I'm currently working on a side project that I thought was not 'groundbreaking' but I felt was different. As time as passed and I'm still working on it, I've found many implementations of the same concept. Its not actually disheartening but I've since retooled this project to be more of a learning experience for myself (new technologies and such). Since there is nothing new under the sun, how does one deal with not actually having a brand new idea?
There are multiple types of "uniqueness". Two might be:<p><pre><code> 1. Individually unique, i.e. is this new *for you?*
2. Globally unique, i.e. is it new *for everyone?*
</code></pre>
But the only important one is uniqueness within your industry or stategic group (à la Michael Porter)<p>This is shown in studies that examine how designers reach "creative" solutions. If 10 people are given the same brief, half might propose the same idea, even though they each believe "it's unique" and "no-one else will think of this".<p>But that's not a bad thing! It's proof of progress with exploring the problem space. What was the core idea they're trying to fix? If you drop all your assumptions, what other solutions can you come up with?<p>"Creative" and "unique" ideas are <i>always</i> a synthesis of existing technologies or processes. What is stale in one industry may be unique in another, and vice versa.<p>Your customer segment wants to do something. Your product (whatever it is) will provide value insofar as it helps them achieve this "job". The more value, the better.<p>Consider the following equation:<p><pre><code> What + How = Value
</code></pre>
If you know your customers (and you should!), then you know what "value" they want. You just need to solve for the <i>what</i> and <i>how</i>.<p>Work with "frames". Fix a specific part – like "what" or "how" – and think about what can fill the gap.<p><pre><code> <Directory of dog walker contacts> + How = <Healthy dog>
What + <an app> = <Healthy Dog>
</code></pre>
This is a form of abductive reasoning. This is how we believe creative people optimise complex systems – there is a combinatorial explosion of possible solutions (when combining existing things), but this gives us a way to work through them.<p>This is overly simplified, but I hope it gives some direction!
It's quite alright to no have a 'brand new idea'. It's near impossible to have something that is a truly novel idea unless it's something that will be discovered or invented far out in the future.<p>The process of creation is what matters as much as the end creation. During the process, you have had a great learning experience. This will help you go on and build new ideas. In the end, almost everything in the world today is built by stacking on knowledge of the past.
One of the questions prospects ask us in meetings is "Company X does this with product Y" when we present our product and talk about a feature.<p>One question I ask back is: "What is your experience with product Y? Do you use it?"<p>The answer is invariably: "We don't use product Y." Many prospects tell us about products they don't use, and these prospects are in <i>pain</i> which would make you think that they'd use <i>anything</i> to relieve that pain but they don't.<p>That's an important point. Many implementations surely exist and people are aware of them, but these implementations do not obliterate an important, costly, problem to dust.<p>Does your implementation obliterate an important problem to dust?<p>I disagree that there's nothing new under the sun. Sure, components may be the same, but so is guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine, yet these components make so very different creatures.<p>I think your opinion is valuable, but getting more data is required: have you shown that project to your target audience? Do you have a simple use case. Just <i>one</i> thing that helps a user accomplish a task that would otherwise require time, skill, resources, or all of these? Talking with users is <i>educational</i> to say the least.<p>In the past, we used to spend months on a feature that would go un-noticed, and the prospect would stop us mid-presentation, call colleagues to the room, and ask us about a feature we hacked together in a few hours. Some things matter to you, others matter. An extreme view that is of course nuanced in real life, but it can move the project forward more than ignoring it does.
I built <a href="https://choremate.co" rel="nofollow">https://choremate.co</a> because we needed it ourselves and I couldn't, initially, find something similar. When I applied to YC I did more extensive research and found lots of past and current attempts.<p>My approach has novel insight but part of why I couldn't find competitors is because the market for coliving tools is weak.<p>I suspect (from this obviously limited anecdote) the problem with most ideas where competitors aren't apparent is that the market is weak. In such cases, the real competitive advantage is likely in finding a solution to the market weakness. Market might be weak because existing solutions aren't very good but in my case it's more complicated.<p>Past/current attempts/failures can give you a lot of valuable information about what doesn't work so learning about them gives you a smaller space to search for what will work.
I don't remember the source of these:<p>a) Few ideas are actually novel.<p>b) Someone else doing the same idea is validation of your idea.<p>c) The more time you spend actually developing your idea, the further ahead you will be of anyone else who has the same idea.
* Sometimes other things look similar but a small change you made to the idea is the novel part and makes a big difference<p>* Many, many ideas live in obscurity. If you can take one and learn how to execute it in a way that gets users, you've done something novel<p>* Creating is more frequently combining existing ideas into a new thing. There are infinite ways to weave together existing ideas into something new.