Just to provide the contrarian view (== one of my specialties): what if you're in it to be innovative?
Some people want to start a company as a get rich or get influential scheme. It can work if you're cut out for it and you're lucky. This thread is arguing you're better off not being innovative. Perhaps, fair enough.
Some people need to start a company in order to improve something. It might be society in general, the way we use computers, or how we interact with one another. This is what motivates them and what makes them put up with the long odds and herculean requirements.
Fine. What I am trying to say is that if you truly innovate, it's a whole different ball game. You want to build a monopoly, have a large enough moat, patents, make it as hard as possible for a competitor to copy you and do a better job at it. You need good lawyers, and need to grow ASAP, you cannot afford to faff about if you're sitting on a golden idea.
No startup course or ebook even touch upon these problems, and it is exponentially harder than simply being a "regular" entrepreneur.
Many just want to be their own boss, and don't need to ever go down this route.
Patents can be pretty straightforward. If a monopoly is possible, it's usually a natural one, such as by controlling a standard, or with increasing returns like in social media. A first-mover advantage is the best ticket to a moat.
You don't necessarily need to grow ASAP. Not all innovative ideas are of the "crap why didn't I think of it" kind. Often, competitors either disagree with your assessment or just don't understand your plan until it blows up in their faces.
I would argue that it's not necessarily harder. You might have much more upside, even if the tail probabilities are thinner. This can comparatively help with financing and marketing. If your management team has blemishes, upside and hype are the best makeup.
Comments
Just to provide the contrarian view (== one of my specialties): what if you're in it to be innovative?
Some people want to start a company as a get rich or get influential scheme. It can work if you're cut out for it and you're lucky. This thread is arguing you're better off not being innovative. Perhaps, fair enough.
Some people need to start a company in order to improve something. It might be society in general, the way we use computers, or how we interact with one another. This is what motivates them and what makes them put up with the long odds and herculean requirements.
Fine. What I am trying to say is that if you truly innovate, it's a whole different ball game. You want to build a monopoly, have a large enough moat, patents, make it as hard as possible for a competitor to copy you and do a better job at it. You need good lawyers, and need to grow ASAP, you cannot afford to faff about if you're sitting on a golden idea.
No startup course or ebook even touch upon these problems, and it is exponentially harder than simply being a "regular" entrepreneur.
Many just want to be their own boss, and don't need to ever go down this route.
Sticking with devil's advocacy:
Patents can be pretty straightforward. If a monopoly is possible, it's usually a natural one, such as by controlling a standard, or with increasing returns like in social media. A first-mover advantage is the best ticket to a moat.
You don't necessarily need to grow ASAP. Not all innovative ideas are of the "crap why didn't I think of it" kind. Often, competitors either disagree with your assessment or just don't understand your plan until it blows up in their faces.
I would argue that it's not necessarily harder. You might have much more upside, even if the tail probabilities are thinner. This can comparatively help with financing and marketing. If your management team has blemishes, upside and hype are the best makeup.