It appears that we are not considering the same
issues, i.e., we are not communicating,
E.g., right up front in my post I said, as a
summary, and overview, and a statement of my purpose
in my post:
> I want to propose that it can be possible to have
an idea, test it, essentially just on paper, and, if
it passes the test, be quite sure the resulting
product will be good and fairly sure the resulting
company will be successful.
To me, this statement of mine about the idea is
very different from what Altman said and very
different for the plan and the resulting
execution and business. Here I will avoid taking
enough words to quote enough from Altman's lecture
to show these differences; I assume we agree that,
on the idea Altman and I are saying very different
things.
For your
> in all of the examples you give, the execution was
vastly more difficult than the idea.
Sure, but if you are concerned about this then you
are not really responding to what I wrote.
All the examples (A)-(O) do illustrate what I said about
the idea.
For execution I said that with a good idea,
execution should be routine and low risk. Projects
(A)-(O) also illustrate this point -- routine and low
risk -- about execution. So, with a sufficiently
good idea, execution can be routine and low risk.
Here, too, what I am saying is different from what
Altman said.
You are also concerned about the amount of effort in
the execution. Right. And, right, mostly the
projects (A)-(O) do not illustrate low effort. Okay.
But we can't use those projects to conclude that
there are no projects, start ups, that follow what I
said about ideas and that have have low execution
effort.
So, for effort in execution, can we also have
projects that have low execution effort and, thus,
are suitable for start ups? Well, except maybe for
the project (L) RSA I listed, the projects in (A)-(O) do
not illustrate low effort.
But I do believe that, as we select projects, we can
also have some that follow what I described and also
have low execution effort. How? Broadly, just do
what is the focus of Hacker News -- Information
technology that exploits Moore's law and current
infrastructure software.
E.g., in
The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer By Sam
Gerstenzang at
http://a16z.com/2014/07/30/the-happy-demise-of-the-10x-engin...
is a discussion of the question:
"How long before we have a billion-dollar
acquisition offer for a one-engineer startup?"
So, this is from A16Z: They are guessing that the
issue you raised about "effort", we should be able
to have a "billion-dollar ... one-engineer startup".
So, A16Z and I agree that now, in information
technology start ups, low effort in execution is
reasonable to expect.
The A16Z arguments add to mine and do not conflict.
I would suggest that my arguments help show the way
to the A16Z information technology "billion-dollar
... one-engineer startup" with low risk and low
effort.
Why don't we have a lot of examples of projects that
followed my arguments, and were "billion-dollar
start ups" with low effort? Sure: What I am saying
is. so far in practice, mostly new for information
technology start ups -- instead of what I described
people have followed what Altman described in his
lecture. I'm saying that there is a better way,
heavily in the planning.
That what I am saying seems new for information
technology start up can seem good news unless find
the thinking wrong.
Nutshell View: I'm claiming that we can do good
planning and with a good plan execution can be
routine and the intended success low risk. A key to
a reliable path from plan to success is some math
for the core of the product. Another key is a
problem where the first good or a much better
solution is a "must have". My project examples
(A)-(O) illustrated that such planning, the role of
math, routine execution with low risk, and "must
have" solutions are possible. Yes, nearly all the
project examples (A)-(O) had high effort. For
effort, there's evidence, e.g., from A16Z, that now,
due to Moore's law, etc., that for some information
technology start ups we might get all of these
project attributes along with low effort.
Here what I'm saying is very different from what
Altman said and maybe good news.