The idea behind the YC slogan "Make something people want" is not that doing so is sufficient, but that (a) it's necessary and (b) it's so difficult that worrying about anything else is premature optimization. That said, this article does have some useful advice on how to pick a "something" that maximizes your chances of success.
Making something people want is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for start-up success, and it's one that I see tripping up early-stage startup founders the most. Its incredible how many people build in a vacuum for 6+ months, and then release an overly-complex product that doesn't address a single real customer need.
Being able to rationalize "why now?" is much easier after the fact, as the OP demonstrates with his list of his now-successful companies. Doing the same looking forward is much trickier.
Being able to rationalize "why now?" is much easier after the fact, as the OP demonstrates with his list of his now-successful companies. Doing the same looking forward is much trickier.
I agree, and think the retrospective analysis on this is often really sloppy. In hindsight, the iPhone was clearly at the right time, and the Newton was clearly at the wrong time, but the track record of anyone distinguishing between those is very poor. Even Jobs, famous for some of the big wins on that score, was wrong about timing as often as he was right (e.g. NeXT was about as timely as the BeBox with its initial launch).
(Obviously) I don't think asking why now is the right time for your idea is premature. I think it's orthogonal to the product building piece. I think a lot of YC companies could avoid a lot of pain if they asked this question early on, because it would lead them to talk to others who have worked in the space. Often they will quickly discover that the fundamental dynamics of an industry haven't changed yet and no matter how much time they spend building it's not worth their time yet. At the very least they should be able to point to why the other, previous attempts weren't quite right and why the time is now for this idea to take hold. But all too often companies just start building without understanding why the previous attempts have failed.
On the other hand, one shouldn't underestimate the power of not knowing something is impossible.
If you talk to a lot of others who have worked in the space you may well end up with a long list of reasons why your idea is doomed. It may stop you from wasting time on an idea that can't succeed. Or, possibly more likely, it will muddy your thoughts and prevent you from observing the space with the fresh eyes that are needed to see what those before you have missed.
But all too often companies just start building without understanding why the previous attempts have failed.
Sometimes you need to just start building to begin to understand exactly why previous attempts have failed.
I'm a big proponent of naively trying to do what others tell me is impossible and it's served me perfectly well. That being said, if someone's startup was unsuccessful for a very clear reason that still exists today, the point is to understand that cause and your own plan for overcoming it, or don't start dedicating a bunch of resources only to get to the exact same point and realize it's not something that can be overcome.
It would be like starting a poker website now and completely ignoring what just happened to Full Tilt. Online poker is illegal. Until that changes, probably not a good space to play in.
Figuring out "why now?" implies you understand and can verbalize the exact spot an industry is in. This wil take you at least 4 years of working in hat industry. Infact I would go so far as to say it's nearly impossible to answer the question "why now" without creating a product or working in that industry. "build something people want" is a much better tactic than making decisions based on an answer to this question which in all essence is a thought experiment of dubious value.
Well, just to play devil's advocate to the article, foursquare (to pick one example) is something that nobody wanted, surely. 'Make people want something' could be equally important..?
foursquare (to pick one example) is something that nobody wanted, surely
I think local merchants desperately wanted a way to use social networking to connect with customers and get them coming back. My local sushi place has a deal, check in 3 times and get a free appetizer. Users wanted a new, fun way to use the GPS on their smartphones, and they were looking for something more engaging than Twitter or Facebook.
I can say with 100% certainty that Foursquare addressed both needs nicely. I'm not a Twitter user, but I used Foursquare religiously in the early days. I spent more time (and money) becoming a regular at said sushi place just to defend my mayorship.
Foursquare tried to make them want it, and retrospectively it looks like people did. The decreasing number of checkins on that and Places would suggest that it didn't work, because presumably people didn't actually want it and they weren't convinced enough to use it.
Edit: in fact, it's kind of a perfect example of 'why now' making it seem like it makes sense, and bandwagoning, and the appearance of 'solving a problem' and 'changing the world', all to little effect because it's a shakey idea to begin with.
This is definitely true, but unlike with, say, Google and their products, that arguably have the same chain of product/retailer, Foursquare users get basically f*ck all for all their work. I don't think people are stupid enough to use something unless they see dramatic benefits from using it, and Foursquare just doesn't seem to be heading that way quickly enough (anecdotally, it feels too late to me, in my City anyway)
