Am I the only one who feels this is the wrong question to be asking? Having the goal of "creating a startup" leading to the search for a problem seems backwards. Entrepreneurship happens (or should happen) as an _effect_ of the struggle to solve a problem.
A more charitable reading would be that "How to pick a startup" is the same thing as "How to pick a problem to solve." There are many problems one could solve and some guidance in picking which one can be useful.
However, I would question the idea that the only way to think is in terms of "problems." There are many valuable things people can do beyond solving problems. Solving problems takes care of our basic needs, and there's definitely something to be said about the relative importance of solving problems vs. doing other things (creating art, for example), especially if you want to "make the world a better place" (tm), but I feel it's still a bit limiting.
That's why I like the Y Combinator motto "Make something people want." Start from the want, not the "problem." Solving problems is just one of many things people want.
Yes, I think startup for the sake of startup can lead to all manner of bad ideas. It's the reason why you have a lot of companies solving things that aren't actually problems.
Are there many examples of startups for the sake of startups that succeeded?
I've known three people personally who created companies in an area they didn't really care about but they thought there was an opportunity and succeeded.
I've known a lot more that start companies in things they're passionate about (e.g. video games) and struggle.
The feel good mantra of our time is damaging. It certainly was to me.
I've met a couple of founders who started by searching various "segments" of the "on demand" economy and looking for a niche with little existing (highly visible) competing startups. Seriously these folks had zero experience in the industry and the solution they crafted was certainly not based on some personal experience. In one case they have been pretty successful :)
To be fair, I do feel like there is a certain population disingenuous founders who weave a backstory around the genesis of their startup...but the population, by my estimation is small.
I know of a ton of startups that were successful after pivoting to a completely different idea, such as Twitter and Reddit. Many companies don't start with a great idea, but they discover opportunities while trying to solve something completely different.
I agree. Lots of startups are created with this goal in mind. I have a tough time believing a lot of the popular ones are because of some inner calling, vision, or passion, despite the CEO press tidbits and about pages.
My view is you should always start with a problem that is significant to you, and solve it. I know that making a living is important, but if the problem applies to more than just you and you can charge actual money for it, I feel it is worth trying. The next question is if you can afford to take on such a risk, as it is a great one. This is substantially more risk than thinking of something to think of something because you want to run a company and/or make money. In the end, if you solve your own problem, you at least have that if you lose completely or go nowhere with it.
This of course is a rosy view and things like debt and moral responsibility to employees increase the cost of such a strategy. From an optimistic point of view, this is how I would hope people try to start their companies - with good, utilitarian intentions.
I for one am so tired of all the companies that are in search of a problem that does not need solving. I am also tired of all the cash given to companies that solve some problem, but don't meet the 2nd part of what I said - make money. If you can't tell me how your company will make money in 1 sentence, you have at best a hobby, not a real company. Unfortunately, we have a billion dollar industry of glorified hobbies.
I also feel the same about advertising-based funding, but that's another minefield and to some degree one could argue at least is necessary in some spaces - ex: TV, newspapers. Too many people use ads as a hand-waiving excuse to explain how they will make money.
Unfortunately, the cold-hard capitalistic view of things and use whatever advantages you can get. Sometimes this means screw the morals, passion, soul, ethics, etc. But you know it does work and some people convince themselves they are happy. Maybe they are, but for many of us like me, I seek more intellectual purity than financial glory (as much as I want the latter).
