Techcrunch’s Sarah Lacy asks if Execution is more important than Vision
Napster changed the music world, but it was iTunes that profited off of it. Google was one of the last companies in the Internet bubble to try their hand at building a search engine—and was laughed out of some VCs’ offices as a result. Palm pioneered the smart phone, not Blackberry. And Friendster was the social network pioneer before Mark Zuckerberg even entered college.
I’ve always been of the opinion that execution or implementation matters much more than vision or ideas. As someone who has a lot of ideas, this is no small amount of pain to bear – the knowledge that I’m seldom going to be the person building the ideas I have.
Back more than a decade ago when I was writing, the whole point of writing was to get some of the ideas I had out of my head and into the world. It didn’t actually matter if anyone read them, it was cathartic to write, I got real enjoyment out of it. It took my ideas and gave them somewhere to live in the real world. With writing I could produce something – but when the idea was an image, I’d have to pay someone to draw it. It’s the same with code – though it’s a lot more expensive to get someone to write code than draw an image (As I have discovered).
But rather than sit on these ideas, I’ve done something about it. No-one could ever accuse me of being secretive with these ideas, with my vision of things – quite the opposite when I have lunch with folk and they tell me to be more secretive. I’ve even threw a few ideas into a melting pot with two separate groups of developers to see if any of them catch. Maybe some of them will create something cool and maybe, just maybe, they’ll remember me. What’s more important to me is that someone does these things, someone builds them.
Y’see, implementation, execution, is important. I’m always hearing of folk who won’t talk to developers or potential funders without the protection of an NDA without realising that they themselves are the main ingredient. I’m sure there will be others who reckon we should maintain the secrecy, maintain a barrier of protection especially when speaking to funders. After all – if you have but 2d and they have a hundred grand, who is better placed to put together a plan to implement the idea? But if my heart and soul are not part of the vision, then it’s not an idea I’ll lose sleep over.
“And that, your honour, is why patents are a bad thing. The defence rests.”
From Dracula to … Twilight. And how many vampires in between? From Merlin to … Harry Potter. And how many spellcasters between them?
Sometimes an idea is early. And sometimes an idea is simply immortal.
@Gaz – see, patents are not a bad thing.
In 500 BC, the Greeks permitted a patent to be secured for a year.
In 1421, patents were secured for three years.
In 1790, the USA secured patents for 14 years.
Currently the length of a patent is 20 years under US law.
The case for patents is sound in that it permits an inventor, a visionary, to earn royalties and live off them for a period while inventing more great things. The issue with software patents is twofold. One, the realm of human imagination with software is wide open and patents can lock that down prematurely and Two, the software market is so changeable and so commercially driven that a 20 year patent is tantamount to being worthless.
The problem with patents as a whole is that they should have a compulsory requirement to display a actual implementation.
@Mike – copyright is different and wrongly so in my opinion. Copyright in the US is lifetime of the author plus 50 years, in the UK it’s lifetime + 70. This enables a successful author’s family to live for two generations on his work. That’s not the intention of the copyright – which, like a patent, was established to permit an author or other content creator to live off the fruits of his labour while creating more!
It is this last part we have lost.
Matt, you – and Gaz – spark a number of interesting points.
Implementation, more precisely, very, very fast implementation is king. You can explain to me (your secrets) details of DPI, associated memory search, predictive reputations, etc. etc. etc. but the concept, and V1 implementation is mostly just a prototype for evaluating the “real” requirements.
So don’t use “first mover advantage” in a business plan. First movers are usually roadkill.
NDA’s.
Cute little docs. Never get signed over here. Can’t recall the last time one was enforceable.
Patents. Good for the big guys like Cisco and IBM. Kind of like trading pawns in a cut-and-slash game of chess, I’d enjoy hearing a logical case for way to bother, apart from making money for patent attorneys or checking a box on some due diligence boiler plate.
So Matt. Don’t worry about secrecy. Take ideas and move very, very fast. That’s all the “barriers to entry” you’ll need, or get!!
Implementation or execution is without doubt the single most important facet of any idea. There are COUNTLESS business ideas out there (here’s one I’m considering tackling: http://ideas.al3x.net/gig-market)
But they don’t mean anything without proper planning and execution.
Like you, I’ve found sharing of ideas to actually foster BETTER execution via partnerships which add to the talent pool of an idea – resources I alone would lack.
This idea is core behind the monthly NI Music Industry Meetups (modeled to some degree on Open Coffee). Execution of an idea, not the protection of that idea, is what should draw 100% focus of a new business, whatever the industry.
Thanks for the reminder…
mj, I didn’t mention Copyright at all there!
Have you read “How to Get Rich” by Felix Dennis?
>>>Having a great idea is simply not enough. The eventual goal is vastly more important than any idea. It is how ideas are implemented that counts in the long run.
>>Good ideas are like Nike sports shoes. They may facilitate an athlete who possesses them, but on their own they are nothing but an overpriced pair of sneakers. Specially adapted sneakers may be a good idea. But the goal is still to win, and sports shoes don’t win. Athletes do.
>>And yet I have lost count of the number of men and women who have approached me with their “great idea,†as if this, in and of itself, was some passport to instant wealth. The idea is not a passport. At most, it is the means of obtaining one.
From chapter 5: The Fallacy of the Great Idea
I recommend the book, despite the title that makes it seem like snake oil. It’s not.
Patents – the idea behind them – are not exactly a bad thing, but their implementation, and who decides what is allowed to be patented is EXACTLY why they are a bad thing.
I know of someone who managed to secure a patent for “a device which reports ECG from a patient wirelessly” – he had NO IDEA *how* to do this (it was granted many many years ago), and is in fact preventing the inventors of devices from doing so. (There is a lengthy legal battle on-going here)
The problem with software patents, is companies with such huge financial clout do things like “patenting” ‘the space bar’, and charging royalties to everyone else. Imagine if Apple had been able to patent the “look and feel” – computing would be in the dark ages still.
Copyright was developed to protect authors, but has been prodded and poked by big institutions to suit their needs. In the case of music, it is absolutely absurd to have copyright extended, there is a limited amount of music which can be produced (and actually tuneful) and we are surprisingly close to this limit. Fergal, and Sir Cliff are barking up the wrong tree. They are essentially arguing that, despite buying their records and paying royalties through radio stations, they are still entitled to even more money, poor show.
I simply don’t agree that patents should be allowed. If you are an inventor, and invent something good and unique, the chances are that even a big company will lag behind in a reproduction of it. The argument that they can produce a knock-off equivalent of your unique idea is absurd – especially having worked for large organisations, to even upgrade your web browser can take 3 years, so “moving quickly” on a copy-cat is just a no-no.
Patents and copyright, sadly have morphed into protection for the big boys.
Absurdly, if I ever had an idea, I would strive to protect it – have to play by the existing rules and not my ideals you see.
The point, which has been lost, about patents is that they should cover for the implementation of an idea. Otherwise we end up in the current situation where no-one can do anything with ideas due to the fact they’ve been patented by folk who have no intention of implementing them.
The need for protection from the big boys is real as large companies (or equally, people with large amounts of money behind them) can move very quickly when they need to.
As I said, my experience is all large organisations move incredibly slowly.
Prime example – speed of iPhone killers.
I’m more concerned about individuals with money than, for example, Nokia or Microsoft.
The problem with corporate behemoths is that they suffer from horrific “Not Invented Here” syndromes – not that they cannot move quickly. If they have a huge emotional investment, then it’s going to be a hard ship to turn.
Apple, for example, is a large company. Yet they turned their failed “iMovie revolution” into a successful “iTunes revolution” after a serious mis-step very quickly and re-aligned the company around it.