Well done post. You could find a reason not to do anything. Google? Check out the search engines that already exist and own the space. Apple? No one wants a computer for personal use. Dropbox? File storage has been done and no margins. Twitter? 140 characters is worthless. Vizio? Enough TVs exist. YCombinator? WTF are you going to do with $15k.
I could go on and on and on. Seriously, just fucking build it. If for some odd reason NOTHING at all exists like what you're doing, a competitor will come along that does. There is nothing and I mean nothing that a smart team of 20 somethings can't build nowadays. At worst, you'll have something that you, yourself love. That's the key to all of this: Build something YOU want, then adapt it so it works for a broader range of people if need be. If the tshirt for getting accepted to ycombinator is: build something people want and the tshirt for getting acquired is: i built something people want, the tshirt for getting asked to interview/demo should be: i built something I wanted.
This contributes to the perpetual oversupply of solutions from problems suffered by technically-inclined male twenty-somethings. Then you get to try shouting louder than all the other startups so that instead of the technically-inclined male twenty-somethings not paying for the thing the other guy makes they're not paying for the thing you make.
I built something I wanted: a business. It solves problems which were actually experienced by Real People. They also actually pay money for things, which is a nice feature to have in a customer.
OK, some of these are really meant for technical users (hosting solutions, bug trackers, automated testing tools) but are the companies selling them actually doing badly because of oversupply? Or comparably worse to companies addressing the general public?
from everything I've heard about it, I still don't understand what problem it solves that isn't already solved. It feels like a really esoteric use case for hyper-geeky people who for some reason aren't smart enough to use one of the 1000 other hyper-geeky fluffy techno-web-gizmos to do the same thing with already.
Now that I've said this, I'm sure in a year I'll be wave-ified. :)
Think of it this way: pretend email, wikis, and IM clients don't exist. Now, given you can pick between any one of those, or Wave as well, which one thing would you rather come into existence to best solve each of the otherwise-already-solved problems you actually have each day?
I think the real topic here is that most people are doing it for the money, not because they want to build a marginally better Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc...
You can use this do-it-yourself argument in every sector of the industry. But it all comes down to the amount of reward per effort.
Do you want to be the first in a store on Black Friday or the last? Do you want to be the first in a gold rush or the last? As the amount of competitors increase, your profit will decrease.
From an economic perspective, a monopoly is usually more lucrative. If you feel there's enough money in a crowded sector and think you can carve out a niche or shake the industry, then it becomes economically viable. I think this is a more realistic outtake than the author's "just-do-it" message.
"Do you want to be the first in a store on Black Friday or the last? Do you want to be the first in a gold rush or the last?"
For business, being the second to do something is often a nice position to be in.
Google was not the first search engine. iPod was not the first digital music player. Microsoft was never first at anything, as far as I can remember.
Of course, once the market has a clear Google, iPod, or Word, probably time to try a different idea. But a product category with no clear leader can be a great market to enter.
There was a fantastic post by someone about the many waves of search engines, and how he thought he was too late each time, until finally Google came along and it really is too late ("...or is it?") [It was tremendously inspiring, but can't find it again. Maybe it was by the guy who founded tripod... anybody know?]
Another point is that your way of doing it will be slightly different - in emphasis, in design, in features, in performance. It's even possible that an "defect" in your approach is actually benefit in some niche. So you are never in direct competition with anyone. It can be hard to accept not being the "best" or the one-and-only (for me, anyway), but if you're doing something that helps someone, something needed and/or wanted, then you're doing something worthwhile and valuable. And if you're doing something valuable, it's natural for some of that value to come to you.
Personal experience: after I made the first prototype of my product, I discovered that several other people had the idea (it was kinda obvious), and had launched products. If I'd done the research first, I would have been discouraged, to some extent, and maybe wouldn't have started. As it happens, I totally killed in that market.
I'm trying to find the article, but I think it's zuck who said something like:
"A company/team is getting a group of really smart people together to work towards the same common goal and vision while making a living. "
That's all it is to me. Have a goal/vision that is so awe inspiring that it attracts really smart and great people to work together with you to achieve it.
Here's an example (credit goes to The Simpsons and Goedel): Can your team build an app so awesome that they themselves will not be able to build improved versions of it?
