The following video transcript is generated automatically by a computer algorithm that learns and gets better on a daily basis. Please accept our apologies if some content below doesn’t make sense:

First up, we’ve got a tweet was from a little while ago. But I think is generally applicable and it’s kind of a viewpoint on where you should start with an idea or where you should take an idea. And this from a guy called Amjad MassArt on Twitter and he tweets, There’s something really strange that happens again and again. Then technology, things that are built to be general from the start, fail to gain traction. Those that are built for specific use cases generalise over time. The Web is a great example. GPP is there is another one, GPE there being the A.I. learning model that we talked about a while ago.

And in a previous podcast, we also talked about bundling and unbundling, which I think has is kind of in the same ballpark here. And.

Also, actually, from programming being a programmer. You can see there’s a concept which is kind of like a premature abstraction, which is basically where you are trying to solve a specific problem. And whilst you’re solving that problem, you get the idea for actually this could be generalised into something far more broader, which is in general is a good thing when you’re doing programming, because it means you can reuse it. And it could be more applicable in other cases. But you don’t really know enough about the problem space at that point to be able to generalise properly. And it’s not until you’ve seen two or three different takes on the same specific takes on the same topic or the same problem, that you are able to actually successfully generalise it into a more something that’s more generally applicable. What you tend to find is your programme, something which you think will completely sort of solve this class of problems. And all of a sudden, something a different class problem you have to consider will come along and blow it completely out of water like it’s the programming equivalent of a black swan event. Right. And I think this guys is is correct in stating it’s the same with ideas and business models and things like that. It’s. If you have this cunning idea for something and you try and I met up everybody or a wide range of things, and it’s not specifically applicable to any one smaller area. And so there’s less reason for any one person with a problem to pick your thing over something else. And if you look at what are now very general technology platforms. So he gives the example of Web and the GP. But there are other ones. So if you look at things like Facebook, quite famously, you know, Facebook growth came from the land and expand model, which is where it was. It was essentially hot or not for a single university campus, which then expanded into other university campuses. And then and then they said they started quite specific and solving a specific kind of problem in it for a specific group of people and built technology applied to that and then realised, oh, actually, this technology and this set of functions applies far wider than that. So let’s let’s build out from there. And, you know, part of the reason you could say for their success was the fact that they were able to sort of build on previous successes rather than trying to be the total global social network from day one. Which means that, you know, network effects don’t kick in if you try and, you know, if you get an individual over here from India and you get an individual over here from China, you get an individual over here from America. It’s like there’s no network effects. No. Great. Whereas if you call to the market in Harvard and then go to the market in like the Ivy League universities and then go to the market and colleges in the US and general. And just keep expanding, expanding, expanding, then you can build something general out, something specific. And that pattern repeats itself often enough that it feels like it’s probably kind of an axiom of start-ups and technology products that that that that is actually true. They’re obviously they’re all accounts counterexamples to it at the same with any good role. You know, there are counterexamples that pretty well disproves the rule. But have you got any thoughts on that?

Yeah, I agree. And also, I must only son our example. They started selling books and now they sell pretty much everything. So but it was not the play you an Amazon. They don’t operate in every single country. They are very selective that they operate in. Well, at least they’re read that like their marketplace. It operates in five countries, I think. So I think yes. As you were saying, you need to solve a problem. So then that problem should be fine. It finance as well as, say, a solution. Then you can. It’s easier to grow it. So but I would also probably point out that there is another limitation, which is the cost of customer acquisition or your distribution costs.

What we took in previous episodes about the importance of this solution. So if you are trying to sell something that it’s too broad, it will be too difficult to explain. And therefore, we’ll be way too costly as well as well. So people will struggle to tell what’s all this about?

If it doesn’t, too many things, you know. And also, you can not narrow down your audience. So then you need to go.

Just you you will overpay and it will not work anywhere. You will struggle to communicate what the does.

And also, people nowadays, they they have they are bombarded with way too much information. So you need to be very specific on what are you putting out there. And after they get to know you gradually, you can grow it from there. But I think yeah. Ultimately, like companies or group groups of people trying to solve problems, but users attach to brands or.

Which is similar to a story. So essentially we are hardwired to understand the stories.

So if the story is complicated or it’s not clear, then you will struggle to to attract attention and drive users to your project.

Share This