If a product is good and investors are convinced it has a market, they'll invest. Otherwise I'll need to move on to something more compelling. That's no reason not to try. Insisting on an identified market before starting on something would eradicate a whole lot of University research.

Because a great product is not the same thing as a great company. Investors don't invest in a good product, they invest in great people. Look at any VC or angel webpage and you'll see what I mean. Here is a quote from YC: "The people in your group are what matter most to us"

And btw. University research is for finding out how the world works, business is about making money. There is a big difference between the two.

How are they quantifying great people if they are new? School? GPA? Fraternity? What is this VC metric based upon?

How can you not judge a founder based upon the product of their efforts if it is not good?

That's all :-)

The business world is littered with great products with no markets. And, as dot bomb showed us, investors don't have a clue. My advice would be to arm yourself with market knowledge, and not rely on investors.

>Insisting on an identified market before starting on something would eradicate a whole lot of University research.

That's why a whole lot of University research gets grants from taxpayers - nobody is willing to fork over any dough for most of it.

Seriously, are you trolling?