Back

After dealing with this thought for so long I personally feel nothing wrong by going with an existing idea because today Indian market is on fire, anything would succeed if executed well. Even here on Medial people criticise a lot for having an existing idea but based on what I have researched so far is even though startups having an existing idea are getting decent funds and doing well in the market too now if you ask what to choose between an existing or an innovative idea, I would suggest that rather than listening to people, listen to yourself, see where *your satisfaction* lies and decide hence you can never go wrong with either of them if executed well.

Also you should read "zero to one" the best book on startups but everyone not use that things and do pseudo start-ups

Yeah now you have bring some good on the table because some many so called start-up are not startup rather a business, what startup basically is you just started something very quick and trying get pmf MVP stages very quickly with fast pace pivots, and iterations that's what's really startup is after a certain point MVP and pmf is reached and have strong revenue then it's a company not a startup. That's what I understand and makes more sense to me

It's all about implementation.

If a startup is merely copying existing ideas without adding significant value or innovation, it might not truly fit the definition of a startup.

As long as they address market needs creatively, they can still be considered startups.

Many successful startups build on existing ideas but introduce unique twists or improvements

Repetition doesn’t necessarily negate innovation.

Maybe in 2024 it’s very hard to come up with a completely idea.But yeah end to end copy is not good and we shouldn’t call them startups but for startups maybe everyone should have an usp. If you have a proper usp then we may call it startup but merely people say this is already happening after listening an idea but I think rather people should ask what is the usp

I have a startup idea