Ahh... The title of this book makes a lot more sense now! Haha, I have heard a lot of this book before. LOVE the concept explained behind its core idea in this video. Thanks for sharing.
I think you should change frames so that the viewer will be easier to look at because it's hard to look at the screen 10 minutes straight at the same frame, I suggest you add a little bit of action. ( It's just my opinion )
Appreciate the feedback! We've mixed in a side-perspective in the past, but it felt very impersonal and it seemed to break the flow. The text and graphic frames are there to try to mix up the visuals, but maybe we can play around with some other ideas as well. Any suggestions?
I don't think one is better than the other. I think it's important to explore ideas from both books and then decide on the insights that are most applicable to what it is you want to do.
@@RickKettner but peter Thiel disagreed with the lean approach saying that you should have a clear vision of where are you going You should know the future is better and you should know why is that. He said that great companies are not built that way, like you iterate as you go, you should have an idea of where are you heading, and I think he's right. For example, Google, Airbnb, uber, they all are same the founders knew at the very beginning that what we're going to build, they didn't pivot and become sone random thing.
@@RickKettner there are definitely things that one can iterate on but the core idea remains the same. And same is true when you look at Clayton Christensen's work "Jobs to be done Theory"
@@AwaisPirzada34 - I get what you're saying, but IMHO it's never that clear cut and it pays to take all advice with a grain of salt and look for where it does and does not apply. Also, I think you'll find that companies like Google, Airbnb, and Uber did not have a very clear sense of what they were building (neither did Facebook or Amazon). I've read the backstory of all five in great detail (slightly less so for Airbnb, but have read a little), and I think there is a strong case to be made that they all followed Lean Startup-like methodologies of a kind. For example, Uber started strictly as a black car service for high-paying customers as told in Super Pumped by Mike Isaac. It wasn't until much later that they developed a strategy around replacing taxis with crowdsourced drivers (in part as a response to Lyft). Likewise, Google didn't have a clue how they would monetize their service early on. Initially, they just wanted to license the search technology to other companies. Adwords came much later and was never part of the original vision. In fact, the whole project started as a simple research project with no clear business goals. Amazon has been pure chaos since the beginning as told in The Everything Store by Brad Stone. It's widely considered the most "startup-like" of the giants and the path has been anything but clear. For what it's worth, I personally take Lean Startup concepts to be most practical. But, I take Zero To One to be a more inspirational and motivational message that helps prevent purely iterative thinking. While they seem to contradict on the surface (and Peter openly criticizes iteration at times), the ideas aren't so disconnected IMHO. More often than not, success involves a blending of the two styles. You need to be willing to take risks and avoid purely iterative thinking, but you also have to manage unknowns and look to validate core assumptions.
@@AwaisPirzada34 - After writing that long reply, I'm thinking I may do a video on this subject, aha. Any other thoughts or follow-up questions that I should aim to address?
