Very very interesting thread! I think a lot of what has been stated in this thread holds true for web applications also. I am currently developing my own web app that I think has the potential to turn viral but I am under no illusions that it will actually become successful and I’m simply developing it to show what I’m capable of to potential employers but Ill put it out there and tie it in with Facebooks and see what happens....
Incredible idea but no programming skills. What would you do?
- Thread starter GordyR
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
This is how a lot of people actually start to become rich. Just a hobby that gets out of hand
PS good luck to the OP. Make sure you don't tell people what your idea is, otherwise it's game over....
Just one point. I know you are concerned about NDAs and people stealing your idea, but if you are going to invest money into this then please don't fall into the trap of thinking you have a fantastic idea without assessing the potential market first.
This doesn't mean making up numbers based on how many people you think are going to buy it, but actually asking people if they would have a need for it. I have had loads of ideas which I thought would revolutionise various things, but it's only worth following ideas up if other people think it's a good idea. Since these are the people who will be buying.
I agree that it's a tricky trade off. But I strongly advise to research the market before you begin and asking people what they think.
Don't ask about it on a computing or technical forum (or any public forum at all!), but just begin by asking non-technical people you know and already have iPhones and use facebook what they think. The vast majority of non-technical people just won't attempt to copy it. Everyday people just don't do that.
Oh, also the Buisness of Software forum on JoelOnSoftware is a pretty good place to talk about this type of thing - http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/?biz
This doesn't mean making up numbers based on how many people you think are going to buy it, but actually asking people if they would have a need for it. I have had loads of ideas which I thought would revolutionise various things, but it's only worth following ideas up if other people think it's a good idea. Since these are the people who will be buying.
I agree that it's a tricky trade off. But I strongly advise to research the market before you begin and asking people what they think.
Don't ask about it on a computing or technical forum (or any public forum at all!), but just begin by asking non-technical people you know and already have iPhones and use facebook what they think. The vast majority of non-technical people just won't attempt to copy it. Everyday people just don't do that.
Oh, also the Buisness of Software forum on JoelOnSoftware is a pretty good place to talk about this type of thing - http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/?biz
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 5,038
Op I am very happy that you have had a brainwave, please for your own sake keep it very close to your chest!
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,032
- Location
- A box in the Astral Plane
I can barely comprehend that you "had a dream" about this idea. I can never ever remember my dreams. Maybe I've thought of something huge too and forgotten about it 
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Dragon's Den. 
On second thought, it would be the worse idea ever
On second thought, it would be the worse idea ever
I can barely comprehend that you "had a dream" about this idea. I can never ever remember my dreams. Maybe I've thought of something huge too and forgotten about it
I've gone to sleep having had a problem in some code i've been working on, had a dream on how to fix it, woken up, fixed it, and then gone back to sleep before now
Sleep and dreaming is where some of my best coding gets done. It's just a shame that when I wake I then have to go type it all out
Personally I would not bother with "patents". If someone wants to copy your idea then they will find a way to do so. Your best option is to find a co-founder that can code and code damn well. Then go in to business with a nice 50% stake.
I'm slightly stunned how the words "RAD", "agile" and "waterfall" have creeped their way into this thread. They have no place here. Get the product out there as a v1.0 prototype. If there is a clear interest then you can invest more time and money into actually doing things correctly, from a software engineering perspective, if you decide to do so. Lastly, I would add that most iPhone, Android etc apps have very small codebases that just one (true) programmer should be able to maintain.
Personally I would not bother with "patents". If someone wants to copy your idea then they will find a way to do so. Your best option is to find a co-founder that can code and code damn well. Then go in to business with a nice 50% stake.
I'm slightly stunned how the words "RAD", "agile" and "waterfall" have creeped their way into this thread. They have no place here. Get the product out there as a v1.0 prototype. If there is a clear interest then you can invest more time and money into actually doing things correctly, from a software engineering perspective, if you decide to do so. Lastly, I would add that most iPhone, Android etc apps have very small codebases that just one (true) programmer should be able to maintain.
Thought this idea myself, good luck with it and keep us updated.
This is sensible, but only up to a point.
Your average computer user is terrible at predicting what software they will want to use in the future.
If you'd asked the average computer user, 6 years ago, if they would be interested in publishing 140 character messages on a shared website, I think you would have been laughed at. And yet, in 2011, Twitter is everywhere.
I was thinking exactly along these lines.
I would get at least a prototype completed, then test the waters. If things are beginning to take off or investors are weighing in, then you have the money to spend on world wide patents.
What is the point of spending £10k on a patent and when somebody copies your idea, you don't have enough funds to take the "cheaters" to court?
Or worse still, you spend £10k on the patent, you release the program and nobody buys it?
I myself, am working on a complicated project, but before I spend money on patents, i need to see if it gets commercial acceptance and is able to make money.
What? Are you deliberately talking out of your rear-end? How this project gets managed is of the utmost importance. If GordyR invests with a poorly managed developer/team, it will only waste his time and money. Avoiding "waterfall" and going for an agile development process will immeasurably reduce this risk - remember, constant and immediate feedback.
Also prototyping in software engineering is a fallacy. Whatever it is you churn out will be your first version. A prototype implies you'll throw it away - this never happens.
And even Android/iPhone apps need proper development. It isn't one person that develops the Facebook apps on mobiles, it isn't one person who develops BBC/Sky news apps, and same for all top apps.
I think that when many people talk about (software) prototypes, they mean the beta (or even alpha) version of the first version of the software.
I don't think what anyone is suggesting is creating a prototype and then completely throwing it in the bin and creating the retail version of the same program from scratch.
What Nathan is suggesting (and I agree), is to get a version produced. This doesnt have to be the uber polished retail candidate. Just a version which works and is able to show any investors or future partners/developers/testers what the program will actually do.
GordyR could
1. get this alpha (or prototype) version produced (on the cheap) and then see if there is any interested. He could follow this route; or
2. spend a lot of money on getting a full blown, polished, retail candidate, spend a lots of money on it and then have the program (possibly) fail.
Option1 would cost less to get it off the ground and it would allow him to test the water. Option2 would cost a heck of a lot more and if it fails, a lot money would've been wasted.
If he chooses option1 and the feedback is positive, he could then get investors on board (if he wants to); he can show any potential stakeholders that his program has a good chance of succeeding and can then have the full blown/expensive/polished retail candidate produced.
I don't think what anyone is suggesting is creating a prototype and then completely throwing it in the bin and creating the retail version of the same program from scratch.
What Nathan is suggesting (and I agree), is to get a version produced. This doesnt have to be the uber polished retail candidate. Just a version which works and is able to show any investors or future partners/developers/testers what the program will actually do.
GordyR could
1. get this alpha (or prototype) version produced (on the cheap) and then see if there is any interested. He could follow this route; or
2. spend a lot of money on getting a full blown, polished, retail candidate, spend a lots of money on it and then have the program (possibly) fail.
Option1 would cost less to get it off the ground and it would allow him to test the water. Option2 would cost a heck of a lot more and if it fails, a lot money would've been wasted.
If he chooses option1 and the feedback is positive, he could then get investors on board (if he wants to); he can show any potential stakeholders that his program has a good chance of succeeding and can then have the full blown/expensive/polished retail candidate produced.
Most iPhone/Android apps can be developed in the space of a month by one man. Technically one could develop such an app without necessarily feeling the need for version control, let alone any form of project management... Without knowing more details of the concept it's impossible to say for sure.
Waterfall is a fallacy. It doesn't exist. The guy that defined it did so as a counter-example of how projects aren't managed. Companies that "claim" to practice it are too naive to realise that every time they fix a bug without revisiting "Requirements" they're subverting their methodology. Throw-away prototyping however is used the world over, every day, for real. I'm not proposing the OP does that. The word prototype in his case is more in reference of the fact that he is testing the market as well.
The smartphone "apps" industry today reminds me very much of the "shareware" industry from the 1990's. I know how the shareware business works quite well because I was in it. Something I learnt is that getting a v1.0 out there early is the most important thing you can do. It doesn't matter how crummy it might be, or that it has no documentation or flashy website. All that can be sorted out later. The key thing is to get people using it. Get their feedback. And a cycle will build where their enthusiasm infects you as the product owner/developer, and you become more and more willing to invest time in it. There will (or possibly not!) come a point where it is clear that the product will be successful if X, Y and Z features/improvements are made. And then you have your v2.0. This is the prerequisite and generally the first step in achieving meaningful agility in software development. Automated build, deployment, tests, are important but not this important. They would be on the second tier of some form of Maslow pyramid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.
PS: Sort out the attitude. That's no way to talk to someone on a web forum.
Last edited:
Or option 3, get it done by an agile team and have his first version as quickly as hacking up some dodgy prototype
Agile developers are very used to having to develop what a lot of people consider "prototypes" .. think of the XP principle: Only do what is absolutely necessary, and nothing more.
NathanE, then you'll also remember that 95%+ of the shareware industry was a load of cobblers filled with poorly designed and poorly written software. Same for iPhone apps - GordyR won't want to be the owner of one of those that fall in that category.
Actually waterfall does exist. It's a phrase coined to describe a project process/life cycle that crashes to the ground at the end. Winston Royce wrote a book on managing projects, and described waterfall (though not by name) in the first half of what not to do. The US Military documented this process and implemented it, then big corporations copied.
Last edited:
Or option 3, get it done by an agile team and have his first version as quickly as hacking up some dodgy prototype
Surely though, using option3 would cost a lot more, than creating a dodgy prototype?
The whole point of creating the dodgy prototype is that generally it is done very quickly, is not polished and is done on the cheap.
If you had significant funding behind you, or are perhaps a medium-large company, you can certainly invest the time/money in creating version1, which is a fully polished product, but if we are talking about a 1 man band operation (as is the case with GordyR), then it might be wise to test the waters first, with the cheap/dodgy prototype. If the feedback is positive and you think your application has legs to run on, then invest a little more money and get the original prototype rewritten or developed further, into the fully polished version.
Last edited:
Albeit there are successful one man band applications out there, trainyard is one, i've talked to the guy(meet him on reddit, hackernews etc). Trainyard overtook angry birds for awhile =P
I have a few apps, i don't need to work, i'm funding my masters now. I've never had any in the top apps though.
I have a few apps, i don't need to work, i'm funding my masters now. I've never had any in the top apps though.
Last edited:
Many original ideas stem from one man band operations, which later, either become larger operations (read: companies) or get bought by a larger company.
What is being discussed here is that if you have a person (say GordyR), who has no programming skills, should he go all-out and hire a team to produce his software to a high standard, from the get-go OR should he get the job done by hiring a freelancer and get a quick/dirty prototype released, so that he can test the water, before creating the full blown, polished version produced.
I prefer the later idea, if only because the former idea has a significant amount of extra cost attached to it. What if the idea fails? At least by testing the water, you can check to see if the idea has a genuine merit, before committing large sums of money to it.
I assume that the train-yard creator is a programmer and did the programming himself?
Out of interest, what are you studying?