When you stumble across an idea that's actually viable, it feels like "Oh, why has nobody else done this yet? I better get it out there before the competition eats my lunch." It's very likely that you're actually overestimating the threat of competition, but that's because you have domain knowledge that makes the key differentiators of your product obvious to you but inconceivable to other entrepreneurs.

From your perspective, the idea was obvious and different, and that's why people use your product. From an outside perspective, you entered a crowded market and won it by being better than everybody else. The difference is in the level of detail with which you know the market. If from your perspective it appears to be a crowded market and you just need to be better than everybody else, you probably aren't going to be able to build that better product.

That's a fair point. The key, I think, is understanding when a market is susceptible to entry by another player. But part of making that judgment is understanding the different dimensions along which you can compete, which is why I find The Discipline of Market Leaders so valuable. That was the first book I read that really made the case that it isn't necessarily just about your product. Likewise Crossing The Chasm makes a pretty good case that you can always (well, almost always) segment a market to a degree that there's a place where you can compete.

I’m sure there’s something in their diverse backgrounds that intersect in a way that solves a critical problem. For me, the thing that’s missing in their process is actually building a prototype and getting in front of a user to validate what they think they know.

I entered a huge market as a solo founder with no industry experience and now get about 1% of the traffic that the big players with thousands of employees get, and I make a very decent income from it.

There’s a well-known adage that “Having no competition may mean you have no market.” The corollary I’d add is that “Having competition doesn’t mean the market is full.”

Seen here: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-backblaze-got-started/

I think that trumps Parsons. That said, looking at ideas that "didn't work" can be a solid approach. That is, sometimes (for example) the idea was solid but the team failed. The market also changes and some ideas can be ahead of their time (and poorly executed).

I have a tremendous degree of regard for mcuban, and I think his advice has merit. But I wouldn't say either "trumps" the other. These pithy sayings are handy, but there's a lot of nuance to both of them (IMO) and the devil is in the details.

Should Google have decided not to pursue search because of Altavista, Dogpile, Magellan, Northern Light, Yahoo, and DMOZ? Should Facebook have eschewed social networking because of Friendster, Myspace, Livejournal, etc?

Sometime just being better than the other guys really is enough.

But I would counter with...Google wasn't a search company, but an advertising platform. And that's where is looked where others were not.

[0] https://www.cnet.com/news/overture-sues-google-over-search-p...

In terms of sales, GoDaddy is six times the size of the Dallas Mavericks business, and ~20 times the size Broadcast.com was before the dotcom bust.

But my sense is Cuban could do it again. Parsons benefitted from timing and is likely more of a one trick pony.

Yes, a great and lucrative trick. But still one trick :)

"In 1984, he founded Parsons Technology in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and began selling MoneyCounts, a home accounting program. In late 1987, Parsons was able to quit his job and focus completely on selling and overseeing growth of MoneyCounts. Eventually, Parsons Technology grew to be a 1,000-employee, privately held company. On September 27, 1994, Parsons completed the sale of Parsons Technology to Intuit, Inc. for $64 million."

Check out PXG.com

Lastly, if the main battle for a certain segment is over for more than a decade, the incumbents seem to get lazy if they continue dominating the market for too long. Look at eBay for example, or Linked.In - they have stopped innovating and basically get worse with every "Facelift", but there's still considerable demand with a lack of alternatives. It's a long shot, but possible with great execution.

There is not an SME on their team in any area where they see a problem to fix - they 'only' have money.

they need to augment their team with an SME in an area they are willing to fund

Then here is their next problem:

Who is willing to get behind this team given the statements - There is only one reality - a confident founder who can provide them the vision to build something - and they provide the funding and maybe the CFO... but they may overly think of themselves as "technical" and meddle in the running of such an enterprise - which means doom.

These guys should simply take their funds and invest - not found shit. they will fail and bring down too many people (their employees) if they try...