Agreed. OP creating this cool chat bot is very impressive. Discussing it's usefulness or sophistication is probably superfluous atm. OP is 14 and built something.
Personally, my stomach twists when I read the post because I only ever got into programming at 25 and it's deeply troubling to see I missed the last 10 years.
People don't steal ideas. Tell as many people as possible. Never ask someone to sign an NDA before hearing your idea, you'll instantly lose all credibility
I find this hard to believe and can see why experienced people would keep startup ideas close to their chest.
People copy success, not ideas from random people they meet at parties. It's really that simple. Once your idea turns into a success (that's a lot of work), then people will start wanting to copy you.
I can assure you no one wanted to copy Pinterest when it was just an idea. Most people think your idea is bad, they are just too polite to tell you.
Experienced people don't keep their ideas to themselves. They don't tweet about them or write blog posts about them, but they definitely do discuss them with their peers, networks and mentors. That's the critical point. You should tell people whose opinions you trust and value because without their input your idea is worth much less, and the chance of them stealing the idea and executing it better is absolutely tiny. If you genuinely trust someone there's no need for an NDA.
Plus, the number of times anyone has been burned by not having an NDA in place is probably a million times fewer than a person has been helped by someone they shared their idea with. Sharing is helpful far more than it hurts anyone.
I believe the source of the confusion is the difference between your secret sauce and your elevator pitch. They're talking about the elevator pitch. If "everyone" doesn't already know your elevator pitch, or at least doesn't hear it soon, you've probably failed. They're not talking about your secret sauce like, I donno, your AWS login credentials or a really interesting development roadmap or your financial or marketing strategy or something like that. If you can't separate your secret sauce and your elevator pitch that's also a serious problem.
The elevator pitch for facebook is we're gonna get prime demographic young people to look at advertisements on our social website.
The secret sauce in the roll out was to try aspirational marketing where only ivy students can join and diffuse out thru cool/rich. The medium term secret sauce was something like the pages don't look as foul and obnoxious as myspace pages by dramatically limiting them and the real name policies. The longer term secret sauce is the content they view is sneakily going to be provided by the viewers for free via social networking effects luring them on.
The idea stealing myth originates from people (cubicle drones) who have so few ideas of their own, that when they finally have one, since it seems so scarce to them, it obviously must be valuable and thus worth "stealing". Unfortunately, this kind of people also lack the ideas necessary to realize the few "precious" ones they have.
Who does have a chance of realizing them, are people with lots of ideas, also about how to actually implement ideas. However, when you reach and surpass the "idea a day" treshold, while being able to implement maybe 1 or 10 each month, you get to discard hundreds of your own ideas each year, making them pretty much worthless.
So you should never be afraid of sharing your ideas; whoever you're telling them to, will either not care, or fail miserably trying to "steal" them. In each case you're safe. As for the monthly surplus ideas, if you're not implementing them, you risk nothing by sharing them either... except maybe feeling dumb in the off chance of seeing someone else successfully implementing an idea you thought was worthless.
PS: in the even rarer case of sharing an idea you're implementing, and someone else beating you to it... you suck, do something at what you suck less.
All true, and I would add that the sharing of ideas helps you to refine them, in the same way that describing a programming problem to someone else often helps you resolve it, because you have to structure the problem in language that makes sense to the other person. Sometimes simply structuring a concept in a way suitable for speech presents obvious answers that weren't possible when it was a ton of internal dialogue.
Yeah, exactly. If you have just a couple ideas and you think they're great what are the chances they're actually great? you should have dozens and be pretty sceptical and critical to filter out the really good ones.
Context: Rocket Internet is the name of the German company operated by the Samwer brothers, who have a reputation of cloning silicon valley's latest and greatest ideas for the German\EU market. Not technically doing anything illegal but certainly not held in the highest regard.
However they also consider their strength to be execution not innovation. That doesn't rule out ideas that seem like "obvious wins" but have yet to be tested.
Edit: Apparently in their mission statement they claim to only use proven ideas, but I still wouldn't do business with them regardless.
I agree, though I've never really agreed with the concept that idea and execution are separate things. I see an "idea" for a software application they way I see an idea for a novel. The execution and idea are very closely intertwined. Even intertwined is probably the wrong word, because that conjures up an image of two different things that are too tangled up to separate. I'd go even farther. The idea becomes the idea through the execution.
I suppose there is a sort of genesis of an idea, but even that probably already arrives with images of a UI and perhaps code in your head...
Even in Rocket Internet, the value is mostly in the execution, they have the resources and the expertise to copy any kind of project and they can create a whole team from scratch really quickly. And they are not going to spend anything on an unproven idea, before being copied by Rocket Internet you have definitely more important things to worry about.
> they are not going to spend anything on an unproven idea
Exactly!
It's even in their mission statement:
> Rocket identifies and builds proven Internet business models and transfers them to new, underserved or untapped markets where it seeks to scale them into market leading online companies.
This is the general motto for a majority of people. If you've done several startups with big exits, then yeah keep your idea behind NDA's because you can.
For everyone else, no one is going to steal your idea. Even in the remote possibility that they somehow would, then you better be more motivated then them and should be well enough ahead that they can't catch up.
I don't find it hard to believe at all. The simple fact is ideas are cheap and everyone is full of them. Execution matters. The idea does not.
An NDA is appropriate for something that is a bit closer to fully baked than just an idea. If you've got a proprietary algorithm or business database that you don't want to leak, then an NDA is appropriate. If you're demanding an NDA just to talk about an idea that you haven't even started working on yet then you're just wasting time and oxygen.
I agree with you 100%. I used to live in a small town and worked for a company whose CEO was infamous for stealing ideas. According to him, he wasn't actually stealing ideas, he was just implementing other people's ideas without them.
The typical scenario -- according to him -- was someone would pitch an idea to him, then he would counter that they should go half on the seed money. If the person wasn't able (or willing) to come up with the money, he'd implement the idea without them.
How many of those ideas were given the full attention of the CEO and turned into large businesses? It seems like it's easy to take an idea and start to implement it, the hard part is if it doesn't "go viral" or take off massively you now need to really invest more than just money in it.
Be careful about this one. Don't freely tell your idea to people who have the wherewithal to then go and build it, because they just might. What Mark Zuckerberg did to the Winklevoss twins should be enough of a cautionary tale for any entrepreneur.
The Winklevoss twins were destined to take their good idea and turn it into crap that Zuckerberg wouldn't want to be involved with and they did eventually turn out a turd.
Very much so. Friendster and MySpace were already prominent.
Zuckerberg got the inspiration to do Facebook from the project the Winklevoss twins were trying to get off the ground, and further to do an elite social network riding off of Harvard. That was their primary contribution to what became Facebook; which is to say, not much.
An idea alone is very hard to copy unless you have deep expertise in that area and can quickly understand the problems it solves.
For example, you describe me an idea for some SaaS startup targeted at constructions companies. I have no clue about this industry, so no matter how well you describe it to me I simply can't judge it and definitely can't implement it.
Even if you are an expert on the target audience and their problems, the small details that make the difference, you can call it vision, are normally not part of the 'idea'.
Everyone thinks this until they start pitching ideas. No one wants to steal your idea; in fact, the most common reaction is to explain why your idea is stupid.
I'd tell as many people as possible about what I have built, but I might stay a little quiet about what I am building until it is ready to show.
If I have what I consider to be a good idea, and I am actively pursing it (i.e., writing code to implement it), I would probably keep it close to my chest until I have something to show.
I think people are missing a key point a little bit. It's not about telling people your idea, giving them your idea, it's about getting feedback from them, its about learning from others.
Like everything else, it's a tradeoff. Knowledge about certain market topologies actually can constitute a tremendous advantage, although NDA's are employed far more than is actually necessary.
It is often inexperienced people or "business" guys without any technical background who think they have the billion dollar idea when in fact there are a thousand people who had the idea before who couldn't or wouldn't execute.
So, that advice goes for them: forget NDAs and get good feedback. On the other hand, if you really know what you're doing, you'll know if the idea has a lot of intrinsic value and/or potential for being easily stolen (infrequent and often unpredictable in those rare cases), and who you can to talk to about it.
More often than not, "ideas" are pretty simple and valueless and even the best execution can't do much to keep the business afloat. Many successful ideas come from something as simple as merging several different fields (only an expert in both fields is likely to come up with it), or simply from some enabling technologies maturing enough to have everyone and their dog execute the ideas they had but couldn't build successfully before (tablets come to mind, many mobile apps and so on).
Experienced people would know what to do with their ideas. Who to talk to to get advice, what to keep close to their chest or not. Others would benefit greatly from any advice at all they could get and for that they need to run the very small risk of telling their idea to others.
Somebody with more funds and connections could ship your idea before you rendering yours obsolete. In the case of a hardware based startup they could even patent the idea first.
Anyone with the resources and gumption to outperform you at your own idea is someone who has their own ideas. They aren't looking for ideas to steal, because ideas frankly aren't that hard. They're looking for progress on the ideas they have.
True, I guess I imagined it more as building a shopping list throughout the day/week and ordering once at the end of the day, not separate orders for every button click.
I think the author has indirectly replied to you via the article:
> Note: The numbers (700 Billion, etc) are there to give context and a sense of scale. This wasn’t a small boutique design company—which fwiw I’ve worked for a couple and loved it—this was the company who got valued by that amount because they’re doing something interesting. I personally don’t see money as a measure of worth, but as a freelancer and well, running my business, should not and cannot ignore it. Numbers such as ‘5000 miles’ are there just for stylistic reasons, saying ‘a flight’ would be way more banal. Chill and have a good one.
Definitely feel the same way, I even have the habit of extracting part of songs to make short looping versions to reinforce the effect :)
Otherwise di.fm long mixes usually hit the spot.
----
Something else that also works well for me (but not everytime) is long playlists of conference talks, fullscreen on the second screen (usually the ~25 minutes ones work best because it's in-depth enough to be interesting, but not long enough it gets boring, plus if my curiosity gets tickled to look deeper into a topic, I can pause the video to dig deeper before continuing).
I tend to mix both [and it lets me re-use the in-ear headphones that only have one side working anymore]: left ear on talks, right ear on music :)
Oh for sure – instrumental-only for me. Lyrics are too distracting. I like ambient, downbeat, chillout-type stuff. Groove Salad on SomaFM is great: http://somafm.com
I think the theory is that you need to distract a certain part of your brain if you want to get on with a task that requires a degree of concentration. Dance/trance works pretty well for this (for most people). After all music is just a way of tricking the brain into enjoying counting.
Once I tried listening to classical music, I found it very difficult to program to. I decided that the music was too complex and actually used the complex-task part of my brain (which I needed for programming). I also had a similar experience when I tried to play a language learning tape in the background while programming.
It's a fun experiment to run on yourself either way.
I find that whatever music I use for working out works best. I guess there's some link in my brain - the meditative state you get into when you exercise where it's just you, the pain and the music puts your brain into a highly focused state. I discovered that after a while of doing this, whenever I listen to my exercise playlist, it puts me into that same focused state regardless of whether I'm exercising... and I now use the same playlist for highly focused/fast pace programming. Of course it helps to maintain the link between that kind of music and focus if you regularly use it for exercise.
For me, lyrics are fine if I know the music well enough (as in, can recite the lyrics fluidly from memory). Otherwise, I mostly listen to bebop and free jazz. Repetitiveness is usually not welcome, though.
Nothing gets me in focus like the mixes over at musicforprogramming.net
Great selection of ambient/non-invasive electronica.
If that doesn't cut it, Burial and Vangelis always does the trick. And for sessions where it's only some brute force grokking, some uplifting jazz from accujazz.com
I feel that I go too fast, start making mistakes, and missing obvious things, but maybe it's different when creating rather than maintaining. I prefer ambient and chill music when maintaining.
To access the options for a track there is a button on the right hand side, this is also where the scroll menu appears. I often find myself half way up the playlist when I wanted to queue a song.
