It would be empty. The second somebody with technical ability came up with an idea, they'd think, "Hey, why don't I just build that myself?"
If someone without the ability to develop the idea had a good idea, they'd wonder why they should do the idea-thinking for programmers who'll then dismiss the idea-generation with some VC-inspired platitude about how "it's all about the execution" or something.
So there you go. Progress halted by the best of the human condition: arrogance, greed and suspicion of the "other."
On the other hand I've always thought that if you get people who normally would never talk to each other in everyday society together and got them drunk, tons of good exchanges would occur resulting in who knows how many great new companies.
A friend of mine and I kept a folder once with ideas that had to be both patentable and useful. When we had around 50 we just got depressed and stopped, knowing that there was no way we would ever be able to implement them all. I would gladly give away ideas. I know there's a long way from idea to product - even if you can program it yourself.
Patentable and useful doesn't necessarily mean good business. I'm assuming the "bored developer" wants to start a business around whatever idea he can't think of. There are ideas, some useful, some even patentable, but to make a business you need not so much patents but the ability to present it in such a way that a prospective customer thinks, "That provides me with more value than the price they're asking for, so I should buy it." Think of it this way: are Starbucks lattes patentable? But they are a good value to half-dead zombies on their way to work/on their way back from a grueling day of work. That makes them I think like 10 billion a year, roughly same revenue as Google. BeOS was awesome and technically advanced and I'm sure had many patents. Who paid for it? Nobody. Company's gone. There's a difference.
Useful implies that a potential customer in the specific market would want to pay for it. ;-)
Regarding your starbucks example: the value of Starbucks is not in the idea but in the execution, and that is not what this thread is about. And while I don't mind giving away ideas I can't help anybody execute. Unless I get paid to do so of course ;-)
Useful implies nothing but useful. People don't "want" to pay for anything. People want to keep their money in their pockets. They reluctantly pay for things whose usefulness, real or perceived, substantially exceeds the asked price. Gmail is "useful" but I sure's heck wouldn't pay for it.
As for Starbucks, it illustrates my point perfectly:
(1) Starbucks is mostly neuro-marketing. I guarantee you that the buzz people get dopamine-wise from expecting the "reward" of a sugar/caffeine rush is much more important (again, the "idea") than the execution, which counts to about 1% of the customers. I know when I need a quick fix 9X out of 10 I couldn't care less if they got the wrong number of pumps of whatever in there.
(2) To illustrate the value of an idea, the Frappucino was the idea of 1 store manager. Cost: peanuts. Contribution to bottom line: about a billion a year directly, who knows how much indirectly as a "gateway drink" for non-caffeine drinking teens ...
The point was not about the execution, it was a manager thinking, "Within the realm of what we can execute fairly easy, what is a good idea that takes what we can do and adds more value quickly and easily?"
And in the larger context, Starbucks doesn't "execute" anything better than countless immitators these days can; but the idea in my mind is "a special little treat I deserve after a long day." A perfectly executed drink with the same stuff in it just wouldn't make me feel the same if I got it in, say, a sushi place. Again - it's the idea of Starbucks = sexy drinks for sexy people. They're not executing that, I'm imagining it. It's an idea.
> I've got a great idea: Crappucino - A frappucion with
> extra sugar on top. Where are my millions?
No, I'M sorry but I don't quite think YOU know what a "great idea" is about.
Frappacino was a great idea where it took off in California because it's hot there and people liked the combo of cold and caffeine buzz.
Nobody (as) yet invented a portable high-power expresso maker/ice blender that can chop ice to smithereens in 7-8 seconds or so. So you need Starbucks.
Extra sugar on top is pointless because I can go to the condiment counter and just pour more sugar on top for free.
So you're idea by definition is not "good" because (a) it offers no value to the customer that they can't get by themselves without you and (b) you haven't figured out how you make money off of it (part of the definition of a good idea to begin with).
So in conclusion, you don't have a good idea - you have fluff you can't figure out how to make money off of. That makes you qualified for raising venture capital or applying to ... um ... this place I've heard of where there are a lot of ideas that never wind up making much money as stand alone businesses.
But that' doesn't mean you have a good idea. So you have no milliions.
Viola. Equation stands.
On top of which, I've never downgraded execution. My experience is that it takes a continual mix of both, plus lots of luck and timing, 2 things you can't control.
It's usually "execution" people dismissing the value of good (by which I mean you can make money off of) ideas, almost like some obsessive-compulsive insecurity or something. And now there's this post, and when I ask the simple question: what does a person who gives you a good idea get in return, nothing but crickets.
So if execution is the be-all end-all, have fun executing hot air people might use but never pay for.
See how far that gets you in this new global economic reality we'll be experiencing for the next 3-5 years.
Go on. Go execute ideas you can't figure out how to make money off of. Keep me updated.
Actually, this illustrates my point perfectly. By a lot of accounts, Coffee Connection came out with a similar, but much better tasting ("better executed" as you put it) drink. But though their execution was better, they got bought out by Starbucks. Why?
Boston is cold as hell in winter and not too hot the rest of the time. Nobody wants iced drinks when it's cold. Plus Boston is a small city.
California, on the other hand, is a huge state full of teenagers with lots of disposable income and most of it is hot most of the year.
So: introduce an iced drink in 1 city in a cold place = not so great idea, not that much money. Introduce an iced drink in the biggest state in the country where it's almost always hot in most of the state = great idea, lots of money. So the one with the better idea and the better idea of how to implement the idea (Starbucks) made a lot more money and bought out the business who executed better but executed better on what turned out to be a crappy idea.
Starbucks had what customers claim is inferior execution compared to Coffee Connection's version, but their idea was better and their ideas of what/how/where to execute was better.
So in the end mediocre execution of better idea = billions in revenue.
Superior execution of a mediocre idea = get bought out by above and cease to exist.
It's true an architect can't build without builders. But unless the builders have a good plan, no matter how well they execute, they're just wasting time/energy/resources.
Telling someone who's taken the time to come up with good plans/scenarios/alternatives that once the plan is done they add no value is just as much a slap in the face as an "MBA-business guy" telling programmers that the second they finish writing the code for an application, they're useless and add no further value unless a change needs to be made.
And you can execute perfectly but these days you need so much insight and perspective to be able to detect changes in current and prepare alternate courses of action while managing remaining resources ...
Nope. I think you're just redefining execution and idea to blur the line so that what is the result of a good idea is now under the category of execution.
Why the hell are people still arguing this point.
In my mind the argument of "execution" vs. "good idea" is like arguing whether food or water or air or sleep is more important.
You need all. Case closed.
I think as people who "execute" programmers tend to have (from what I've seen over a year) a knee-jerk "execution is everything" reaction out of some deep insecurity or something.
The very existence of this "I can't think of any good ideas" is testament to the notion that execution is not the be-all end-all.
If I can never find a programming partner, worse case scenario I can still use my contacts to raise capital and then hire programmers, though my negotiating leverage in raising capital would be a lot less than if I had a partner who can help put together the idea.
What is this programmer going to do without a good idea that people want and a good idea how to make money off of it?
Start programming randomly until he accidently codes a useful service people pay for?
"Why the hell are people still arguing this point."
Because you obviously haven't got a clue what you are talking about, keep contradicting yourself, and don't know anything about neither ideas nor execution. At least not in real life.
I won't reply more to this conversation - it is a pain to write, and probably boring to read.
