The title was stated as a claim, not a
question, and an English major should
be able to be clear on the difference.
While there really are some ideas that
really are new, correct, and significant,
your restatement of the title, with your
considerable revision, is much better,
appropriate, and productive.
I omitted some of what the heck I want
in a start-up: With a biomedical analogy,
I want a safe, effective, cheap, side effect free,
one pill
taken once cure for any cancer,
with, of course, necessarily, some,
let's call them, ideas that are
most definitely "new, correct, and
significant". Then product-market
fit and both virality and traction growing quickly
and business success will be low
risk and high ROI. Sadly we'd literally
have to hire security at the lab door.
I also omitted: For a simpler explanation, and one
more appropriate for information technology,
I want to start with a problem to be solved --
in Silicon Valley speak, maybe that's their
version of an idea. I want a problem something
like curing cancer -- a biggie where
there is no doubt, no question, 100%
certainty, that the first good or a much
better solution will definitely be a
must-have for enough people and
earnings per person to zoom past
$1 billion market capitalization like
a US ABM rocket passes 100,000 feet up.
No more question about product-market
fit than for that cancer pill.
Then the challenge is how
the heck to get that solution?
But, definitely, no doubt, get the
solution and collect the big bucks.
No doubt.
But, likely the problem's tough
to do as in no one has even as much
as a weak little hollow hint of a
tiny clue how to solve it.
They can think and think and think,
hit the library, etc. and
come up empty, sadder but wiser,
have found 10,000 things that won't work.
And I want low risk. Right, big, tough
problem no one knows how to solve,
high payoff, low risk.
And when I get the solution, I want to
know with rock solid certainty that
I really do have the solution.
Again, given the problem, the only
thing left to get the big bucks
is the solution as described.
Maybe we can't get the solution
(the solution to the cancer pill
is still waiting) in which case
maybe pick another problem.
But if we do get the solution, then
we do get the big bucks -- no doubt.
Basically have turned the
whole project into just get
the solution and know that
we really have it.
Impossible? Not at all.
Again, with this approach, as in the
cancer pill,
all we need is the solution
and know it's good.
How to get the solution? Sure,
now, be technical. Now we need
a leading example: Ike had a problem;
he wanted to know what the Russkies
were up to. He tried the U-2, and it
got shot down. So, now what? Ah, a
problem! Right, it's not a commercial problem,
but now we're into just the solution part
where we want to be technical. So,
give a call, right, who else, to
Kelly Johnson at Lockheed. He shows
up with an armload of papers.
So, there is titanium and a new
engine from the Florida unit of
Pratt and Whitney, an engine that
is an ordinary turbojet until about
Mach 2.0 at which time it is just
a ramjet good for, say, Mach 3+
(turbojet engines tend to get too
hot even trying to go that fast, e.g., the MIG
25).
Then, also have 80,000 feet, and
a little math will show that
tough to shoot it down. Fly for
2000+ miles without refueling, and
now we've got something Ike will
want.
How to do that? Will it work?
Okay, just check Kelly's engineering.
Checked! Project approved. Now: Right,
risk over,
the rest is routine, low risk, high payoff,
and we get the SR-71.
For at least the last 70 years
we in the US have had many projects that have
closely followed just this pattern:
Given a big problem,
look for a technical solution,
find a candidate, check it. Pass the
check and, e.g., get the F-117 (Saddam, sorry
you wasted all the money on air defense --
you never even scratched a single
F-117), ....
Okay, for now, for the technical part,
exploit
Moore's law, available infrastructure
software, and the Internet.
Given that, have the problem be to
deliver valuable
information of some kind.
So, the solution is to be
a case of information technology.
So, now how to get the solution and
know it's good? Sure:
Especially appropriate for information
technology, turn the
task of getting the solution
into a math problem where
when we check the math we
are rock solidly sure we have
a solution to the technical problem
and the last we need for the
big bucks -- all risk gone, the rest is just
routine, low risk, and high payoff.
Thankfully for US national security
the US DoD believes this approach and
is really good at it. Sadly for
our economy, Silicon Valley, in spite
of its origins, does not
and, instead, wants traction
for a smartphone app for,
say, teenage girl gossip.
Mea culpa; I actually restated the article. (FYI, the article explicitly states the title is a question coming in the form of a challenge that must be responded to.)
The DoD isn't too different from VCs here. Thesis-driven, big checks for big projects, insider community, etc. When not fast-tracking someone with a strong record, the same questions come up, or, as with many seed investors, due diligence is not worth the time.
The title was stated as a claim, not a question, and an English major should be able to be clear on the difference.
While there really are some ideas that really are new, correct, and significant, your restatement of the title, with your considerable revision, is much better, appropriate, and productive.
I omitted some of what the heck I want in a start-up: With a biomedical analogy, I want a safe, effective, cheap, side effect free, one pill taken once cure for any cancer, with, of course, necessarily, some, let's call them, ideas that are most definitely "new, correct, and significant". Then product-market fit and both virality and traction growing quickly and business success will be low risk and high ROI. Sadly we'd literally have to hire security at the lab door.
I also omitted: For a simpler explanation, and one more appropriate for information technology, I want to start with a problem to be solved -- in Silicon Valley speak, maybe that's their version of an idea. I want a problem something like curing cancer -- a biggie where there is no doubt, no question, 100% certainty, that the first good or a much better solution will definitely be a must-have for enough people and earnings per person to zoom past $1 billion market capitalization like a US ABM rocket passes 100,000 feet up. No more question about product-market fit than for that cancer pill.
Then the challenge is how the heck to get that solution? But, definitely, no doubt, get the solution and collect the big bucks. No doubt. But, likely the problem's tough to do as in no one has even as much as a weak little hollow hint of a tiny clue how to solve it. They can think and think and think, hit the library, etc. and come up empty, sadder but wiser, have found 10,000 things that won't work.
And I want low risk. Right, big, tough problem no one knows how to solve, high payoff, low risk.
And when I get the solution, I want to know with rock solid certainty that I really do have the solution.
Again, given the problem, the only thing left to get the big bucks is the solution as described. Maybe we can't get the solution (the solution to the cancer pill is still waiting) in which case maybe pick another problem. But if we do get the solution, then we do get the big bucks -- no doubt.
Basically have turned the whole project into just get the solution and know that we really have it.
Impossible? Not at all.
Again, with this approach, as in the cancer pill, all we need is the solution and know it's good.
How to get the solution? Sure, now, be technical. Now we need a leading example: Ike had a problem; he wanted to know what the Russkies were up to. He tried the U-2, and it got shot down. So, now what? Ah, a problem! Right, it's not a commercial problem, but now we're into just the solution part where we want to be technical. So, give a call, right, who else, to Kelly Johnson at Lockheed. He shows up with an armload of papers.
So, there is titanium and a new engine from the Florida unit of Pratt and Whitney, an engine that is an ordinary turbojet until about Mach 2.0 at which time it is just a ramjet good for, say, Mach 3+ (turbojet engines tend to get too hot even trying to go that fast, e.g., the MIG 25).
Then, also have 80,000 feet, and a little math will show that tough to shoot it down. Fly for 2000+ miles without refueling, and now we've got something Ike will want.
How to do that? Will it work? Okay, just check Kelly's engineering. Checked! Project approved. Now: Right, risk over, the rest is routine, low risk, high payoff, and we get the SR-71.
For at least the last 70 years we in the US have had many projects that have closely followed just this pattern: Given a big problem, look for a technical solution, find a candidate, check it. Pass the check and, e.g., get the F-117 (Saddam, sorry you wasted all the money on air defense -- you never even scratched a single F-117), ....
Okay, for now, for the technical part, exploit Moore's law, available infrastructure software, and the Internet. Given that, have the problem be to deliver valuable information of some kind. So, the solution is to be a case of information technology.
So, now how to get the solution and know it's good? Sure: Especially appropriate for information technology, turn the task of getting the solution into a math problem where when we check the math we are rock solidly sure we have a solution to the technical problem and the last we need for the big bucks -- all risk gone, the rest is just routine, low risk, and high payoff.
Thankfully for US national security the US DoD believes this approach and is really good at it. Sadly for our economy, Silicon Valley, in spite of its origins, does not and, instead, wants traction for a smartphone app for, say, teenage girl gossip.