His

"#1: Be Narrow

"Focus on the smallest possible problem you could solve that would potentially be useful."

has

"You can much more easily position and market yourself when more focused. And when it comes to partnering, or being acquired, there's less chance for conflict."

Cute. Hadn't thought of that one.

For his

"#2: Be Different

"Ideas are in the air. There are lots of people thinking about—and probably working on—the same thing you are."

So he's saying to give up on trying for something really "different" and, thus, is contradicting his title for his #2.

That's once!

So his #2 is a bit 'confused' or 'mixed' in its message about being "different". The confusion continues with his:

"Second, see #1—the specialist will almost always kick the generalist's ass."

So, now he seems to be saying to be more specialized and, thus, "different". Okay.

That's twice.

Then he has:

"Third, consider doing something that's not so cutting edge."

where he seems to be back to being not so specialized or different.

That's three times he's 'flip-flopped'!

Here's my hot button issue about such lists:

Yes, it's true in maybe 99 44/100% (borrowed from the label of old Ivory soap) of the cases:

"There are lots of people thinking about—and probably working on—the same thing you are."

And two other things are true:

First, maybe 99 44/100% of information technology (IT) startups will never be worth over $1 billion.

Second, there are so many startups that have hardly better aim than blind shots in the dark that maybe over half of successful startups were such blind shots in the dark that just got lucky. Yes, between being smart and being lucky, being lucky is better. Sadly, we can't order up luck on demand. So, for an advantage we are stuck trying to be smart.

So, in trying to plan a successful startup, let's set aside luck.

Next, in trying to be worth, say, over $1 billion, we will be doing something quite rare. So the fact:

"There are lots of people thinking about—and probably working on—the same thing you are."

is not very impressive, compelling, or convincing for our planning.

That is, for our rare, desired success, we should notice the advantage of the old advice to:

(1) Pick a problem without a good solution and where a good solution would be very valuable. E.g., for a Web IT startup, provide something that hundreds of millions of people want and will like much better than anything else. In a biomedical analogy, have a one pill (safe and effective) cure for cancer.

(2) Construct this product or service with an 'unfair advantage', that is, some crucial, core 'secret sauce' that is the key to providing something "much better than anything else". In a biomedical analogy, use some work in biochemistry to construct a one pill cure for cancer.

(3) Have the 'secret sauce' be difficult to duplicate or equal. In a biomedical analogy, use some powerful, difficult, original, advanced work in biochemistry to construct a one pill cure for cancer.

So, when following (1)-(3), is it fair to say:

"There are lots of people thinking about—and probably working on—the same thing you are."

HECK NO!

(A) Are (1)-(3) commonly pursued in IT? No.

(B) Do (1)-(3) represent a major fraction of successful IT companies? No.

Do (A)-(B) mean that (1)-(3) should be ignored? NO!

Can (1)-(3) bring advantages? Should be obvious that they can.

Remember: The successful companies are heavily from luck, only a tiny fraction of startups can be worth over $1 billion, and the world keeps changing and moving on so that what most startups are doing and even what many successful startups did are not very good evidence for what to do to be worth over $1 billion!

There is one more hot button issue: There is advice, say, from Steve Blank, that we have to keep going back to the customer to confirm that the customer will like the product or service. But, for a safe, effective one pill cure for cancer, what do we ask the customer, what shape and color they want for the pill and what color they want on the pill bottle label?

So this importance of going back to the customer over and over means that the product or service being provided is less desirable than a one pill cure for cancer.

So, if possible, quit asking customers about what color they want in the pills and return to the work of constructing the one pill cure for cancer.

Can we get something like a one pill cure for cancer in IT? Hmm ...!