Maybe it’s because I’m too negative, maybe it’s the cynical engineer in me, or maybe my ideas aren’t so good to start with, but every time I think I have a ‘good’ business idea, I tend to slaughter it through in a couple of days.
This is a good checklist for a much later date: the day your ready to raise capital.
This is a bad checklist to start with, because your right. 99.9% of ideas start off bad. The founders of Airbnb originally required each host to serve breakfast and expected each host to use airbeds in their living room. That was the original idea. They went to investors and explained the market size by counting the number of airbeds sold.
There is a good YC essay on building a toy. Start by building a toy that has meaning to you. Then if it morphs into a real business and you think your ready to raise capital: this form will be useful. Also, play with this form now. It will help you think about ideas but don’t buy into it too early. Focus on meaning at early stages.
One trait most successful founders have is not being overly analytical. This correlate with higher education as well, the higher, the more analytical. Creating a successful startup is basically a lottery and it almost does not matter what idea you come up with. In this metaphor, smart and analytical people will not buy a lottery ticket because the cost vs the chance to win is just too small. But if you don't buy a lottery ticket you most certainly cannot win the lottery.
I disagree. The trait needed is being intensely analytical but only with the right data. Its physically impossible to sit in a room, look at an idea or a lottery ticket, and analytically reason your way to knowing it is good or not. The only way to know is to get data on it from the real world, something you can't do with lottery tickets, and unlike lottery tickets, startups are not negative sum and there aren't rules to win and odds that you can't shift - the whole point is shifting odds of success.
I don't disagree, once you have crossed the rubicon. When Julius Caesar _actually_ crossed the Rubicon, the risk was immense and there was no guarantee of a successful outcome. That's what I mean, going all in on a risky adventure is not for everyone and if you analyse and think too much about it, few will want to take the jump. However, once you have crossed and are in the "battle" then of course you will use all the tactical advantages you can and try "shifting odds of success".
Julius Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon because he wanted to gain new power or wealth; he wanted to defend his own personal liberty and a sense of wounded pride.
That he destroyed the Republic was something of a side-effect. If anyone was the entrepreneur in this analogy, it was Augustus, who both founded the Empire, having a brilliant command of public relations, denied having done so.
By crossing the Rubicon with his one legion, Caesar put himself on a path of no return and in open conflict with the Senate and Pompey who vastly outnumbered him military. There was no guarantee that he would succeed. Upon crossing he declared "alea iacta est", knowing full well what he set in motion. Edit: My point here, is simply that not everyone would cross the Rubicon. Most would turn around, deeming the risk too high. Related to a startup, the risk for failure is high if you look at the statistics. If it is a "sure thing" you are not really doing a startup or you are conned. A startup kind of by definition has to be a high risk venture. Like PG's example of a merchant ship going to the East Indias in the 17th century.
I don't think he intended or expected that the Boni would essentially force him to wage a war of total victory against them.
Bringing legions to Rome as part of political struggle had already been common practice for centuries, but it had never fully destroyed the Republic. Caesar himself witnessed several such occasions by Sulla and Marius.
Edit: responding to edit, my point is that Caesar was not fighting to gain. "Crossing the Rubicon" means taking a risk, but I don't think using it to describe creating a startup really fits.
He was fighting (illegally, it might be added) to defend himself against the political tactics of his Senatorial opponents. While he held an Imperium he could not be brought into court for his actions in holding it, but the Senate had voted to make him lay it down. Their intention was to bring him to the courts and ruin him politically and financially. Caesar was simply too proud and too arrogant to allow that ruin; that he was the foremost general of his age meant that he was in a position to pull it off.
Who knows? I believe you are right that he was forced into action when the Senate pulled him back from Gaul [1] with the intention of bringing him to court. If he did not have a plan to set himself up as a dictator, at least he pivoted beautifully once he saw the opportunity and Pompey folded. That at least was a true startup move. 1. edit: Gaul not Germany
This is definitely a good trait when you start. It's not good when you're much further along, say a couple of years, and something clearly isn't working.
The only test that matters is the market. The lean startup was the first book that sort of helped me understand that mindset, for any of its faults it is still a classic for a reason and at least helps in shifting perspective from "create the perfect idea" to "find any problem that needs to be solved and begin iterating to a solution"
As an engineer, that is the biggest disservice you can do to yourself. Business needs a different mindset than engineering. Without actually putting it in the market and letting it stand for itself, you have no idea if it's ACTUALLY good or not. Or if it was just a fluke in your life.
Sometimes, what you think are, terrible ideas can be legitimately life changing for other people.
I would argue the inverse - at any time there are a tiny set of startup ideas that are so primed for implementation, that they are nearly bulletproof against the inevitable mountain of mistakes that even great teams will make.
Unfortunately the reality is that you will almost definitely not have a bulletproof idea from the get go. And even if you do achieve product market fit, you may (read: probably will) lose it after x months/years. Good enough is what you are going for here. And then just ship.
My company is currently at tens of millions in revenue and we still don't have a bulletproof, defensible product. But we have the space and time to iterate towards it.
No idea is good enough when you start off with it. Suspend disbelief, iterate on the idea. Do this with 20 different ideas, and you will narrow down on a few that are very viable. Also build up skill sets outside of engineering so your communication costs in a small team context are minimal.
That's common. What you will find is that venture capitalists actually don't try to "kill" your idea - they will try to help you work through it. As an engineer, I guess, it helps to be skeptical in general. We are used to vetting technology, not business ideas.
Not one of them has passed my test..