1–10 of 54 posts
Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
A lot of original ideas-- perhaps most good original ideas-- are initially conceived of as x of/for y. Plus it is a good tactic, which we actively encourage, for startups to describe themselves in those terms initially. It may not describe a startup perfectly, but it's the the most information you can convey in one sentence.
Airbnb itself described itself as "Ebay for space" during YC. Viaweb was "the Microsoft Word of Ecommerce." When we first thought of the idea of a web app, we thought of it (not merely described it, but thought of it) as using the browser as an xterm.
I should write an essay about this. This misconception is like some unkillable zombie idea.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/technology...
In the physical world, you might have something like a gas turbine engine, which enabled the jet age. People put the same engine on helicopters. But they didn't say "These are the jets of vertical flight". Or when they used them as engines to generate electricity they didn't say "These are Jets for Power Plants." But the reason they didn't say those things is that it was pretty clear to everyone what a gas turbine engine was and what it brought to the table. Modern software startups don't have that luxury.
Of course there are a lot of me too like startups. Just like there are me too type bands and me too type serial killers. There is a segment of the population who sees an idea in action and then runs out and tries to do the same thing. But I don't think the industry is dominated by that mentality. Mostly because it is rarely successful if it is just a copy.
[1] I make no claim on whether or not finding Dog Walkers on demand is a good idea or a bad idea.
For example, "1-800-Flowers for cleaning" and "Uber for cleaning" both could describe the same product, however I'd rather use the latter. I'm building a developer tool, and "Parse for ___" is very different than "Oracle for ___".
This is good shorthand when talking to investors, and it's even better for the people building the product to have a guiding light.
It's similar to "mood boards" used in design -- it helps people agree on a feel for a site, and the final design can capture the mood without actually copying.
It can also help you make decisions. Your new company doesn't have an identity or M.O. yet, so when you're stuck, you can ask yourself WWUD? (What Would Uber Do?)
That being said, you have to eventually grow out of it. If a year into the process you're still calling yourself "Uber for dog walking", you have an identity problem -- rather than building your own startup, you're merely co-oping the goodwill of another company without doing any work yourself.
It's a common misconception that a startup describing itself as x of/for y is a sign of lack of originality. A lot of original ideas-- perhaps most good original ideas-- are initially conceived of as x of/for y. Plus it is a good tactic, which we actively encourage, for startups to describe themselves in those terms initially. It may not describe a startup perfectly, but it's the the most information you can convey i…
There is a problem with this though - for example, I'm working on something right now that if you can't see the demo (let's say we're on a phone call), it's pretty hard to explain (or at least we suck at it right now). One of the things we compare it to is Mint, because of the way we use banking "oAuth" for what we do. But it's not an analytics tool at all, in no way is our core business or service like Mint, so we spent 5 minutes on our last call trying to kill the idea that it was actually like Mint in any way. I think we're going to stop using that analogy.
So yeah, pick your analogies carefully y'all, you want to make things simpler not more complex.
PG it'd be great if you'd write about this, but it's not going to stop Nick Bilton or Valleywag from continuing to write and talk about it. They have their own agenda, it seems clear to me.
astoundingly unoriginal
we’ll have to contend with the continued unoriginality of Silicon Valley
The other thing I would add is I got some advice (which I now agree with) from a college professor that business should focus on being really innovative/risky in one dimension, not in all. This seems like a good way constrain the areas your business will really be innovating in.
Saying you are "X for Y" is not being unoriginal; rather, it is a simple hack to enable faster comprehension.
Heck, I used it to get myself a YC interview (although the company I chose as my "X" was the wrong choice given my vision for the startup - choose wisely if you do the "X for Y" thing)
It's a common misconception that a startup describing itself as x of/for y is a sign of lack of originality. A lot of original ideas-- perhaps most good original ideas-- are initially conceived of as x of/for y. Plus it is a good tactic, which we actively encourage, for startups to describe themselves in those terms initially. It may not describe a startup perfectly, but it's the the most information you can convey i…
Came here to write "Airbnb itself described itself as "Ebay for space" - it's extremely relevant. It's just a rhetorical device to help someone understand a complex issue, it's rarely if ever how you actually came UP with the idea - it's just how you explain it. There is a problem with this though - for example, I'm working on something right now that if you can't see the demo (let's say we're on a phone call), it's…