point I was making was the idea that it was believed early on that social media was a "toy" or that it would never be profitable or that people poo poo-ed the idea of Facebook in its early days is not accurate, at all. Indeed, the example of MySpace shows that it was already well known that there would be a scramble for dominance in the social media realm.
> So why FB took over MySpace? We don't know. Yes, we don't know in 2020, 16 years later.
Uhh, I think we have a pretty good idea. First and foremost, Facebook was always focused on your real, offline identity, which was rather new at the time. MySpace and the early social networks were primarily based on different online personas (e.g. online usernames, no real name policy, etc.) MySpace tried to get people to add their real names and identities later, but it was basically too late by then. This isn't hypothetical, either, one of the founders of MySpace told me as much in a conversation about a decade ago.
The point I was making was the idea that it was believed early on that social media was a "toy" or that it would never be profitable or that people poo poo-ed the idea of Facebook in its early days is not accurate, at all. Indeed, the example of MySpace shows that it was already well known that there would be a scramble for dominance in the social media realm.
> So why FB took over MySpace? We don't know. Yes, we don't know in 2020, 16 years later.
Uhh, I think we have a pretty good idea. First and foremost, Facebook was always focused on your real, offline identity, which was rather new at the time. MySpace and the early social networks were primarily based on different online personas (e.g. online usernames, no real name policy, etc.) MySpace tried to get people to add their real names and identities later, but it was basically too late by then. This isn't hypothetical, either, one of the founders of MySpace told me as much in a conversation about a decade ago.
I just want to point out one thing, for the record.
I'm sorry "Stop Monday Morning Quarterbacking (MMQ)" isn't directed at you per se, but the general direction of whoever is reading my comment.
MMQ is, unfortunately, practiced widely in many prediction/retrospection circles like startups, finance, economics, politics.
I'm speaking from a the point of view of scientific rigor, or at least quantitative data analysis. No one does that when it comes to opining about the cause-and-effect of an event in the past. If you're "the winner", anything you say about why you won, would be taken as gospel. "Winner is always right". Rigorous analysis is very hard, and costly, and to what end? Just so you could say "my reasoning is based on analysis"? That's a very boring thing to say. Unless rigorous-analysis finds utility in applications like decision-making for future startups, and is shown to work over and over again (maybe we'll need AI for that), no one is going to bother with it.
I'm sorry "Stop Monday Morning Quarterbacking (MMQ)" isn't directed at you per se, but the general direction of whoever is reading my comment.
MMQ is, unfortunately, practiced widely in many prediction/retrospection circles like startups, finance, economics, politics.
I'm speaking from a the point of view of scientific rigor, or at least quantitative data analysis. No one does that when it comes to opining about the cause-and-effect of an event in the past. If you're "the winner", anything you say about why you won, would be taken as gospel. "Winner is always right". Rigorous analysis is very hard, and costly, and to what end? Just so you could say "my reasoning is based on analysis"? That's a very boring thing to say. Unless rigorous-analysis finds utility in applications like decision-making for future startups, and is shown to work over and over again (maybe we'll need AI for that), no one is going to bother with it.
You must have had a very different experience if you think 'MySpace looked way more attractive compared to FB'.... MySpace pages were ugly as hell, with tiled backgrounds, autoplay music, and mismatched themes. Facebook was CLEAN, and everyone's page looked uniform and consistently styled. This lack of customization, I think, is what made it become so popular. That, and the feed; myspace never had the concept of taking posts from all your friends and putting them into a list that you could scroll through. You had to visit each page to see what was on it, and that meant seeing the horrible styling and autoplay music.
I attribute the success more to creating a tight and more complete personal network due to the campus focus early on. I do think the features of MySpace were a novelty that was also wearing off. And fb provided a cleaner bug free interface
That helped but FB was exclusive to universities at first. So everyone wanted in.
Hm, I think it's pretty well known why Facebook won. Far deeper networks, far better engagement. Look up the work the Facebook Growth team did.
I keep hearing over and over again how the idea doesn't matter and it's all about "execution execution execution!". I get that execution is important, but can we also agree that the idea is important too? I get that good ideas are easier to come by than good execution, but I kind of feel like completely discounting the idea also missed the point.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a hard time coming up with a super successful company based on a bad idea.
Just to be clear, I'm not discounting execution at all, it's obviously incredibly important. All I'm saying is that it bugs me when people always discount ideas as unimportant.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a hard time coming up with a super successful company based on a bad idea.
Just to be clear, I'm not discounting execution at all, it's obviously incredibly important. All I'm saying is that it bugs me when people always discount ideas as unimportant.
I believe that greatly depends on how you define the idea. In my definition, the idea for Google was: "Get advertisers to pay for a free information portal." That idea doesn't seem much different to "Advertisers pay for a free newspaper", which was common practice at the time. Similarly, "Advertisers pay for free classified ads" was common, too, but it's how Facebook started out. "Pay for a car ride" = Uber also doesn't seem that new. Or how about "Rent out rooms for money" = AirBnb.
In my opinion, all of those are ideas that aren't really new. But they were executed in a new way and that made all the difference.
HomeAway was already well-known and successful at the time when AirBnb was founded. But the latter reached more potential landlords, due to their specific execution.
I remember using AltaVista for years before I ever heard about Google. So their business idea and business model wasn't new. Their initial execution was incredible, though.
And before I heard of Facebook, I was using MySpace, which was kind of the same basic idea, but pretty badly executed. Until 2 years after the iPhone came out, MySpace was actually larger than Facebook. So my guess would be that it was Facebook's superior execution of their mobile experience that crowned them.
In my opinion, all of those are ideas that aren't really new. But they were executed in a new way and that made all the difference.
HomeAway was already well-known and successful at the time when AirBnb was founded. But the latter reached more potential landlords, due to their specific execution.
I remember using AltaVista for years before I ever heard about Google. So their business idea and business model wasn't new. Their initial execution was incredible, though.
And before I heard of Facebook, I was using MySpace, which was kind of the same basic idea, but pretty badly executed. Until 2 years after the iPhone came out, MySpace was actually larger than Facebook. So my guess would be that it was Facebook's superior execution of their mobile experience that crowned them.
The important ideas that made those companies get big wasn't what problem to solve but how to solve it. Google had PageRank and various other smart ways to make their search better than the competitors at the time. Facebook had better UX. Airbnb made renting out rooms ten times easier.
The important ideas here is in the realm of "how". And that realm is both ideas and execution. Ideas of how to execute?
The important ideas here is in the realm of "how". And that realm is both ideas and execution. Ideas of how to execute?
When people talk about ideas it’s not that great ideas win, it’s bad ideas lose. Starting by selling books online like Amazon is better than selling pet food online like Pets.com from both a shipping cost per lb and the value of having a usefully huge selection vs basically selling commodities.
Pet owners often care about buying the same food every time, but few people are buying hundreds of copies of the same book.
Pet owners often care about buying the same food every time, but few people are buying hundreds of copies of the same book.
"...advertisers pay for free classifieds" - profit or brain melt?
Ideas are just a multiplier on execution. Derek Sivers was a big influence on startups when I came up in 2008. Classic: https://sive.rs/multiply
I think the problem is in that people use the term “idea”. Ideas are worthless. What you want are opportunities.
Here’s the difference:
“I think people would buy a screwdriver with a built-in hammer”
“I just spoke to company XYZ and they would buy 1,000 screwdrivers with integrated hammers if we made them”
The difference is obvious to anyone. You can execute like a star on the idea and make it if you get lucky and a market exists. The opportunity only requires “minimum viable execution” to capture it.
One is a push, the other a pull.
Here’s the difference:
“I think people would buy a screwdriver with a built-in hammer”
“I just spoke to company XYZ and they would buy 1,000 screwdrivers with integrated hammers if we made them”
The difference is obvious to anyone. You can execute like a star on the idea and make it if you get lucky and a market exists. The opportunity only requires “minimum viable execution” to capture it.
One is a push, the other a pull.
Ideas must change in response to feedback from the problem to be solved.
The initial idea and its nth iteration are downstream from the real problem. What matters, therefore, is the iterative execution of those solutions. So instead of basing our judgment on the quality of the idea, we should rely on the execution ability because that is fairly constant in the development loop.
If you end up on the far-side of an idea-driven development process, you'll have solutions looking for a problem.
The initial idea and its nth iteration are downstream from the real problem. What matters, therefore, is the iterative execution of those solutions. So instead of basing our judgment on the quality of the idea, we should rely on the execution ability because that is fairly constant in the development loop.
If you end up on the far-side of an idea-driven development process, you'll have solutions looking for a problem.
You are right. I find it helpful to look at risk. Broadly speaking there are two types of risks when starting a startup:
1. Customer/market risk
2. Invention risk
When invention risk >> customer risk (you can be certain there are customers, they have a need, you can satisfy the need), then a good idea will play a bigger role relative to execution (which still remains crucial).
However, we tend to grossly under-estimate customer risk, hence the "ideas are cheap" warning.
1. Customer/market risk
2. Invention risk
When invention risk >> customer risk (you can be certain there are customers, they have a need, you can satisfy the need), then a good idea will play a bigger role relative to execution (which still remains crucial).
However, we tend to grossly under-estimate customer risk, hence the "ideas are cheap" warning.
I think this is a good framework to think about this. Thanks for sharing!
> but can we also agree that the idea is important too?
No
> a super successful company based on a bad idea.
Magic Leap
Super successful companies based on nothing ideas are a dime a dozen. Almost all sites.
- Amazon, it sells things. It's execution was cutting edge.
- Rocket-internet is a great example - https://www.businessinsider.com.au/rocket-internet-companies...
Even the great mathematical ideas were execution. Working out how to create protocols is execution.
Lots of drunk discussions about internet currencies in the 2000's but no one implemented the mathematics -
Satoshi Nakamoto also released bitcoin software on Sourceforge.
Bram Cohen created torrent protocol and also release the software and filled it with porn.
No
> a super successful company based on a bad idea.
Magic Leap
Super successful companies based on nothing ideas are a dime a dozen. Almost all sites.
- Amazon, it sells things. It's execution was cutting edge.
- Rocket-internet is a great example - https://www.businessinsider.com.au/rocket-internet-companies...
Even the great mathematical ideas were execution. Working out how to create protocols is execution.
Lots of drunk discussions about internet currencies in the 2000's but no one implemented the mathematics -
Satoshi Nakamoto also released bitcoin software on Sourceforge.
Bram Cohen created torrent protocol and also release the software and filled it with porn.
I would argue that Magic Leap is not super successful. They have raised tons of money in the private market but much of it seems to have been smoke and mirrors (similar to e.g. Theranos).
Could you point me to a super successful public company with a proven track record, high revenues, rising stock price, etc. that is focused around a bad idea?
Could you point me to a super successful public company with a proven track record, high revenues, rising stock price, etc. that is focused around a bad idea?
Medical equipment and software. It's over engineered. It needs to break more.
But you could just say the idea is playing to medical regulation and a dumb public.
So the answer is any company that pivots. ie. Youtube - https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/308975
OT:
Scott Adams tried to sell an idea - https://www.scottadamssays.com/2012/10/01/selling-an-idea/
Read it and follow it up how he went. It might interest you.
But you could just say the idea is playing to medical regulation and a dumb public.
So the answer is any company that pivots. ie. Youtube - https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/308975
OT:
Scott Adams tried to sell an idea - https://www.scottadamssays.com/2012/10/01/selling-an-idea/
Read it and follow it up how he went. It might interest you.
If anything, I think the example of medical equipment sounds more like a good idea with poor execution.
Also, giving examples of good ideas without good execution that failed (e.g. your point about cryptocurrency) does not actually show that ideas don't matter, they show that ideas are not sufficient, something I completely agree with.
I do believe execution is all the matters(from my experience) because ideas can always change.
Sure, if you're allowing ideas to change then yes the very first idea is not important. Using your same logic, you could then also argue that execution doesn't matter because you can always fix mistakes in execution (e.g. Netflix tried spinning off Qwikster which many people thought was a mistake, but Netflix is still super successful today).
I think of execution more in terms of the capability of a team to deliver something. This has more to do with founder & the teams passion, experience etc, which is fairly constant.
True, and though selling soap and toothpaste is now 99.9% execution and 0.1% idea you probably won't get a billion dollar business out of it today.
I guess a good idea now also contains a good idea on how to execute it as well.
I guess a good idea now also contains a good idea on how to execute it as well.
I dunno. Kylie Jenner turned her makeup line into a billion dollars.
I always liked Sivers' version of this, which might help a little here
https://sive.rs/multiply
https://sive.rs/multiply
I think there’s still plenty of low hanging fruit out there, especially for B2C, people just aren’t thinking about it in the right way. Too many resources have been devoted to providing marginal conveniences (all of the delivery companies), or to entertainment.
I still think what the advanced world needs most is an easily accessible way to form strong human connections. Organizations throughout history, such as religions, armies, fraternities, and secret societies, have figured out that formula. But, obviously those groups aren’t a good option for everyone. Great relationships are the most valuable things we have, and, judging by how many lonely people are out there, they are in short supply.
I still think what the advanced world needs most is an easily accessible way to form strong human connections. Organizations throughout history, such as religions, armies, fraternities, and secret societies, have figured out that formula. But, obviously those groups aren’t a good option for everyone. Great relationships are the most valuable things we have, and, judging by how many lonely people are out there, they are in short supply.
Haven't watched the full video yet but the saying that one shouldn't build what everyone else is building doesn't seem like good advise.
Yahoo was hugely popular when Google launched. Orkut and MySpace were very popular when Facebook launched. There were many popular messaging services when Whatsapp launched.
In fact I think just digging out something from the Google graveyard would be a good idea. 4-5 million users might be a pittance for Google but most of us would be more than happy to have even half of that customer base.
Yahoo was hugely popular when Google launched. Orkut and MySpace were very popular when Facebook launched. There were many popular messaging services when Whatsapp launched.
In fact I think just digging out something from the Google graveyard would be a good idea. 4-5 million users might be a pittance for Google but most of us would be more than happy to have even half of that customer base.
Yeah. It's actually also against what Peter Thiel says: Be the last to enter market, to do things right I guess. Another counterexample seems to be note-taking apps. Even though this is something native to many OS, there seem to be a couple of successful players: Notion, Bear, Roamreasearch. If you solve a relevant problem for people, who cares if something similar was available before but not solving the problem?
On a larger note: There's is so much contradicting startup advise out there it almost feels useless. Dunno, maybe those people who have the real insight are just to busy to share
On a larger note: There's is so much contradicting startup advise out there it almost feels useless. Dunno, maybe those people who have the real insight are just to busy to share
> It's actually also against what Peter Thiel says: Be the last to enter market
He also said:
"Every moment in business happens only once. The next Bill Gates will not build an operating system. The next Larry Page or Sergey Brin won’t make a search engine. And the next Mark Zuckerberg won’t create a social network. If you are copying these guys, you aren’t learning from them."
Regarding note-taking apps, I think few of those will turn into billion dollar companies, which is what the video is about.
He also said:
"Every moment in business happens only once. The next Bill Gates will not build an operating system. The next Larry Page or Sergey Brin won’t make a search engine. And the next Mark Zuckerberg won’t create a social network. If you are copying these guys, you aren’t learning from them."
Regarding note-taking apps, I think few of those will turn into billion dollar companies, which is what the video is about.
Yes, and that's exactly my point. There were search engines before there was Google. Still it has become a multi-billion company. If you provide 10x value no one cares if there is competition already (depending on switching costs I guess).
Certainly you need to consider both supply and demand, and how fast both are growing. Ignoring any of these variables turns your prediction into luck. You need a way to assess their relative size. Looking at how successful others in the market currently are is actually a pretty good way to assess this. Except if their high margins may be based in large part on factors you can't benefit from, like network and monopoly (e.g. IP) advantages.
That's kind of the case for all this kind of big-picture advice. There's some truth but some missing variables that may be just as important. "Bread crumbs" was a good way to describe it, I think.
That's kind of the case for all this kind of big-picture advice. There's some truth but some missing variables that may be just as important. "Bread crumbs" was a good way to describe it, I think.
just a friendly reminder that you do not need to build a billion dollar startup to achieve wealth & status.
sometimes building something that makes 1-2mn a year is the right move.
sometimes building something that makes 1-2mn a year is the right move.
I made this video and agree with this comment! Not everyone needs to make a billion dollar startup.
100k/y is probably enough for a lot of people too!
1-2mn is likely much more fragile source of income in a long term comparing to capital acquired from successful unicorn.
Sure, but that's a bit like saying "if you have a job, you could lose it. But if you win the lottery you're pretty much set"
It is not about level of income, but about long term sustainability, which I believe should be main goal.
Small business is fragile endeavor, comparing to both regular employment and scaling small business to larger one with higher resistance to risks.
Small business is fragile endeavor, comparing to both regular employment and scaling small business to larger one with higher resistance to risks.
Sure, but if stability is your goal, you're much more likely to find stability by attempting to create a small business than by attempting to create billion dollar business.
My suspicion is that a person who is constantly chasing a billion dollar business is going to have to make a lot more hops than someone chasing a more modest goal.
This is not a recommendation to avoid those billion dollar goals, just an observation on relative probabilities, and what is an appropriate target if your goal is stability.
My suspicion is that a person who is constantly chasing a billion dollar business is going to have to make a lot more hops than someone chasing a more modest goal.
This is not a recommendation to avoid those billion dollar goals, just an observation on relative probabilities, and what is an appropriate target if your goal is stability.
eh. not necessarily.
What are multimillion dollar ideas?
Buy a popular franchise. McDonalds net profit is estimated around $150,000 per year. That's after any reasonable salary you are also paying yourself. Based on typical margins, that alone, in gross revenue, is > $1,000,000/year.
I want multimillion profits not revenue
many more exist IMO and biz model is much more proven
What isn't? A small chain of bars, for example.
I think the one take from this short talk is this; "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes" (M.Twain). Walking your own path is always important when it comes to creativity, whether it is about pursuing billion dollar startup ideas or writing a unique song.
I'd like to offer a counterpoint to starting a billion dollar startup, instead of trying your best to be a billionaire - you can pursue multiple small bets that can pay you better than your current full time job. That way you don't have to sacrifice your interests for financial independence.
I spent the last 2 years working on a research heavy startup that I felt would change game development forever, it was hard from an engineering, research, marketing and sales standpoint.
Late into the second year I started to feel burnt out and decided instead to write a robotics textbook which got way more attention to both myself and my project in about 2 months worth of work than 2 years did. This then got me to take Twitter a bit more seriously in terms of making friends, peers that I can easily see turn into collaborators or customers in the future. Sort of an audience first approach as opposed to product first approach. Tools like Twitter, Medium and Substack make this approach a lot more feasible today.
I even remember having a sort of disdain for freelancing because I thought it didn't scale whereas if I did pursue it more seriously I'd imagine I'd have had more direct solo enterprise sales experience, met more clients, figured out what their problems were and solving them instead of imagining an ideal where game developers would solve their problems like I wanted them to. Seeing my savings decrease every month took a mental toll on me, I figured there would be a light at the end of the tunnel and I essentially feel like I miscalibrated my goals. Instead of trying to build a billion dollar startup, I should have spent more time figuring out how to never need a job ever again.
The benefits of the multiple small bets approach is that when you're wrong it doesn't cost you 2 years of your life, you're less fragile to sudden decreases in income from one small bet, you don't have a boss, pandemics don't affect you, you choose your peers and hours etc.. Making your first few dollars online (not from a paycheck) changes you, makes a you a lot better at pursuing opportunities when they happen.
After COVID hit I started looking for a job again and my interviewing experience was very interesting to say the least. I described very honestly my failures and startups loved my story and appreciated my openness - bigger companies on the other hand essentially told me that well your startup didn't work out so you must be lazy and dumb. The outcome is what determines if I'm a good founder or not but it was really painful being lectured by people who had never taken a risk in their lives.
I see so many founders dreaming of huge companies going towards IPO when I can see solo founder companies being a lot happier if they pursued multiple small bets instead. You can't hedge your life over multiple billion dollar startups with a 1% chance of working out but you can certainly hedge it over multiple small bets each with a 10-30% chance of success. What's good for the aggregate or society isn't necessarily what is best for you.
I spent the last 2 years working on a research heavy startup that I felt would change game development forever, it was hard from an engineering, research, marketing and sales standpoint.
Late into the second year I started to feel burnt out and decided instead to write a robotics textbook which got way more attention to both myself and my project in about 2 months worth of work than 2 years did. This then got me to take Twitter a bit more seriously in terms of making friends, peers that I can easily see turn into collaborators or customers in the future. Sort of an audience first approach as opposed to product first approach. Tools like Twitter, Medium and Substack make this approach a lot more feasible today.
I even remember having a sort of disdain for freelancing because I thought it didn't scale whereas if I did pursue it more seriously I'd imagine I'd have had more direct solo enterprise sales experience, met more clients, figured out what their problems were and solving them instead of imagining an ideal where game developers would solve their problems like I wanted them to. Seeing my savings decrease every month took a mental toll on me, I figured there would be a light at the end of the tunnel and I essentially feel like I miscalibrated my goals. Instead of trying to build a billion dollar startup, I should have spent more time figuring out how to never need a job ever again.
The benefits of the multiple small bets approach is that when you're wrong it doesn't cost you 2 years of your life, you're less fragile to sudden decreases in income from one small bet, you don't have a boss, pandemics don't affect you, you choose your peers and hours etc.. Making your first few dollars online (not from a paycheck) changes you, makes a you a lot better at pursuing opportunities when they happen.
After COVID hit I started looking for a job again and my interviewing experience was very interesting to say the least. I described very honestly my failures and startups loved my story and appreciated my openness - bigger companies on the other hand essentially told me that well your startup didn't work out so you must be lazy and dumb. The outcome is what determines if I'm a good founder or not but it was really painful being lectured by people who had never taken a risk in their lives.
I see so many founders dreaming of huge companies going towards IPO when I can see solo founder companies being a lot happier if they pursued multiple small bets instead. You can't hedge your life over multiple billion dollar startups with a 1% chance of working out but you can certainly hedge it over multiple small bets each with a 10-30% chance of success. What's good for the aggregate or society isn't necessarily what is best for you.
Exactly this, I have no interest in starting and running a billion dollar company (assuming it was something I was able to do), the stress involved must be incredible and the odds of success, tiny. I have a small saas company that nets me a little over a 1k / month and has done so for the last 5 years. The only work I have to do is send an invoice each month. So maybe an hour of work per year. I wish I had 5 or 6 of these and I would just live and do whatever I felt like each day.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again - if you want to get ideas, try to get exposed to some (pretty much any) industry as either a consultant/freelancer, or even regular employee. Most industries and businesses are rife with smaller (and larger) inefficiencies, especially when we're still in the twilight of digitalization.
This is obviously going do the B2B domain, and a lot of the problems and products will be deemed "boring", but hey, there's good money to be made.
This is obviously going do the B2B domain, and a lot of the problems and products will be deemed "boring", but hey, there's good money to be made.
This is my first time hearing from Garry Tan, and I just want to say that his voice is incredible. It reminds me of Chris Voss' "late night FM DJ voice" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJjnkxvbxaI)
Could anyone recommend some exercises to practice that kind of voice?
Could anyone recommend some exercises to practice that kind of voice?
Oh man thanks! I don't do anything particularly special. I do have a dynamic mic (Electrovoice RE20) with a good compressor (dbx 286s) and that does give a good "radio effect."
I haven't made it to the end of the video but here's my take on the subject: it is true - everyone is trying to create the exact same thing over and over again. But there are some key components that everyone misses. You can't replace facebook. People complain about facebook, but those of us who steer clear from it are a minority. And if potentially I were to create a facebook which solves the problems I have with the existing one, I'd be making a facebook clone that fits the requirements of a small subset of those who aren't on facebook. Basically insignificant market share and it would be a catastrophic waste of time, effort and money. Hence the reason why I'm not doing it(also because I find social networks inherently boring).
The second big misconception is that in order to make a billion or even a million dollar product, you need to focus on a personal problem you are trying to solve. Essentially your product should solve your problem. And this lures people into an entirely different rabbit hole - convincing themselves that "X" is their problem and that many other people have that problem. Often no one has that problem or it's so insignificant that no one will even bother giving it a thought.
The next big rabbit hole are apps. Don't get me wrong, apps are great and I rely on my phone heavily. However the Pareto rule is in full effect here. People will have 60 apps installed, and will use around 20% of those. And they will use heavily 20% of that subset. Say the average human being spends, say, an hour and a half on his or her phone a day. 80% of which will be messaging/social media, where you can't compete. So you are left competing with 10 other apps for the user's attention for a portion of the remaining 36 minutes. Sure, you could get a few thousand users out of several billion people. But again, Pareto's rule: most of your revenue will come from a small subset of those. Which often defeats the purpose. It's really hard to compete as a startup or an indie developer, when thousands of companies have thousands of astonishing developers at their disposal + the finances to back up any new project.
In addition, an idea in itself is worth nothing. It's what you do with it and how you market it that counts.
Which leads me to my final point. Billion dollar ideas are really hard to execute because the bar has been set very high. It's not something a single person or a small team can pull off. Those who do are the black swans. On a semi-related note, when the pandemic started, I was pretty convinced that many people will step up their game and come up with relevant products which will help the world adapt to the new normal. Which didn't happen to my big surprise. And I'm kind of disappointed that I didn't take on the challenge either(too much on my plate already + it's hard to work alone on a project). There were so many opportunities that were entirely missed... Shame but oh well... Next time maybe...
The second big misconception is that in order to make a billion or even a million dollar product, you need to focus on a personal problem you are trying to solve. Essentially your product should solve your problem. And this lures people into an entirely different rabbit hole - convincing themselves that "X" is their problem and that many other people have that problem. Often no one has that problem or it's so insignificant that no one will even bother giving it a thought.
The next big rabbit hole are apps. Don't get me wrong, apps are great and I rely on my phone heavily. However the Pareto rule is in full effect here. People will have 60 apps installed, and will use around 20% of those. And they will use heavily 20% of that subset. Say the average human being spends, say, an hour and a half on his or her phone a day. 80% of which will be messaging/social media, where you can't compete. So you are left competing with 10 other apps for the user's attention for a portion of the remaining 36 minutes. Sure, you could get a few thousand users out of several billion people. But again, Pareto's rule: most of your revenue will come from a small subset of those. Which often defeats the purpose. It's really hard to compete as a startup or an indie developer, when thousands of companies have thousands of astonishing developers at their disposal + the finances to back up any new project.
In addition, an idea in itself is worth nothing. It's what you do with it and how you market it that counts.
Which leads me to my final point. Billion dollar ideas are really hard to execute because the bar has been set very high. It's not something a single person or a small team can pull off. Those who do are the black swans. On a semi-related note, when the pandemic started, I was pretty convinced that many people will step up their game and come up with relevant products which will help the world adapt to the new normal. Which didn't happen to my big surprise. And I'm kind of disappointed that I didn't take on the challenge either(too much on my plate already + it's hard to work alone on a project). There were so many opportunities that were entirely missed... Shame but oh well... Next time maybe...
Ideas are rarely the problem. It's the execution and commitment.
Derek Sivers says ideas are a multiplier on execution. Zero execution with 1000x idea still is equal zero. But the right execution with the right idea is magic.
I'd argue that the execution is the idea. Otherwise you are left with, with these 'ideas' is a quick summary of a product that could exist with no mention of the market, how to market it, who to market it to initially and eventually, how to build it, when to build it, strategy, raising money (or not) etc. etc.
Can anyone recommend one of these local event apps he was talking about?
Been looking for one for a while, i actually considered making one.
Been looking for one for a while, i actually considered making one.
I think most local newspapers have about as good as one as any. Facebook Events also has largely filled this.
As a Y Combinator partner for five years, it never failed that some hundreds of applications every single time were for local events startups.
As a Y Combinator partner for five years, it never failed that some hundreds of applications every single time were for local events startups.
That's probably the moment where I should be pissed off how great drop!in was in its day and if VC's in South East Asia would be less risk adverse it might have likely been a much more successful business than it was.
I've had a couple, but couldn't tell you where they come from or how I get them. Ideas are easy (well, not really, but most smart, aware people have them).
The differentiator is execution and the ability to network properly. Maybe try your ideas when you don't have five college-aged kids and debt.
I had the idea for "Slack" 4 years before it came out. Seriously, _exactly_ the idea of Slack. I even semi-pitched it to Microsoft and they blew me off. I saw Napster/(internet downloaded music) four years before 1999, but I suspect I wasn't the only one. I started a knowledge base of company resumes at my consulting firm in 1995 and now that's a billion dollar industry (we never finished it because coworkers hated the idea of their resume in a database).
I may be smart, but so far I have been unable to execute any of my billion dollar ideas. Being smart only really gets you so far. I did try to build a tech-ed company ten years ago (Textfyre) that would thrive in the Covid learning world, but we could never get funded.
Still swinging though. May be the one I'm working on now will connect. We shall see.
My advice to anyone with an idea? Learn how to execute. Join startups, read books, network with entrepreneurs, go to startupweekend (when Covid is over), learn how to build a solid pitch deck, a business plan, and a financial worksheet. These fundamentals are the difference in getting an idea to market. And finally, make sure you focus on customers. Not on your logo, business cards, a PR website, or even paid employees. Get customers. Get revenue.
The differentiator is execution and the ability to network properly. Maybe try your ideas when you don't have five college-aged kids and debt.
I had the idea for "Slack" 4 years before it came out. Seriously, _exactly_ the idea of Slack. I even semi-pitched it to Microsoft and they blew me off. I saw Napster/(internet downloaded music) four years before 1999, but I suspect I wasn't the only one. I started a knowledge base of company resumes at my consulting firm in 1995 and now that's a billion dollar industry (we never finished it because coworkers hated the idea of their resume in a database).
I may be smart, but so far I have been unable to execute any of my billion dollar ideas. Being smart only really gets you so far. I did try to build a tech-ed company ten years ago (Textfyre) that would thrive in the Covid learning world, but we could never get funded.
Still swinging though. May be the one I'm working on now will connect. We shall see.
My advice to anyone with an idea? Learn how to execute. Join startups, read books, network with entrepreneurs, go to startupweekend (when Covid is over), learn how to build a solid pitch deck, a business plan, and a financial worksheet. These fundamentals are the difference in getting an idea to market. And finally, make sure you focus on customers. Not on your logo, business cards, a PR website, or even paid employees. Get customers. Get revenue.
You only had the idea for slack 4 years before it was launched? IRC had it long before that...
Slack is more than IRC. Integrated content-sharing was what made Slack "better" than vanilla IRC. Slack also provided a user-friendly interface which IRC arguably has never had.
$28 billion. I would cry, but it's my own fault for not knowing how to entrepreneur in 2009.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Execution is easy, it just takes money, good ideas are hard to come up with.
Startup names under 199 USD for your billion dollar ideas
https://startupnames.medium.com/startup-names-under-199-usd-...
https://startupnames.medium.com/startup-names-under-199-usd-...
useless garbage spam
Hol up im channeling my inner steve jobs
The world doesn't need more VC-inflated payment platform middlemen taking a cut either Gary :p Other than the Patreon spruik, good vid.
Easy - A convenient way to get a covid vaccine /s
Apply a known safe encapsulation process to one of the vaccines that works and make it shelf-stable. That's worth a billion.
Some of the vaccines are a fragile messenger RNA molecule with nothing to protect it. That's good, because it's the minimal molecule that will do the job, reducing the risk of side effects. But it has to be kept frozen at dry ice temperatures before use. The "user friendly" version needs to follow.
See [1][2] for other vaccines for which this has been done.
Merck is working on a pill version.
[1] https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/12/567/eabf2642.full
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00928...
Some of the vaccines are a fragile messenger RNA molecule with nothing to protect it. That's good, because it's the minimal molecule that will do the job, reducing the risk of side effects. But it has to be kept frozen at dry ice temperatures before use. The "user friendly" version needs to follow.
See [1][2] for other vaccines for which this has been done.
Merck is working on a pill version.
[1] https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/12/567/eabf2642.full
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00928...
It would also be a good time to have a design you could dust off for a cheap, quickly manufactured medical-grade cryo storage unit.
https://youtu.be/3YKNr-LiblI?t=212
i guess he never heard of ebay.
patreon is just paypal donation button but they take a bigger cut and have developed a habit of terminating creators from the service for vague TOS violations
When he says that a company is worth 1 billon or 3 billon etc. , this is based on the last funding round in a very illiquid market. The collapse of wework shows that these purportedly large numbers are less impressive than they seem
i guess he never heard of ebay.
patreon is just paypal donation button but they take a bigger cut and have developed a habit of terminating creators from the service for vague TOS violations
When he says that a company is worth 1 billon or 3 billon etc. , this is based on the last funding round in a very illiquid market. The collapse of wework shows that these purportedly large numbers are less impressive than they seem
Hacker News sure has changed into Slashdot 2.0 when this kind of shallow dismissivemess is so common.
The comment rating on Slashdot is better. You can mark comments as funny or insightful.
HN readers tend to have a single linear viewpoint, and if you dissent from that angle, then you get downvoted to oblivion, or worse, flagged, even if you may have a valid viewpoint.
Edit: And I just got downvoted. So this proves my point.
HN readers tend to have a single linear viewpoint, and if you dissent from that angle, then you get downvoted to oblivion, or worse, flagged, even if you may have a valid viewpoint.
Edit: And I just got downvoted. So this proves my point.
The comment voting sucks. I have made suggestions to mods to change it so that downvotes only count half as much because it it is way easier to get downvoted than upvoted in the comments.
I wanted to touch upon the other thing Garry Tan mentioned when he said that reason people try the same ideas is because "desire is mimetic". We want what other people want. Same ideas especially ones which have already been successful. And he cites examples like Podcasts, Travel plans, and local events app.
Out of the three mentioned, local events app and travel plans apps have been tried multiple times but never been successful. Its something when you ask casual travelers what they would want in a travel app and travel planning help is their first pick and local events and guidance is their second pick. Most of these ideas fold because travel is very cold market for an investor and most dont want to invest.
Also, quite a few folks now pick ideas based on what is a hot market ergo what is being funded, and quite a few times its a variant or a rendition of what is already successful (or something a success in one vertical can be tried in another).
That being said, I do think that you need to have the experiences of the people you are building the product for. It may or may not be the same experience as others.