In the case of Facebook, it was clear that there needed to be a website that showed people what all of their friends were doing, and helped people plan social engagements with their friends. In the (paraphrased) words of Mark Zuckerberg, "I knew someone was going to make a social network with a billion plus users, so why not me?"
In the case of twitter, I don't think there was any temporary economic disequilibrium, which is why they are stuck with the revenue model of a service business and the cost structure of a startup. You could always make up something after the fact, like saying they are arbitraging the lack of money and literacy ability of inner city minorities, but that's clearly absurd because they never would have started the business if they had thought about it that way.
If they were applying to YC back in 2006 and had to answer that question, they probably would have written that there isn't currently a way to send text messages to groups, and it's clear this is going to exist some day. But that's probably about as much detail as they could have given, plus maybe some version of the usual mobile software use cases from Howard Rheingold's book Smart Mobs.
Is it necessary to have a temporary economic disequilibrium? According to the business school definition of entrepreneurship, it's one of two things that separates a lifestyle business from a startup, the other one being the potential for rapid scalability. (Cornell b-school actually uses the phrase 'temporary economic disequilibrium' in their 'official' definition of entrepreneurship, I didn't just make that up.)
Comments
Or, alternatively, "Which temporary economic disequilibrium are you arbitraging? What are its properties?"
This actually wouldn't be a bad question for the YC application.
Is this a must?
What disequilibrium did Facebook or Twitter arbitrage?
In the case of Facebook, it was clear that there needed to be a website that showed people what all of their friends were doing, and helped people plan social engagements with their friends. In the (paraphrased) words of Mark Zuckerberg, "I knew someone was going to make a social network with a billion plus users, so why not me?"
In the case of twitter, I don't think there was any temporary economic disequilibrium, which is why they are stuck with the revenue model of a service business and the cost structure of a startup. You could always make up something after the fact, like saying they are arbitraging the lack of money and literacy ability of inner city minorities, but that's clearly absurd because they never would have started the business if they had thought about it that way.
If they were applying to YC back in 2006 and had to answer that question, they probably would have written that there isn't currently a way to send text messages to groups, and it's clear this is going to exist some day. But that's probably about as much detail as they could have given, plus maybe some version of the usual mobile software use cases from Howard Rheingold's book Smart Mobs.
Is it necessary to have a temporary economic disequilibrium? According to the business school definition of entrepreneurship, it's one of two things that separates a lifestyle business from a startup, the other one being the potential for rapid scalability. (Cornell b-school actually uses the phrase 'temporary economic disequilibrium' in their 'official' definition of entrepreneurship, I didn't just make that up.)
I'm interested in your comment, Would you mind expanding upon the quote?