Been using Diigo as a way to annotate online texts. In this case, I was as interested in the tone as in the text itself. At the same time, I kept thinking about things which seem to be missing from Diigo.
One thing I like about this text is its tone. There’s an honesty, an ingenuity that I find rare in this type of writing.
-
-
what do you wish someone would make for you?
-
My own itch has to do with Diigo, actually. There’s a lot I wish Diigo would make for me. I may be perceived as an annoyance, but I think my wishlist may lead to something bigger and possibly quite successful.
-
The difference between this question and the “scratch your own itch” principle seems significant, and this distinction may have some implications in terms of success: we’re already talking about others, not just running ideas in our own head.
-
what do you wish someone would make for you?
-
It’s somewhat different from the well-known “scratch your own itch” principle. In this difference might be located something significant. In a way, part of the potential for this version to lead to success comes from the fact that it’s already connected with others, instead of being about running ideas in your own mind.
-
-
-
What we call, in anthropology, the “armchair” approach. Also known as “backbenching.” For this to work, you need to have a deep knowledge of the situation, which is part of the point in this piece. Nice that it’s not demonizing this position but putting it in context.
-
-
class of users other than you
-
They still rely on this principle today, incidentally.
The iPhone is the phone Steve Jobs wants.
-
Apple tends to be perceived in a different light. According to many people, it’s the “textbook example” of a company where decisions are made without concerns for what people need. “Steve Jobs uses a top-down approach,” “They don’t even use focus groups,” “They don’t let me use their tools the way I want to use them.” But we’re not talking about the same distinction between top-down and bottom-up. Though “organic ideas” seem to imply that it’s a grassroots/bottom-up phenomenon, the core distinction isn’t about the origin of the ideas (from the “top,” in both cases) but on the reasoning behind these ideas.
-
We didn’t need this software ourselves.
-
-
There is no sharp line between the two types of ideas,
-
Those in the “engineering worldview” might go nuts, at this point. I can hear the claims of “hand waving.” But we’re talking about something complex, here, not a merely complicated problem.
-
-
One thing to note in the three examples here: they’re all made by pairs of guys. Jobs and Woz, Gates and Allen, Page and Brin. In many cases, the formula might be that one guy (or gal, one wishes) comes up with ideas knowing that the other can implement them. Again, it’s about getting somebody else to build it for you, not about scratching your own itch.
-
Bill Gates was writing something he would use
-
Again, Gates may not be the most obvious example, since he’s mostly known for another approach. It’s not inaccurate to say he was solving his own problem, at the time, but it may not be that convincing as an example.
-
Larry and Sergey when they wrote the first versions of Google.
-
-
It takes experience
to predict what other people will want.
-
-
I’d encourage you to focus initially on organic ideas
-
Now, this advice sounds more like the “scratch your own itch” advocation. But there’s a key difference in that it’s stated as part of a broader process. It’s more of a “walk before you run” or “do your homework” piece of advice, not a “you can’t come up with good ideas if you just think about how people will use your tool.”
-
-
It can cover a lot, but it’s couched in terms of the typical “problem-solving” approach at the centre of the engineering worldview. Since we’re talking about developing tools, it makes sense. But there could be a broader version, admitting for dreams, inspiration, aspiration. Not necessarily of the “what would make you happy?” kind, although there’s a lot to be said about happiness and imagination. You’re brainstorming, here.
-
-
Which might imply that there’s a second step. If you keep asking yourself the same question, you may be able to get a very large number of ideas. The second step could be to prioritize them but I prefer “outlining” as a process: you shuffle things together and you group some ideas to get one which covers several. What’s common between your need for a simpler way to code on the Altair and your values? Why do you care so much about algorithms instead of human encoding?
-
You may need to stand outside yourself a bit to see brokenness
-
Ah, yes! “Taking a step back,” “distancing yourself,” “seeing the forest for the trees”… A core dimension of the ethnographic approach and the need for a back-and-forth between “inside” and “outside.” There’s a reflexive component in this “being an outsider to yourself.” It’s not only psychological, it’s a way to get into the social, which can lead to broader success if it’s indeed not just about scratching your own itch.
-
get used to it and take it for granted
-
That’s enculturation, to you. When you do things a certain way simply because “we’ve always done them that way,” you may not create these organic ideas. But it’s a fine way to do your work. Asking yourself important questions about what’s wrong with your situation works well in terms of getting new ideas. But, sometimes, you need to get some work done.
-
-
organic startup ideas usually don’t
seem like startup ideas at first
-
Which gets us to the pivotal importance of working with others. Per this article, VCs and “angel investors,” probably. But, in the case of some of cases cited, those we tend to forget, like Paul Allen, Narendra, and the Winklevosses.
-
end up making
something of value to a lot of people
-
something
other people dismiss as a toy
-
The passage on which Gruber focused and an interesting tidbit. Not that central, come to think of it. But it’s important to note that people’s dismissive attitude may be misled, that “toys” may hide tools, that it’s probably a good idea not to take all feedback to heart…
-
At this point, when someone comes to us with
something that users like but that we could envision forum trolls
dismissing as a toy, it makes us especially likely to invest.
-
the best source of organic ones
-
they’re at the forefront of technology
-
That part I would dispute, actually. Unless we talk about a specific subgroup of young founders and a specific set of tools. Young founders tend to be oblivious to a large field in technology, including social tools.
-
they’re in a position to discover
valuable types of fixable brokenness first
-
you still have to work hard
-
I’d encourage anyone
starting a startup to become one of its users, however unnatural it
seems.
-
It’s hard to compete directly with open source software
-
there has to be some part
you can charge for
45.559231
-73.687999
Leave a comment | tags: active reading, age, armchair anthropology, backbenching, backseat driving, Bill Gates, bottom-up, brainstorming, business models, citationrank, ConnectU, Diigo, dismissive attitudes, dismissiveness, dogfooding, engineering worldview, financier worldview, fixable brokenness, focus groups, Google, Google Buzz, intellectual honesty, John Gruber, Larry Page, Microsoft, Narendra, organic growth, Outlining, Paul Allen, Paul Graham, scratch your own itch, Sergey Brin, startups, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, top-down, trial and error, VCs, venture capital, Winklevosses, worldviews, young founders | posted in Actively Reading, advice, Anthropology, Apple, arrogance, blog comments, cluefulness, Clueing, comment-fishing, development strategies, Ethnography, experience, experimentation, expertise, gadgets, geek crowd, geek culture, grassroots, groupthink, hype, innovation, Open Source Movement, open-source, openness, optimism, participatory culture, Placeholders, play, playfulness, predictions, product and process, quickies, responsiveness, shameless plug, social software, sociocentrism, software, sophistication, specialization, Tech, techno enthusiasts, technological determinism, trends, wishful thinking, wishlists
Actively Reading: Organic Ideas for Startups
Leave a comment | tags: active reading, age, armchair anthropology, backbenching, backseat driving, Bill Gates, bottom-up, brainstorming, business models, citationrank, ConnectU, Diigo, dismissive attitudes, dismissiveness, dogfooding, engineering worldview, financier worldview, fixable brokenness, focus groups, Google, Google Buzz, intellectual honesty, John Gruber, Larry Page, Microsoft, Narendra, organic growth, Outlining, Paul Allen, Paul Graham, scratch your own itch, Sergey Brin, startups, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, top-down, trial and error, VCs, venture capital, Winklevosses, worldviews, young founders | posted in Actively Reading, advice, Anthropology, Apple, arrogance, blog comments, cluefulness, Clueing, comment-fishing, development strategies, Ethnography, experience, experimentation, expertise, gadgets, geek crowd, geek culture, grassroots, groupthink, hype, innovation, Open Source Movement, open-source, openness, optimism, participatory culture, Placeholders, play, playfulness, predictions, product and process, quickies, responsiveness, shameless plug, social software, sociocentrism, software, sophistication, specialization, Tech, techno enthusiasts, technological determinism, trends, wishful thinking, wishlists