It's a common misconception that a startup describing itself as x of/for y is a sign of lack of originality.
A lot of original ideas-- perhaps most good original ideas-- are initially conceived of as x of/for y. Plus it is a good tactic, which we actively encourage, for startups to describe themselves in those terms initially. It may not describe a startup perfectly, but it's the the most information you can convey in one sentence.
Airbnb itself described itself as "Ebay for space" during YC. Viaweb was "the Microsoft Word of Ecommerce." When we first thought of the idea of a web app, we thought of it (not merely described it, but thought of it) as using the browser as an xterm.
I should write an essay about this. This misconception is like some unkillable zombie idea.
Came here to write "Airbnb itself described itself as "Ebay for space" - it's extremely relevant. It's just a rhetorical device to help someone understand a complex issue, it's rarely if ever how you actually came UP with the idea - it's just how you explain it.
There is a problem with this though - for example, I'm working on something right now that if you can't see the demo (let's say we're on a phone call), it's pretty hard to explain (or at least we suck at it right now). One of the things we compare it to is Mint, because of the way we use banking "oAuth" for what we do. But it's not an analytics tool at all, in no way is our core business or service like Mint, so we spent 5 minutes on our last call trying to kill the idea that it was actually like Mint in any way. I think we're going to stop using that analogy.
So yeah, pick your analogies carefully y'all, you want to make things simpler not more complex.
PG it'd be great if you'd write about this, but it's not going to stop Nick Bilton or Valleywag from continuing to write and talk about it. They have their own agenda, it seems clear to me.
Slightly OT, but what's up with the rise of the anti-tech media on the east coast? Who reads that trash anyway? It's all about weird tech CEOs, accusations of prejudice, accusations of unoriginality, and the like.
I think it's because startups have been doing well lately. Whenever anything is doing well, its reputation contains a sort of potential energy that can be exploited by someone attacking it.
E.g. "I found a mistake in Einstein's math" is going to get you a lot more attention than "I found a mistake in my next door neighbor's math."
I'm not sure if you use Facebook, but on Facebook there is a constant wave of quotes mis-attributed to Einstein and Thomas Jefferson. It's really interesting, they all get 10000's of shares. Somebody somewhere (or just the crowd accidentally) A/B tested a ton of different historical figures and came out with Einstein and TJ.
The patois of misattribution is, often times, a rather fun deception -- to see who will share the meme.
Things like "The internet is full of trolls" are captioned to a photo of Abraham Lincoln, for example. Or, more recently, the phenomenon of attributing moving quotations to Taylor Swift, or Barack Obama, where the actual source was Adolph Hitler.
In short, you're not wrong that these things occur, but in some cases, they probably occur as a means of exploiting our collective ignorance, and/or our willingness to share things that we think are attributable to someone we might idolize.
Summed up in a Hitler quote (attributable to anyone): "How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."
W/R/T who reads it, one of my best friends LOVES Valleywag and I ask him about it all the time. He thinks SV is just up its own ass (maybe), especially as it relates to social issues (yes) and that makes it like hate porn for him. I suppose that makes an ounce of sense, but the criticism of the businesses and innovation themselves feel out of place in that environment.
The other side is just haters, there's been a recent wave of really awesome startups that are growing fast and doing great stuff, and haters are looking for something to hate. I know some people don't like to see the term "hater" used like that, but man is it useful!
With respect to the social issues - on GitHub, nobody knows you're not a white straight male, but it turns out that open source is mostly written by white straight males anyway. Most of the criticism from the east coast seems to be that Silicon Valley doesn't care enough about correcting this outcome, and I'd say they are right - most engineers care more about how code works than who wrote it, and that's very much an old-fashioned enlightenment value that I agree with.
While initiatives to lower the barrier to entry in writing software are great, I'm not sure I want to see an industry that cares more about achieving social equality than writing good code. Crowds of engineers will never be fertile soil for social justice warriors for this reason.
I don't use certain OSS libs because of the people writing/maintaing it. I'd rather spent some nights and weekends writing my own. Of course this is if it's feasible.
Are you saying the New York Times is trash? If so, I disagree. Although I wouldn't put any institution on a pedestal, I would say that the NYT is demonstrably a non-trashy news organization. Demonstrable in part by the fact you don't love everything they write about your precious industry or coast -- that is in fact an indication that they're doing a good job, i.e. not pleasing everyone all the time.
WAT? He's referring to the trash they <write>[1,2]. Its more akin saying the east coast media has a napoleon complex wrt the west coast (because the growing wealth threaten's old money/media's sense of self/hegemony). Lots of people use "trashtalk" professionally, eg sportsmen. Hell, it even has its own wikipedia page.
Well I also disagree that the New York Times writes trash, either.
Yes we're all primates. Yes you can usefully analyze a lot of behavior in terms of tribes and regions, and who is the current or former alpha male, etc. At the same time, you can make an effort to transcend that, with at least partial success. An organization like the NYT exists to try. They can never be 100% successful. But I think it's missing the point to fling feces at them, saying, "Hey, they're just flinging feces." O_o
The article has a valid point. What some of y'all need is the Uber of Ubers -- an app that geolocates the nearest business, and spits out a business plan for Uber-izing it. Which you can run down to the average investor who wants to hide in the middle of the tribe/herd.
Obviously not all startups or investors are that unoriginal. pg has a great point that some are original, but need to seem less so -- to simplify their message -- for the average bear. Even so, many startups are yawningly copycat. And some folks doth protest too much when it's pointed out.
> someone who thinks the NYT is a 'transcendental' organization
I didn't say "transcendental". And I'm not saying let's worship the NYT like a sparkly unicorn.
I said news organizations like the NYT exist to try to transcend us/them tribe/region primate thinking, and try to be objective. I admitted they don't always succeed, but said I think it's unfair to presume they don't even try.
p.s. My comments above got a few upvotes... then voted back down again. I thought HN is supposed to be different, and people aren't supposed to downvote solely because they disagree.
p.p.s. I'm not implying you downvoted me. I doubt that you did.
I haven't really noticed a coastal difference in that respect. The LA Review of Books, not to mention any number of lesser outlets, has been holding down the fort for anti-tech west coast media. :)
I am always reminded of the famous blog post about a getting a PHD wherein all you can hope to do as an individual is make a small bump on the giant circle of human experience and knowledge.
Likewise, backseat drivers to the expansion of the human existence, fail to grasp the basic understanding of how startups, knowledge, experiences are created. It is all through evolution. That is why there is such a high failure rate, that is why it's so hard to predict, that is why moving forward we will continue to use the x of/for y to describe our ambitions and ideas because all great things we have done are built upon those that have come before.
We are creatures of evolution and that expands beyond just the layman biological applications to encompass all of what we have and will do.
While that misconception is true, it doesn't negate the point that there are a lot of start-ups that are just playing house, trying to act like a start up in the hope that they'll strike it lucky.
True, but there are wannabees in every field where the people who succeed become rich or famous. There's nothing newsworthy about that sort of background radiation lameness. Or more precisely, it's one of the recipes for an Onion article.
I thought I had read something you wrote once (5. Most investors are momentum investors. from http://paulgraham.com/guidetoinvestors.html) implied that investor demand increases the volume of the more shallow type of copycat.
A momentum investor is one who wants to invest in companies that are doing well, not one who wants to invest in imitators of companies that are doing well.
Investors are herd animals, but they're not the reason mediocre founders copy existing ideas. Mediocre founders copy existing ideas for the same reason mediocre people in so many other fields do: they're insufficiently imaginative.
With all due respect I think you're underestimating the effect of investors.
Insufficiently imaginative people do exist everywhere but they don't get to become founders and hire people to copy existing ideas unless someone funds them.
I'm not so sure. A lot depends on how many there are, and how often they get funded, because they will destroy a lot of wealth and provide bad experience for the people they employ along the way. There seems to be more potential for harm than for wannabe pop-stars.
The entire premise of the article is incorrect. What these startups are doing is copying the business model.
Copying the startup would be similar to what the Samwer brothers are doing in Europe where they clone a startup down to the individual pixel.
I don't think there's a thing wrong with appropriating the business model of say an Uber and applying it to an entirely different business. Its done successfully all the time.
Yup, especially when your space is lesser known. Back in 2009 when I had my startup, nobody understood what the hell we did until we started saying "EC2 but with 3D printers instead of servers." All of a sudden people went from glassy-eyed to intrigued. When we talked about the rise of mass customization, or the democratization of manufacturing, nobody grokked it.
But I must say that I got a little bit disappointed when I found out that the first brazilian company to get in YC was a "Yelp for Brazil". No misconception here, as this is not an analogy, but a description that is a copy focused at another country.
It's interesting that a similar technique for pitching movies (e.g. Terminator meets Titanic) is strongly discouraged while for startups it is encouraged. I wonder what makes the same approach elicit different reactions across industry lines.
My best friend is a wildlife documentary maker and we often discuss the differences between our fields. Another example is that in his field, everyone's idea is their big secret, while in the startup world, you're constantly reminded that your idea alone is worth very little and that you should talk about it as much as possible. I think the underlying difference is that when you're making a documentary, it's impractical to run "lean" or gather feedback from the market before it's done. You raise money once (based primarily on your idea), then you go to the ___location and shoot, then you do the montage, etc and ultimately there's a (hopefully big) release. There's barely any feedback loop to speak of.
I think it's an equally valid technique in both industries. It's just been around longer in the film industry which has a similar pitch-for-play financing culture as silicon valley, except it's been that way for quite a long time (since the collapse of the studio system really) so there's been a lot longer of the ecosystem to develop a culture of fast-talking pitchmen who may or may not have any substance, but are certainly ripe for satire and mockery either way.
It's PG's advice, by no means universally shared in the investor community. Several investors I know will immediately go into a defensive shell as soon as they hear the "X for Y" construction. If you're a budding startup, please do your homework and know your audience before deciding the main tagline of your pitch.
It's PG's advice, by no means universally shared in the investor community
Look at every major tech blog or site and you'll see list after list of startups described as "this for that" so even if it's not universal among investors, it is more than just PG pushing it.
The author confuses the language of '<this> for <that>' with a copy of. If you are the 'Uber of Dog Walking' you are not a copy of Uber. Instead you have taken one part of the Uber puzzle, "on demand access using a smart phone" and applied it to the problem of finding a dog walker [1]. The sort of language arises because these techniques and technologies are created without names.
In the physical world, you might have something like a gas turbine engine, which enabled the jet age. People put the same engine on helicopters. But they didn't say "These are the jets of vertical flight". Or when they used them as engines to generate electricity they didn't say "These are Jets for Power Plants." But the reason they didn't say those things is that it was pretty clear to everyone what a gas turbine engine was and what it brought to the table. Modern software startups don't have that luxury.
Of course there are a lot of me too like startups. Just like there are me too type bands and me too type serial killers. There is a segment of the population who sees an idea in action and then runs out and tries to do the same thing. But I don't think the industry is dominated by that mentality. Mostly because it is rarely successful if it is just a copy.
[1] I make no claim on whether or not finding Dog Walkers on demand is a good idea or a bad idea.
Like you, I place little weight on the findings from a few keyword searches. Such vacuous analysis.
That said, there are a few incentives in play for the "X for Y" or "<this> for <that>" language and why to use it over more simple, implementation-free descriptive text:
1. Newly-entered startups: Your wonderful description about why it is more efficient. See above :)
2. <this> companies (the Ubers and AirBnBs): Having other people constantly repeat the Uber and AirBnB label is brand advertising. Period. The Uber and AirBnB brands have good penetration in the HN demographic, but they are unknown to >50% of the US and >70% of the world. Those companies need advertising to fuel growth, so they have an incentive to encourage this practice since it's free for them AND a lot of startups are getting press in the midwest, etc.
3. <this> Stakeholders (investors, accelerators, etc): Moreover, using <this> in the context of another upstart business suggests that <this> was successful. When you say Uber for pizza, you are suggesting that Uber is both a successful model and a successful business. That makes both Uber and Uber's Stakeholders look really good. It's a form of social proof, which is especially valuable in this boom.
And remember, the Stakeholders eventually make their money in an IPO and not from direct profits. These Stakeholders have a strong incentive to convince others that <this> is a good business and worth mimicking in another market. "Look at all the others who followed suit." The Stakeholders need more fundraising rounds. And at a place like YC, you'll hear how it's a good idea because when you go looking to find the <this> that matches you, you're more likely to pick a <this> from here.
And at the end of the day, using "X for Y" is co-branding ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-branding ). It is a tool that has positive and negative aspects. In some places saying you are "Uber for pizza" means you are willing to skirt local health codes to deliver pizza faster than it takes to cook...
My advice is to recognize the "<this> for <that>" as a derivative of co-branding, and to understand the incentives in play for the advice on how to use it.
I like your analysis of the incentives to do it, it reminded me that there is another place where it is used, Entertainment. Projects are pitched as "this is the Rambo for Millenials" or "This is Bonanza in Space."
So in those cases there is an attempt to transfer some of the success 'aura' of the brand name to the pitched project. No one pitches a movie saying its like "Heaven's Gate" :-) and I suppose nobody pitches a startup as "The Color for Dog Walkers."
I agree with the general thrust of this. In the specific context of startups, its also not so much mimicry as it is appropriation of the brand identity of (X,Y). Its basically leveraging others expenditures as a form of budget "hack", because its both quicker and less resource intensive. As a result, as a guerilla (marketing) tactic its effective. It also PR/link bait for lazy journalists. Their audiences are usually already conditioned on the uber awesomeness of X and/or Y. Last but not least, is a sort of pavlovian effect on investors's greed instinct.
Spot-on. This article misses the point entirely - X for Y is just a convenient (if somewhat lazy) way of describing new concepts by reference to existing ones.
I was hoping that the author would really dig into the practice of startup clones - c.f. http://www.rocket-internet.de
I think something most people miss is in the "X for Y" is that the choice of X also dictates a feeling.
For example, "1-800-Flowers for cleaning" and "Uber for cleaning" both could describe the same product, however I'd rather use the latter. I'm building a developer tool, and "Parse for ___" is very different than "Oracle for ___".
This is good shorthand when talking to investors, and it's even better for the people building the product to have a guiding light.
It's similar to "mood boards" used in design -- it helps people agree on a feel for a site, and the final design can capture the mood without actually copying.
It can also help you make decisions. Your new company doesn't have an identity or M.O. yet, so when you're stuck, you can ask yourself WWUD? (What Would Uber Do?)
That being said, you have to eventually grow out of it. If a year into the process you're still calling yourself "Uber for dog walking", you have an identity problem -- rather than building your own startup, you're merely co-oping the goodwill of another company without doing any work yourself.
I think the article short changes the value of startups that can be described as a specialization of another. There's lots of differentiation that can happen in a single space across verticals. Think about what features are important to people who use Word vs. Latex or Blue Nile vs Amazon.
The other thing I would add is I got some advice (which I now agree with) from a college professor that business should focus on being really innovative/risky in one dimension, not in all. This seems like a good way constrain the areas your business will really be innovating in.
People need a schema for any new idea in order to quickly understand what it is trying to accomplish.
Saying you are "X for Y" is not being unoriginal; rather, it is a simple hack to enable faster comprehension.
Heck, I used it to get myself a YC interview (although the company I chose as my "X" was the wrong choice given my vision for the startup - choose wisely if you do the "X for Y" thing)
We have a word describing this kind of "x of/for y" construction: "metaphor" (or simile or snowclone, depending on exactly how you construct it). It has a name because it's used all the time.
I think it's ridiculous that startups are getting slammed for using a common component of human language in their marketing.
When pitching a (traditional, paper, fiction) book to an agent or publisher, the standard advice is to provide a frame of reference by explaining your work as "X for Y."
It has nothing to do with copying and everything to do with making your pitch understood.
In other - apparently less exciting - news, some apparently foolish people even found new car makers, newspapers, furniture stores despite the obvious lack of originality and crowded markets. What are they thinking!?
X for Y is just a simple way of explaining something. Smart people can maybe make two leaps, but most people have trouble making a mental leap that's further than one step away from what they know. So you start with "X for Y" as a mental hook to hang their mental hat on. Then you can build from there.
Whether it's actually an original idea or not depends on nuances of the space, that most people aren't use to talking about, unless they usually think of this sort of thing. So it's easy to be dismissive.
Can't agree with pg's advice about "A for B" construct. Maybe it does help faster communication (if accurate) in certain cases. But it's useless to pretend that a reasonably disinterested observer (i.e., not an investor trying to ride the boom-train to a quick exit without a profitable business) will not immediately mark you down for an unoriginal fast-follower.
Surprised to not see a mention of Samwer brothers.
astoundingly unoriginal
we’ll have to contend with the continued unoriginality of Silicon Valley
Who is we? As a customer of startups originality does not register on my radar when evaluating a product and language like "uber for" makes it easier for me to understand what the product is probably about.
A lot of original ideas-- perhaps most good original ideas-- are initially conceived of as x of/for y. Plus it is a good tactic, which we actively encourage, for startups to describe themselves in those terms initially. It may not describe a startup perfectly, but it's the the most information you can convey in one sentence.
Airbnb itself described itself as "Ebay for space" during YC. Viaweb was "the Microsoft Word of Ecommerce." When we first thought of the idea of a web app, we thought of it (not merely described it, but thought of it) as using the browser as an xterm.
I should write an essay about this. This misconception is like some unkillable zombie idea.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/technology...