Even better: Make something people need and know that they need. If they don't already know, someone will have to help them know. That someone might be you and helping them will take sales and marketing, a significant consideration.
Even better: Make something people need, know they need, and are willing to pay for now. Competing against "we're not ready, maybe next year" is tougher that competing against any competitor.
Best: Make something people need, know they need, are willing to pay for now, and has their hair on fire. Leapfrogging to "let's just solve this problem now" is often the best (and most fun) way to deploy.
[EDIT: In response to some of the replies to this thread: This is not about "guessing what people need", worrying about competition, or assuming "if I need it, others must too". This is about getting up off your butt, talking to people, finding out what they must have, and building it for them. There are people everywhere desperate for solutions to their problems, and I promise you, they're not finding them. Sure, you may scratch your own itch and hope that someone else needs it, but this is a lottery approach. Most start-ups fail because they built something no one else wanted or was willing to pay for.
There is absolutely no better way to find out what to build than finding customers first. Please don't be like me and learn that the hard way. There are great apps everywhere that nobody uses while people suffer because no one is building what they want.]
In my opinion, people should stop trying to guess what solves other peoples problems and just solve their own.
Best(er): Make something YOU need and are willing to pay for now.
If you solve your own problem, you're guaranteed to understand the problem, execute well, and be surprised how many other people have the same problem.
That's exactly what I'm banking on with the new app I'm developing http://www.mightycv.com. I needed a new résumé and didn't like the more generic builders I found out their. I wanted a résumé builder that worked for hackers and integrated easily with HN, github and stackoverflow and so I built one. I really hope that by scratching my own itch I've executed well and made something that others will find useful.
If there's lot's of competition in a particular area then I think it might be a better plan to focus on a niche part of that larger market. Remember facebook was only for college kids to start with.
But if it’s so blindingly obvious that a certain product is something that people need, then someone else would be making it already, right? It seems to me that the sweet spot would be something that, once a potential customer sees it, thinks, “Oh, there’s this nuisance in my life that I’ve always taken for granted, but now I realize that I can buy something to make it go away.”
(Think of the drugs you see advertised on late-night TV for syndromes you never heard of. :-)
The meaning is: build something good, and people will naturally come to it. As opposed to: build a monster no one needs then spend millions on marketing.
As far as I know, Facebook and Google are both examples of following this advice. They both didn't reply on marketing to grow. They grew organically; people started to use them because they were actually good products.
I always thought this mantra originally came from Google.
There was a serious, real need for Google. All other search engines before Google were pretty much porn/spam laden. It was too difficult to find anything.
The need for sales and marketing could create less competition and create difficulties for your competitors.
not always , but sometimes this is helpfull.
One person's need is another person's want is another person's "wtf is this? get off my lawn!"...
Need is in the eye of the beholder. I think "Make something people need" really means "Make something some people are willing to pay for". Which is nice, but more niche advice than "Make something people want".
No one wants to pay for Google search. But it's damn useful, and a great thing to have made (and led to business services that businesses need). Conversely, nobody needs any given movie or song or fiction book or game - they are largely commoditised and interchangeable before you've actually consumed them. But making movies and books and other forms of unnecessary art still makes hundreds of billions of dollars of revenues every year.
"Make something people want" applies to more companies than "Make something people need", imho.
"But making movies and books and other forms of unnecessary art still makes hundreds of billions of dollars of revenues every year."
Everything else being equal, I would not choose these markets. Why? Because these markets are too sexy and too crowded: too much people write games and books out of enthusiasm. (I was one of them.) If you are a game enthusiast, sure create an indie gaming company. But if you somehow can get excited about a business problem which is a pain point for some people, then it is better to choose that imho.
I would say:
Make something people need, and avoid overcrowded markets where a viable business model became problematic (e.g. free is the default) because of oversupply (like tools for professional developers)
"But making movies and books and other forms of unnecessary art still makes hundreds of billions of dollars of revenues every year."
in the u.s.:
Hollywood's yearly revenue is around $10 billion.Legal or engineering services are a $200-$300 billion industries.
Healthcare's yearly revenue is around $2 trillion.
"No one wants to pay for Google search. ". google is the rare example. in 2004 , advertising industry revenues were $264 billion vs $11.6 trillion total gdp. that's less than 5 percent. basically there is a lot less money in advertising. in general , if you want to keep your company independent , you've got more chance with a payment based business model.
Do I want to pay for anything? Not really, getting stuff for free is always good, but given the current crop of search engines, would I pay for Google search? Yes. Probably not much, as compared to the quality of their competitors, but I would easily pay $10 or $20 a year for "premium search" access, and if they really differentiated themselves as saving me a lot of time, possibly more.
It's interesting to see that since Jacques left HN his articles seem to dominate the front page whenever he writes one (which I'm quite happy with since I like reading them).
Maybe we're subconsciously trying to make him come back by flooding his server with requests for attention.
What if people don't know what they need or want? Sometimes we try to build or develop something exactly as someone asks. Most of the time, that's exactly what they need; but many times they are wrong: requirements are wrong, even the sense of "need" or "want" is misplaced.
When we are developing something new, a new product or service, software or building, we always try do please people, trying to perceive what their needs or wishes are. But what if they don't really know? As Ford said once "if i asked people what they wanted, they would say 'a more powerful horse'". Sometimes, what people need or want is something that isn't here yet. Maybe we try to much to build something according people's wishes, and the finished product is nothing more than a copy of thousands of solutions made by people who thought the same thing.
I know it may be hard, but to really make a difference, we have to try to stay ahead. Even ahead of potencial customers. Either you're right or wrong, you'll know it soon enough
This is very general speaking. Of course, make something people need is good, because you have a nice niche then to sell something, but I think it is not accurate enough. Everything a person needs are 4 walls, a roof, something to eat and someone to love.
Lets find a better sentence, something like: "Make something which makes people smile". While it is not catchy like the original sentence, it is a lot more accurate. A secretary will smile when presented with a better accounting software. A lumberjack will smile when given a better axe. A developer will smile when given an awesome new programming language.
Oh, and not to be mistaken, it is totally OK to have these people pay for things that make them smile, Disneyland also takes an entrance fee.
There are very few things that people truly need: food, water, air, arguably shelter. Unless you are a farmer or building houses, you aren't making something that people need. This whole discussion seems a bit silly to me for this reason. Anybody who is building a tech company is building something that people want, not something that they need. Do you really need Amazon or eBay? No, of course not.
That can be classified as a "want". Wants and needs are prevalent notions through people's lives. Needs are minimum requirements to stay alive(I need air, water, food to live) and go throughout one's day(clothing and transportation to go to work), and wants are extra icing on top that makes a person feel good(fart apps), whatever that might be. The trouble is people that people sometimes get the two confused.. that's where fart app makers win.
Disagree. I want a new 2G iPad, but my 1G iPad works well enough and I don't need it. I would like one but I'm not going to express that desire with cash.
I see where you're going but I think it's an important distinction to make, especially with consumers. It's easy to take a sharp rational mindset and project it onto the fish in the stream... but that may not be the best model for predicting how they think about your products.
correct. but if you don't know it even exists, how could you need it?
especially considering that all startups are just luxury products, since humans don't need anything other than water and food.
In many cases we could get into the definition of 'need'.
But consider something like legal/regulatory requirements. Perhaps you don't know about some law at the moment, but you should be complying with it. I have a product that fixes this problem for you.
Until I call you, you don't want it but you still need it. When I tell you this, hopefully you'll understand and I have a good chance of a sale.
Good: Make something people want.
Better: Make something people need.
Even better: Make something people need and know that they need. If they don't already know, someone will have to help them know. That someone might be you and helping them will take sales and marketing, a significant consideration.
Even better: Make something people need, know they need, and are willing to pay for now. Competing against "we're not ready, maybe next year" is tougher that competing against any competitor.
Best: Make something people need, know they need, are willing to pay for now, and has their hair on fire. Leapfrogging to "let's just solve this problem now" is often the best (and most fun) way to deploy.
[EDIT: In response to some of the replies to this thread: This is not about "guessing what people need", worrying about competition, or assuming "if I need it, others must too". This is about getting up off your butt, talking to people, finding out what they must have, and building it for them. There are people everywhere desperate for solutions to their problems, and I promise you, they're not finding them. Sure, you may scratch your own itch and hope that someone else needs it, but this is a lottery approach. Most start-ups fail because they built something no one else wanted or was willing to pay for.
There is absolutely no better way to find out what to build than finding customers first. Please don't be like me and learn that the hard way. There are great apps everywhere that nobody uses while people suffer because no one is building what they want.]