Agree very much with this article - this is probably <i>the</i> most common problem I see when founders try to pitch me their ideas and getting me involved.<p>They have some domain expertise, and they've let that convince them that they know <i>exactly</i> what needs to be built. They've slaved over designs, they've painstakingly considered all the angles they think matter, and they've been operating on pure hypotheticals for months on end.<p>The reality is that, should you prevail and be successful, your product will only loosely resemble what you're envisioning right now. I am frequently frustrated - even by experienced technologists - whose "MVPs" are the size of the moon, and they regard validation as being only applicable to details, not the core of their concept.<p>As someone once said, "no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy".
Obviously getting posted five hours ago was the wrong time:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931889" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931889</a><p>Three points, no comments. This repeat already has 7 points - let's see how much better it does.
medium.com - better than tedium, but not by much.<p>Perhaps this is overly harsh, but all these superficially insightful posts in font-size: 300 strike me as rather narcissistic.
I'm in the midst of reading this:<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976470705" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976470705</a><p>and while it's a bit "corporate", many of the concepts presented there are dead-on.
I agree with everything there, however this popped out at me and I've gotta say I disagree using 2 days as a metric to judge the feasibility of a product.