Many investors, including YC, have a number of companies that operate in stealth mode until launch. It would be an interesting exercise to map the success of startups that operate in stealth mode pre-launch vs those that don't.
I really liked your essay and I appreciate that someone is pushing back against the 'ideas are cheap' meme. I think you were really smart to make the first item be that an idea which you cannot execute is a bad idea for a startup.
However, I think that your essay left out one really important thing: what people mean when they say 'idea'. It's helpful to unwrap what we mean when we say 'idea' so that we can distinguish between the two different cases of value: 'it's only an idea' vs. 'an idea that can change the world'. I think that the disconnect between the 'ideas are cheap' crowd and the 'ideas are valuable' crowd is that they don't mean exactly the same thing when they say 'idea'. And knowing the difference not only means that you can speak someone else's language, it also means that you can see how to add value to your ideas.
Whether it is a business idea, product idea, or invention idea, the level of vagueness affects how much value it has. There is a difference between 1) an idea for a product, 2) an idea for the basis of how it works, and 3) a complete set of code or blueprints for making one. 'Execution' is largely what we call going from step 2 to 3, but both step 1 and step 2 get called ideas. Even step 2.5, where something is not fully executed but the details have been worked out, gets called an idea.
I'd love to see more about how adding specificity adds value, but only if it is correct. Taking a great idea (say, the diesel engine) and making a poor implementation of it (building a really crappy diesel engine) doesn't take value away from the earlier steps of the idea (someone else can build a better one). So, ideas start with little value, but get more value as more correct specificity is added.
I did avoid getting into a definition of what I think an idea is mainly because I wanted the essay to be a catalyst for people to think about their own ideas, not just be another rant.
I like to think of ideas and execution as potential and kinetic energy. A great idea is a bolder at the top of a hill, while a bad idea is a bolder at the bottom. Execution is the process of keeping the bolder moving.
Perhaps. Although, stealth mode isn't necessarily driven by a fear of copycats. In many cases it's about hiding the fact that a company doesn't entirely know what they're doing while they try to figure things out. This seems to be especially common in B2B markets where there are a relatively small number of potential customers (though each one might pay a lot for the statup's product), and almost all of these customers are likely to learn about the startup very quickly.
The stealth mode startup isn't really keeping their ideas secret from potential competitors but rather from potential customers. They want to avoid customers getting confused, being turned off, or losing trust if they were too transparent about what they're working on - and how much its changing - before they're ready to launch.
Stealth mode is a way to to focus on what's important: get the product finished, rather than to have to deal with the outside world. It rarely if ever has to do with keeping the idea secret. First mover advantage is worth protecting too, as well as a change of direction in case your great idea does not work out after more time is invested in implementing it or if you realize there are even greener pastures.
Stealth mode - and secrecy in general - is a tool, but the day you open the doors to your first users the competition will be able to look at what you've made and then the clock to locking up the market is ticking.
This is extra important when it comes to ideas that have network effects.
Isn't what you are protecting in this case the idea? If you just want to focus on building the product you don't need to be in stealth mode. It is only if you are worried about some exploiting your idea do you keep quiet.
It is fairly safe to assume that if you have an idea, so do others. But idea+validation: that's already another step. So you try to protect that combination to stave off the inevitable Samwer brothers clone. And even then, the first three weeks out of the gate had better be longer than it takes to get a clone MVP up and running.
A product that can be cloned in three weeks is not a great product. I thought the samwer brothers just cloned successful companies that already proven in the market?
> I thought the samwer brothers just cloned successful companies that already proven in the market?
Yes, because those are the valuable ideas. From their point of view spending time on unproven ideas is a waste, it is much easier to copy a successful company for a niche market than it is to come up with an entirely new concept for a much broader one.
> If they thought there was no risk of someone stealing the idea
I didn't say that. In fact, I said the opposite - they acknowledge there is a risk in someone stealing the advantage of being first to market, irrespective of the idea itself.
Being first to market on a mediocre idea with good execution is an order of magnitude better than being fifth to market on a great idea with good execution.
I am not so sure being first with a mediocre idea is better than coming to market latter with a great idea. Mediocre ideas increase the chance of failure, but more importanty no idea that is being executed on by four others before you is a truely good idea.
