/网络词典/电子书阅读/Milk4Darren/装傻充愣/ >>所属分类 >> Start-up    保罗·格雷厄姆   

Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas(七个令人震惊的伟大创意)

标签: Paul Graham 保罗·格雷厄姆 Startup 创业 想法 Idea 创意 伟大 梦想

顶[2] 发表评论(0) 编辑词条

 March 2012


One of the more surprising things I've noticed while working on Y Combinator is how frightening the most ambitious startup ideas are. In this essay I'm going to demonstrate this phenomenon by describing some. Any one of them could make you a billionaire. That might sound like an attractive prospect, and yet when I describe these ideas you may notice you find yourself shrinking away from them.

Don't worry, it's not a sign of weakness. Arguably it's a sign of sanity. The biggest startup ideas are terrifying. And not just because they'd be a lot of work. The biggest ideas seem to threaten your identity: you wonder if you'd have enough ambition to carry them through.

There's a scene in Being John Malkovich where the nerdy hero encounters a very attractive, sophisticated woman. She says to him:
Here's the thing: If you ever got me, you wouldn't have a clue what to do with me.
That's what these ideas say to us.

This phenomenon is one of the most important things you can understand about startups. [1] You'd expect big startup ideas to be attractive, but actually they tend to repel you. And that has a bunch of consequences. It means these ideas are invisible to most people who try to think of startup ideas, because their subconscious filters them out. Even the most ambitious people are probably best off approaching them obliquely.

1. A New Search Engine

The best ideas are just on the right side of impossible. I don't know if this one is possible, but there are signs it might be. Making a new search engine means competing with Google, and recently I've noticed some cracks in their fortress.

The point when it became clear to me that Microsoft had lost their way was when they decided to get into the search business. That was not a natural move for Microsoft. They did it because they were afraid of Google, and Google was in the search business. But this meant (a) Google was now setting Microsoft's agenda, and (b) Microsoft's agenda consisted of stuff they weren't good at.

Microsoft : Google :: Google : Facebook.

That does not by itself mean there's room for a new search engine, but lately when using Google search I've found myself nostalgic for the old days, when Google was true to its own slightly aspy self. Google used to give me a page of the right answers, fast, with no clutter. Now the results seem inspired by the Scientologist principle that what's true is what's true for you. And the pages don't have the clean, sparse feel they used to. Google search results used to look like the output of a Unix utility. Now if I accidentally put the cursor in the wrong place, anything might happen.

The way to win here is to build the search engine all the hackers use. A search engine whose users consisted of the top 10,000 hackers and no one else would be in a very powerful position despite its small size, just as Google was when it was that search engine. And for the first time in over a decade the idea of switching seems thinkable to me.

Since anyone capable of starting this company is one of those 10,000 hackers, the route is at least straightforward: make the search engine you yourself want. Feel free to make it excessively hackerish. Make it really good for code search, for example. Would you like search queries to be Turing complete? Anything that gets you those 10,000 users is ipso facto good.

Don't worry if something you want to do will constrain you in the long term, because if you don't get that initial core of users, there won't be a long term. If you can just build something that you and your friends genuinely prefer to Google, you're already about 10% of the way to an IPO, just as Facebook was (though they probably didn't realize it) when they got all the Harvard undergrads.

2. Replace Email

Email was not designed to be used the way we use it now. Email is not a messaging protocol. It's a todo list. Or rather, my inbox is a todo list, and email is the way things get onto it. But it is a disastrously bad todo list.

I'm open to different types of solutions to this problem, but I suspect that tweaking the inbox is not enough, and that email has to be replaced with a new protocol. This new protocol should be a todo list protocol, not a messaging protocol, although there is a degenerate case where what someone wants you to do is: read the following text.

As a todo list protocol, the new protocol should give more power to the recipient than email does. I want there to be more restrictions on what someone can put on my todo list. And when someone can put something on my todo list, I want them to tell me more about what they want from me. Do they want me to do something beyond just reading some text? How important is it? (There obviously has to be some mechanism to prevent people from saying everything is important.) When does it have to be done?

This is one of those ideas that's like an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. On one hand, entrenched protocols are impossible to replace. On the other, it seems unlikely that people in 100 years will still be living in the same email hell we do now. And if email is going to get replaced eventually, why not now?

If you do it right, you may be able to avoid the usual chicken and egg problem new protocols face, because some of the most powerful people in the world will be among the first to switch to it. They're all at the mercy of email too.

Whatever you build, make it fast. GMail has become painfully slow.[2] If you made something no better than GMail, but fast, that alone would let you start to pull users away from GMail.

GMail is slow because Google can't afford to spend a lot on it. But people will pay for this. I'd have no problem paying $50 a month. Considering how much time I spend in email, it's kind of scary to think how much I'd be justified in paying. At least $1000 a month. If I spend several hours a day reading and writing email, that would be a cheap way to make my life better.

3. Replace Universities

People are all over this idea lately, and I think they're onto something. I'm reluctant to suggest that an institution that's been around for a millennium is finished just because of some mistakes they made in the last few decades, but certainly in the last few decades US universities seem to have been headed down the wrong path. One could do a lot better for a lot less money.

I don't think universities will disappear. They won't be replaced wholesale. They'll just lose the de facto monopoly on certain types of learning that they once had. There will be many different ways to learn different things, and some may look quite different from universities. Y Combinator itself is arguably one of them.

Learning is such a big problem that changing the way people do it will have a wave of secondary effects. For example, the name of the university one went to is treated by a lot of people (correctly or not) as a credential in its own right. If learning breaks up into many little pieces, credentialling may separate from it. There may even need to be replacements for campus social life (and oddly enough, YC even has aspects of that).

You could replace high schools too, but there you face bureaucratic obstacles that would slow down a startup. Universities seem the place to start.

4. Internet Drama

Hollywood has been slow to embrace the Internet. That was a mistake, because I think we can now call a winner in the race between delivery mechanisms, and it is the Internet, not cable.

A lot of the reason is the horribleness of cable clients, also known as TVs. Our family didn't wait for Apple TV. We hated our last TV so much that a few months ago we replaced it with an iMac bolted to the wall. It's a little inconvenient to control it with a wireless mouse, but the overall experience is much better than the nightmare UI we had to deal with before.

Some of the attention people currently devote to watching movies and TV can be stolen by things that seem completely unrelated, like social networking apps. More can be stolen by things that are a little more closely related, like games. But there will probably always remain some residual demand for conventional drama, where you sit passively and watch as a plot happens. So how do you deliver drama via the Internet? Whatever you make will have to be on a larger scale than Youtube clips. When people sit down to watch a show, they want to know what they're going to get: either part of a series with familiar characters, or a single longer "movie" whose basic premise they know in advance.

There are two ways delivery and payment could play out. Either some company like Netflix or Apple will be the app store for entertainment, and you'll reach audiences through them. Or the would-be app stores will be too overreaching, or too technically inflexible, and companies will arise to supply payment and streaming a la carte to the producers of drama. If that's the way things play out, there will also be a need for such infrastructure companies.

5. The Next Steve Jobs

I was talking recently to someone who knew Apple well, and I asked him if the people now running the company would be able to keep creating new things the way Apple had under Steve Jobs. His answer was simply "no." I already feared that would be the answer. I asked more to see how he'd qualify it. But he didn't qualify it at all. No, there will be no more great new stuff beyond whatever's currently in the pipeline. Apple's revenues may continue to rise for a long time, but as Microsoft shows, revenue is a lagging indicator in the technology business.

So if Apple's not going to make the next iPad, who is? None of the existing players. None of them are run by product visionaries, and empirically you can't seem to get those by hiring them. Empirically the way you get a product visionary as CEO is for him to found the company and not get fired. So the company that creates the next wave of hardware is probably going to have to be a startup.

I realize it sounds preposterously ambitious for a startup to try to become as big as Apple. But no more ambitious than it was for Apple to become as big as Apple, and they did it. Plus a startup taking on this problem now has an advantage the original Apple didn't: the example of Apple. Steve Jobs has shown us what's possible. That helps would-be successors both directly, as Roger Bannister did, by showing how much better you can do than people did before, and indirectly, as Augustus did, by lodging the idea in users' minds that a single person could unroll the future for them.[3]

Now Steve is gone there's a vacuum we can all feel. If a new company led boldly into the future of hardware, users would follow. The CEO of that company, the "next Steve Jobs," might not measure up to Steve Jobs. But he wouldn't have to. He'd just have to do a better job than Samsung and HP and Nokia, and that seems pretty doable.

6. Bring Back Moore's Law

The last 10 years have reminded us what Moore's Law actually says. Till about 2002 you could safely misinterpret it as promising that clock speeds would double every 18 months. Actually what it says is that circuit densities will double every 18 months. It used to seem pedantic to point that out. Not any more. Intel can no longer give us faster CPUs, just more of them.

This Moore's Law is not as good as the old one. Moore's Law used to mean that if your software was slow, all you had to do was wait, and the inexorable progress of hardware would solve your problems. Now if your software is slow you have to rewrite it to do more things in parallel, which is a lot more work than waiting.

It would be great if a startup could give us something of the old Moore's Law back, by writing software that could make a large number of CPUs look to the developer like one very fast CPU. There are several ways to approach this problem. The most ambitious is to try to do it automatically: to write a compiler that will parallelize our code for us. There's a name for this compiler,the sufficiently smart compiler, and it is a byword for impossibility. But is it really impossible? Is there no configuration of the bits in memory of a present day computer that is this compiler? If you really think so, you should try to prove it, because that would be an interesting result. And if it's not impossible but simply very hard, it might be worth trying to write it. The expected value would be high even if the chance of succeeding was low.

The reason the expected value is so high is web services. If you could write software that gave programmers the convenience of the way things were in the old days, you could offer it to them as a web service. And that would in turn mean that you got practically all the users.

Imagine there was another processor manufacturer that could still translate increased circuit densities into increased clock speeds. They'd take most of Intel's business. And since web services mean that no one sees their processors anymore, by writing the sufficiently smart compiler you could create a situation indistinguishable from you being that manufacturer, at least for the server market.

The least ambitious way of approaching the problem is to start from the other end, and offer programmers more parallelizable Lego blocks to build programs out of, like Hadoop and MapReduce. Then the programmer still does much of the work of optimization.

There's an intriguing middle ground where you build a semi-automatic weapon—where there's a human in the loop. You make something that looks to the user like the sufficiently smart compiler, but inside has people, using highly developed optimization tools to find and eliminate bottlenecks in users' programs. These people might be your employees, or you might create a marketplace for optimization.

An optimization marketplace would be a way to generate the sufficiently smart compiler piecemeal, because participants would immediately start writing bots. It would be a curious state of affairs if you could get to the point where everything could be done by bots, because then you'd have made the sufficiently smart compiler, but no one person would have a complete copy of it.

I realize how crazy all this sounds. In fact, what I like about this idea is all the different ways in which it's wrong. The whole idea of focusing on optimization is counter to the general trend in software development for the last several decades. Trying to write the sufficiently smart compiler is by definition a mistake. And even if it weren't, compilers are the sort of software that's supposed to be created by open source projects, not companies. Plus if this works it will deprive all the programmers who take pleasure in making multithreaded apps of so much amusing complexity. The forum troll I have by now internalized doesn't even know where to begin in raising objections to this project. Now that's what I call a startup idea.

7. Ongoing Diagnosis

But wait, here's another that could face even greater resistance: ongoing, automatic medical diagnosis.

One of my tricks for generating startup ideas is to imagine the ways in which we'll seem backward to future generations. And I'm pretty sure that to people 50 or 100 years in the future, it will seem barbaric that people in our era waited till they had symptoms to be diagnosed with conditions like heart disease and cancer.

For example, in 2004 Bill Clinton found he was feeling short of breath. Doctors discovered that several of his arteries were over 90% blocked and 3 days later he had a quadruple bypass. It seems reasonable to assume Bill Clinton has the best medical care available. And yet even he had to wait till his arteries were over 90% blocked to learn that the number was over 90%. Surely at some point in the future we'll know these numbers the way we now know something like our weight. Ditto for cancer. It will seem preposterous to future generations that we wait till patients have physical symptoms to be diagnosed with cancer. Cancer will show up on some sort of radar screen immediately.

(Of course, what shows up on the radar screen may be different from what we think of now as cancer. I wouldn't be surprised if at any given time we have ten or even hundreds of microcancers going at once, none of which normally amount to anything.)

A lot of the obstacles to ongoing diagnosis will come from the fact that it's going against the grain of the medical profession. The way medicine has always worked is that patients come to doctors with problems, and the doctors figure out what's wrong. A lot of doctors don't like the idea of going on the medical equivalent of what lawyers call a "fishing expedition," where you go looking for problems without knowing what you're looking for. They call the things that get discovered this way "incidentalomas," and they are something of a nuisance.

For example, a friend of mine once had her brain scanned as part of a study. She was horrified when the doctors running the study discovered what appeared to be a large tumor. After further testing, it turned out to be a harmless cyst. But it cost her a few days of terror. A lot of doctors worry that if you start scanning people with no symptoms, you'll get this on a giant scale: a huge number of false alarms that make patients panic and require expensive and perhaps even dangerous tests to resolve. But I think that's just an artifact of current limitations. If people were scanned all the time and we got better at deciding what was a real problem, my friend would have known about this cyst her whole life and known it was harmless, just as we do a birthmark.

There is room for a lot of startups here. In addition to the technical obstacles all startups face, and the bureaucratic obstacles all medical startups face, they'll be going against thousands of years of medical tradition. But it will happen, and it will be a great thing—so great that people in the future will feel as sorry for us as we do for the generations that lived before anaesthesia and antibiotics.

Tactics

Let me conclude with some tactical advice. If you want to take on a problem as big as the ones I've discussed, don't make a direct frontal attack on it. Don't say, for example, that you're going to replace email. If you do that you raise too many expectations. Your employees and investors will constantly be asking "are we there yet?" and you'll have an army of haters waiting to see you fail. Just say you're building todo-list software. That sounds harmless. People can notice you've replaced email when it's a fait accompli[4]

Empirically, the way to do really big things seems to be to start with deceptively small things. Want to dominate microcomputer software? Start by writing a Basic interpreter for a machine with a few thousand users. Want to make the universal web site? Start by building a site for Harvard undergrads to stalk one another.

Empirically, it's not just for other people that you need to start small. You need to for your own sake. Neither Bill Gates nor Mark Zuckerberg knew at first how big their companies were going to get. All they knew was that they were onto something. Maybe it's a bad idea to have really big ambitions initially, because the bigger your ambition, the longer it's going to take, and the further you project into the future, the more likely you'll get it wrong.

I think the way to use these big ideas is not to try to identify a precise point in the future and then ask yourself how to get from here to there, like the popular image of a visionary. You'll be better off if you operate like Columbus and just head in a general westerly direction. Don't try to construct the future like a building, because your current blueprint is almost certainly mistaken. Start with something you know works, and when you expand, expand westward.

The popular image of the visionary is someone with a clear view of the future, but empirically it may be better to have a blurry one.





Notes

[1] It's also one of the most important things VCs fail to understand about startups. Most expect founders to walk in with a clear plan for the future, and judge them based on that. Few consciously realize that in the biggest successes there is the least correlation between the initial plan and what the startup eventually becomes.

[2] This sentence originally read "GMail is painfully slow." Thanks to Paul Buchheit for the correction.

[3] Roger Bannister is famous as the first person to run a mile in under 4 minutes. But his world record only lasted 46 days. Once he showed it could be done, lots of others followed. Ten years later Jim Ryun ran a 3:59 mile as a high school junior.

[4] If you want to be the next Apple, maybe you don't even want to start with consumer electronics. Maybe at first you make something hackers use. Or you make something popular but apparently unimportant, like a headset or router. All you need is a bridgehead.

Thanks to Sam Altman, Trevor Blackwell, Paul Buchheit, Patrick Collison, Aaron Iba, Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris, Harj Taggar and Garry Tan for reading drafts of this.


via http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html



译文:

在我就职于Y Combinator时,那些令人震惊的伟大创意让我印象深刻。

在下面的文章中,我将列举几例;其中任何一个创意都能让你成为百万富翁,听起来确实会让人心向往之,当这些创意一一展现时,你或许会感到自惭形秽。

当然,并不是说你很弱,这种反应是正常的;通常一个伟大的创意,都会令人恐惧。

一方面它可能意味着繁重的工作量,同时,它还会影响你的自我认知:你可能会担心自己并没有足够的能力去实现它。

在Being John Malkovich中有这样一幕,那个书呆子主角遇见了那个迷人又充满智慧的女人,她对他说:

“ 你要知道,即使你得到了我,你也不知道接下来该怎么做。”

那些伟大创意对我们来说亦是如此。

这将是你对创意最重要的认知之一。你所认为的“创意”应该是引人入胜,而现实中它却让你退缩,并引发一系列的“后遗症”。

很多人对创意视而不见,他们的潜意识告诉他们要退避三舍;甚至有时那些向往成功的人们也会对创意敬而远之。

1. 新的搜索引擎

一个好的想法往往与“不可能”只有一步之差。制作一个新的搜索引擎并与谷歌竞争—我不知道这是不是一个好的想法,或许是的。

当微软公司决定进军搜索引擎时,我想他们应该是迷路了。他们只是担心敌不过谷歌,想在引擎领域打出一片新天地。但这只是告诉世人,微软在效仿谷歌,而投入到自身不擅长的项目中去了。

新的搜索引擎或许已经无法再超越谷歌,但近来我开始怀念谷歌的初期时代。

当时的谷歌只是纯粹且迅速地提供我所需要的正确信息,如今它变得教条化,搜索页面像大杂烩,有用无用的信息同时呈现。一不小心光标放错位置,任何事情都可能发生。

想要在搜索引擎行业傲视群雄,就要建立一个所有黑客都会使用的新引擎,排位前10,000的黑客们互相牵制,能力均衡,就像之前谷歌只是作为一个单纯的搜索引擎存在的时代。

那10,000名黑客中,任何一人都有能力创建这样一个公司,目标很简单:建立一个自己想要的引擎,使之共享,并不断完善。

这可能需要耗费较长的时间和较多精力,但不需要担心,如果你没能抓住最初的坚定用户,这又怎么可能成功呢?如果你成功建立了一个搜索引擎,并且你的朋友们更趋于使用它而不是谷歌,那么你已经踏上成功之路了,就像当年的Facebook吸引了所有哈佛学生。

2. Email革新

Email最开始并不是像我们现在这样使用的,其开发者的目的也不是如此。最初它只是作为一个备忘录而存在。我的收件箱就是一个备忘录,尽管使用效果很差。

我想获得不同的方法去解决这个问题,因为只是整理邮箱是不够的。我需要一个新软件来记录我每天的待办理事项。邮件更像是一个消息传递器:可能某些人需要你做的事情只是阅读这封邮件而已。

作为一个备忘录,它应该具有比Email更完善的功能;它能够对留言者进行删选和限制,我只需要知道留言者想让我做些什么事情,什么时候完成,而不是看邮件。

这个强烈需求面临着很大的阻碍,现有的一些软件暂时无法代替Email。而且可能再过一百年,人们还是会像现在一样使用Email。如果Email能够被代替,那还等什么呢?

现在开始开发的话,可以避免一些例如先有鸡还是先有蛋的老问题,很多人都会乐于使用这个新软件。

不管你要做什么,一定要抢占先机。Gmail的速度太慢;所以,如果你的项目与Gmail相似但比它速度快,那么极有可能将获得Gmail使用者的青睐。

Gmail之所以太慢,是谷歌无法投入太多,尽管人们并不介意为之每月支付50美元,包括我在内。对一个每天要花上好几小时使用邮箱的人来说,即使每月需至少支付1000 美元来改善邮箱的使用功能从而使得生活和工作更加顺利,也是值得的。

3. 大学教育革新

近年来,人们应该有意识到什么。虽然我不愿接受一个历史悠久的机构只是因为在过去几十年里犯过的些许错误就倒下的事实,但美国的一些大学似乎确实走向了一条错误的道路。

我不认为大学不会消失,它们是不可替代的;它们只是在某一些学习方式上失去独有地位。现在有很多不同的学习方式,其中不乏与大学教育大相径庭者。如Y Combinator。

改变人们固有的学习方式必然会带来一些副作用。比如,某人常去的大学将被许多其他人评论,不论正确与否,都是一种认证;如果学习被划分为很多小块,那么认证将被独立开来。或许将来的校园生活将被其他事物取代,Y C已经有此趋势了。

你也可以尝试去改变高中教育,但肯定会碰到体制的阻碍,改革的脚步必然因而放缓。大学教育似乎更适合做改革的先锋。

4. 互联网影视

好莱坞也开始与网络接轨,过去这被认为是一个错误的选择;但现在看来,在这场媒体传输战中,互联网是最后的赢家。

互联网网的胜出要归结于电视观众们,大家往往等不及电视台的更新速度;几个月前大家将电视机更换成iMac,尽管那个无线鼠标不是很容易操作,但整体的体验效果比电视机好太多了。

有些人会经常观看一些电影,电视机被许多其他无关的事物取代了,像是某个社交网络,或者是游戏。也有人会想看传统戏剧。要怎样通过网络来传输戏剧?人们在电脑前开始观看时,他们可以随意观看电视剧的某一集?或者是完整的一部电影?

以下是两种传输和支付方式。

一种是像Netflix或者和苹果一样,成为娱乐的App store;如果这些所谓的应用商店实在搞不定用户,那么就会有新的公司应运而生,为制作商提供支付和流媒体服务。如果这样的话,相应基础设施公司也会大有需求。

5. 下一个乔布斯

我问过一些熟知苹果公司的人,没有了乔布斯,是否现任苹果领导人能够继续创造新的奇迹。他直接说“不可能”。我早就料到会是这个答案了。当我继续追问他这样认为的理由,他却说不出来。是的,再也不会有更精彩的创造。正如微软公司一样,苹果的业绩或许在一段时期内仍会上涨,但也意味着巅峰过后的没落即将开始。

所以,除了苹果公司,还有谁去开发新一代iPad呢?其他公司也不会再重复开发一个已经存在并有坚实基础的产品。掀起新的硬件浪潮的公司必将需要有新的创意。

创立与苹果媲美的公司—这听起来确实是个让人雄心勃勃的想法。尽管苹果很难超越,但新公司的优势在于有苹果这样的大品牌可以效仿。乔布斯已经让世人看到一切皆有可能,这给其他创业者提供了方向和信心:你可以比前人做的更好。

乔布斯的离世让其他创业者看到发展的空间,这时候如果有新的公司崛起,广大使用者将会趋之若鹜。这个新的CEO或许无法比拟乔布斯,但他也不需要与之相比;反之,他的公司只需要超过三星,惠普和诺基亚,而这并不难做到。

6. 摩尔定理的回归

过去的十年里,让我们认识了摩尔定理的内涵。直到2002年,我们仍以为它只是预言游戏执行速度每十八个月将会加快一倍。实际上,它指的是磁感应强度每十八个月将增加一倍。而因特网是无法再提供更快速度的CPU,只会有更多数量CPU出现而已。

现在的摩尔定理不如从前了。以前,当你的软件速度太慢时,你只能等,强大的硬件会帮你解决问题;而如今,一旦软件速度变慢,你需要重写,并完成一大堆繁琐的程序。

如果回归到旧摩尔定理就太好了,通过改写软件程序,让多个CPU像一个超速CPU一样运行。可以通过多个途径解决这个问题,最好的方法是自动生成一个编译器来运行自己的代码。这个编译器可称为“超级智能编译器”,“超级智能”是否就意味着不可能呢?如果你真的这样认为,你可以尝试去改进它,结果应该会很有趣。而且,如果这项工作只是很难而不是不可能,那就更值得去做。它的期望值将超过你的想象。

你可以通过网站给编程师们提供这项便利的服务,反过来说,你也吸引了所有的网站浏览者。

试想一下,有一个处理器制造商仍能够提供快速优质的CPU,他们将占据最有利的市场。而鉴于网站服务的优势,你可以与制造商区分开来,至少对于服务器市场来说是这样的。

有趣的是,你可以建立起一个人工参与的半自动编译器。表面看,这项工作是有超级智能编译器完成的,实际上是由人工加上高级优化工具在帮你处理问题。而参与其中的人员就是你的雇员,你则是优化库的创造者。

一个好的优化库将是超级智能编译器的最佳帮手,人们可以立即使用它进行编程。而只有你才拥有最完整的操作程序。

我已经意识到这些想法听起来是多么的疯狂。它们的产生源于过去几十年中软件行业的整体趋势的发展。我只是想在荆棘中找到一条出路。理论上来说,编写一个超级智能编译器是一个错误,就算这是正确的,编译器应该是属于开发性资源,而非隶属于某一个公司。我现在搜集到的所有信息还不具备开展这样一个项目的能力,因此,我才将它称为一个创意。

7. 实时诊疗

大家也不要忽略一个更大的阻力:持续的,自发的医疗诊断。

引发创意的其中一个手段就是,去想象我们将落后于下一代。我确信对于50甚至100年后的人们来说,当代人只有等到有了症状后,类似心脏病和癌症等疾病才能被确诊,这是多么愚昧。

举个例子,2004年Bill Clinton发觉自己呼吸不顺畅。医生们发现他的一些动脉有90%被堵塞;三天后他进行了动脉手术。这算是很成功的医疗案例了,尽管他也是在动脉被堵塞90%后才得知这个状况。未来的某天,我们或许能够像称体重一样简单地就了解到身体内部的状况,包括上面提到的癌症,用特定的医疗设备就可以检测出来。

对此的一大阻力将会是患者对医生的依赖,而患者经常容易病急乱投医。

我的一个朋友曾参与一项医学研究,她为此做了脑部扫描,当医生发现有一个大肿瘤时,她担忧了很久,尽管经过深层检测后,发现是良性肿瘤。很多医生担心在没有任何外部病症的情况下对病人进行扫描,会让病人恐慌并且造成大笔不必要的诊疗费用。在我看来,如果能经常进行身体扫描,人们才能更好地认识身体的各种症状,并区分什么是好什么是坏,避免不必要的担忧。

是的,创意层出不穷,人们还有很多创造的空间。尽管有技术障碍,甚至政府干预,创新还需要与上千年的传统相抗衡;尽管如此,创新是必然的趋势。

策略

最后让我来归纳一些战略性建议给大家。如果你想将以上任何一个想法付诸实践,请不要与现有模式产生正面冲突。请别说“我将革新Email的现状”,如此一来你的投资者和雇员们会不停地问“我们是否已经成功了?”同时有一堆人在等着看你一败涂地。你只需要告诉人们,你在设计一个新的备忘录软件,这听起来没那么锋芒毕现;当Email完全被你的软件所取代时,你已经成功了。

俗语说的好,千里之行始于足下。例如微软,例如Facebook。成功都是靠积累,没有人能一步登天。


为了更好的实现自己的理想,你需要像哥伦布一样坚定自己的方向。千万不要像建房子一样去规划自己的未来,因为你手上的蓝图或许是错误的。从你最熟悉的工作开始,然后扩展,再扩展。
你只是为了自己而努力,Bill Gates 和 Mark Zuckerberg都没预料到他们会拥有这么大的公司,他们只是觉得应该做点什么。或许太大的雄心壮志并不是好事,你付出了超出常人的努力,而结果可能是错误的。

最常见的所谓有远见的人,都是对未来有着清楚规划的;然而,或许一个模糊的憧憬会更加有效。

来源 http://tech.163.com/12/0312/22/7SEAB0RA00094L5O.html

附件列表


→如果您认为本词条还有待完善,请 编辑词条

上一篇iPod 简史 下一篇关于 Optioin(期权)的那些事

词条内容仅供参考,如果您需要解决具体问题
(尤其在法律、医学等领域),建议您咨询相关领域专业人士。
2

收藏到:  

词条信息

贪得无厌
贪得无厌
超级管理员
词条创建者 发短消息   

相关词条