"Good" isn't an amorphous property - it's contextual. Unless you are talking about Pirsig's "Quality", it's Good for some thing.
This article reads similar to Abraham's "Getting Everything You Can Out of All You Got" but there he calls them "breakthroughs". The advice and descriptions are nearly identical.
The approach is too internalized. What about "failure is easy to spot and pivoting is quick" or "fosters insightful unguided feedback from the user" or an idea that "suggests a conversation"?
The approach relies on what Gardner calls intra-personal intelligence and not inter-personal intelligence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...) Taking it back to Pirsig, this becomes too aristotilian - something that makes sense internally in our own heads so we believe it's true and blissfully ignore strong market signals that tell us it isn't.
For instance, the Nokia N900, MSN TV, Apple Newton, or the Palm Pre checks every mark here. NeXT, BeBox, "Clippy", Lotus Improv, New Coke, Crystal Pepsi... "Good" idea with a failed execution and bad process.
The valley is awash in similarly approached ideas that got their 250k seed and burned out. They were smarter than everyone else and provided solutions to problems people didn't have. It was their holy idea and not a topic for an open dialog with the potential customers.
The reality distortion field may have worked a remarkably high 1/3 of the time for Steve Jobs, but for us mortals it's a one-way ticket to a tent on the side of the road.
So what do you do instead? Patio11 talked about this in building "Appointment Reminder". He made appointments with his potential customers and instead of getting his nails done he sat with them and listened to their appointment-related problems. Then he built his product. Weeks of dialog before a single line of code.
The difference here is between building Quality Ideas, Quality Products, and Quality Services. I wish they were the same, but they aren't. What you do is entirely dependent on how you want to exit.
This article reads similar to Abraham's "Getting Everything You Can Out of All You Got" but there he calls them "breakthroughs". The advice and descriptions are nearly identical.
The approach is too internalized. What about "failure is easy to spot and pivoting is quick" or "fosters insightful unguided feedback from the user" or an idea that "suggests a conversation"?
The approach relies on what Gardner calls intra-personal intelligence and not inter-personal intelligence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...) Taking it back to Pirsig, this becomes too aristotilian - something that makes sense internally in our own heads so we believe it's true and blissfully ignore strong market signals that tell us it isn't.
For instance, the Nokia N900, MSN TV, Apple Newton, or the Palm Pre checks every mark here. NeXT, BeBox, "Clippy", Lotus Improv, New Coke, Crystal Pepsi... "Good" idea with a failed execution and bad process.
The valley is awash in similarly approached ideas that got their 250k seed and burned out. They were smarter than everyone else and provided solutions to problems people didn't have. It was their holy idea and not a topic for an open dialog with the potential customers.
Zuckerberg's generous $100 million donation that ruined Newark schools was the same mentality. (http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2015-09-29/dale-russa... - click "play now" hidden on the right, it's about an hour)
The reality distortion field may have worked a remarkably high 1/3 of the time for Steve Jobs, but for us mortals it's a one-way ticket to a tent on the side of the road.
So what do you do instead? Patio11 talked about this in building "Appointment Reminder". He made appointments with his potential customers and instead of getting his nails done he sat with them and listened to their appointment-related problems. Then he built his product. Weeks of dialog before a single line of code.
The difference here is between building Quality Ideas, Quality Products, and Quality Services. I wish they were the same, but they aren't. What you do is entirely dependent on how you want to exit.