Latest / The Innovation Philosophie Podcast / The Economics of Originality: Why Markets Reward Predictability Over Radical Ideas

Transcript

The Economics of Originality: Why Markets Reward Predictability Over Radical Ideas · The Innovation Philosophie Podcast

• speaker-0: If you're thinking about new ideas, then from a business perspective, from a leadership perspective, from a founder's perspective, you need then to provide an avenue of a problem-solving accent of a solution that is not coming in from the same kind of formulas and framework. So really. In the conversation today, we are gonna talk about how practical it is to think innovatively. speaker-1: Hello and welcome to the Innovation Philosophy Podcast, the show where we look at the economics of innovation and the conditions that produce genuinely new ideas. I'm one of your hosts and media manager at Innovation Philosophy, Nathan Rearden, and I'm joined by my co-host and founder, Pat Vilasaran. Today we are talking about the economics of originality. We like to believe that money naturally flows toward the boldest, most groundbreaking ideas. But if you look closely at where the money actually goes, a very different picture emerges. The market doesn't love the unknown, it loves predictability. The most radical ideas are rejected simply because they don't fit into a 10-year fund model or a quarterly earnings call. We're going to be looking at why markets systematically underfund genuinely new ideas. So my first question has to be, how practical is it to think innovatively? speaker-0: Is the best question, Nathan. And for those who are listening in on the Innovation Philosophy podcast, welcome, warmest welcome to you guys. For the founders, the CEOs who are going to be joining us today, thank you so much because we have a very, very deep mission here at the Innovation Philosophy team to make sure that we're shaping the right kind of perspective for the founders who are about to shape the future of the economy. That's how massive the responsibility is. For founders to be able to think differently and innovatively. Basically the whole theme of this entire freaking podcast is that. And I do love that question, Nathan, because we can talk about economics all day long. We can Bloomberg the entire thing and the the biggest numbers around the economics of investment and the disparity even on investing on men and women, but but that that's not the conversation for today. Conversation is Hm, if we reframe that, how practical is it to approach things from the boldest, most innovative perspective? Yeah. And the answer is quite simple. It is the fastest way to do three things. It is the fastest way to do three things. Number one, break the market. If you're copying every single format there is, it's the same CRM, it's the same features and functionality, but we made it a bit faster. Yeah. You will be on the market pie chart. You will be covering some. aspect of the market, but you will not do it fast enough to break an industry. That's a different conversation. That's a different that's a whole different game right there. And the reason for those who are listening, the reason why you are here is you're probably one of the rebels like us. Because we you want to be able to think differently. That's the reason you're here. That is the reason why you're listening into this podcast, not to find another marketing strategy. You've already got that pinned down. The question then now is how what how do Do I train my mind so I can find opportunities to solve this business problem? And so if you're building a startup and your only goal is to be a part of that pie chart, amazing. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. That's a business model. That's a cohesive business. There's so many startups that are getting funded from that ethos and theory. But breaking an industry takes boldness and courage. Breaking an industry takes boldness and courage. That's number one. That's that's the fastest thing. Because we're talking about practicality, right? If you go into the CRM functionality optimization route, you're gonna be in the industry. But you're gonna be in the game. So I had just a another conversation. You're gonna be in the game for about 10 years before you. shift something out. So I had a conversation just literally just yesterday with an amazing CRM platform. And they have been in the they have been acquired by a marketing agency and they have been in the business for what, 17 years, Nathan? They have been in the business for 17 years. And their whole ethos is to fight the biggest, we're not naming the names, but their their their whole ethos is to fight and provide a more accessible value, high value proposition, pricing points, all of these integrations in against the biggest platforms in the market, against the biggest CRMs out there, publicly traded CRMs. There's so many of them. They are successful. They are. They are successful. They were acquired. That's how successful they are. They've grown the team to what? 300% for now. Amazing. Again, you can do business like this, but that's not the point of innovation philosophy. But it took them 17 years, Nasing. If we reverse engineer that into I wanna break the industry, right? It is always about asking the top level questions first before execution comes in. Because for this business model, what happened is how are we gonna make things affordable and how are we gonna make things accessible with on par quality? On par almost, almost on par quality to the big names. Right. And so if that is the big level question, Nathan, you will arrive to a solution, you will arrive to an answer, you will acquire customers. Yes, for sure. Because there's It's it's a whole economy. There will be an audience for this. There will be an audience that's gonna gun into the just a pricing proposition. Everyone needs to save money. Everyone needs to save on like operating expenses, for sure. But it took them seventeen years. To play in the game 17. If, for example, if if this business took a took a an innovation philosophy kind of approach, right? We're kind of like signaling our culture in here, an impact mover kind of approach. How do you break that industry in? Then the question from seven years ago, then, from after a decade of experimenting, after a decade of building in that technology, that software would have been AI is now the next wave. Seven years ago. Because AI had existed. Like it was very poorly done, Nathan. Yeah. Seven years ago. It w it was so very poorly done. It can just create articles that can repeat the stuff in that sources around Google and then, you know, it is an article, really. Way back, it was just an article making thing. Just makes articles. So we don't have to pay writers to scale our SEO. Obviously, they're on the back end, they're developing this to what we're now seeing AI can do. But way back seven years, go back seven years, right? But if this business approach that, okay, the industry is shifting, the sales processes needs to shift to how can I be ahead of the game? How can I break that right now? So if it is a CRM and CRM is a tool for sales, right? Even at that point where the capacity of artificial intelligence and LLMs. I had another conversation with a guy yesterday that says it's not even artificial intelligence. This is a whole new conversation that we're gonna explore, but I'll just tap a little bit lightly into it. He said it's really not intelligence, it is LLM, which has merits, which has merit at this at this point. It's not yet intelligence, but yeah, we're treating it as a categorically. He's he's he has a point, but that's not the you know, the thing that we're gonna explore today. But if that was approached from this perspective, impact mover perspective, you've got that pinned down. How can I change the industry from a CRM perspective? You're gonna have to ask questions. It's really about asking questions. Execution founders are amazing at execution really. But if they had asked the question, we've already been building for 10 years, what does our data set show? This is a holistically kind of low mid market company offering for B2B. and you've got an upcoming technology around LLMs, artificial intelligence that can write articles then. The question then could have been. How does how does analysis for each conversation between salespeople and our target customer, how can that be improved with an LLM or an AI that comprises that whole data of the conversation? Optimizes that in based on how we customize the algorithm in and then equip, equip our salespeople to do better every single day. 1% improvement every single day. So, Nathan, if you take a look at this, this company has then moved from a CRM game to a sales culture tech game. They're no longer optimizing, right? They're no longer optimizing on, like, I have the features and functionalities. Let's keep the cost down. Let's make sure it's still a costing game for them at this point. But seven years back, they could have been the tool and the platform that all of the big sales teams, the top 1% sales teams in America, would be using because it's an intelligence platform for developing soft skills. speaker-1: Yes. Yeah. In this example then, the the company still has to survive ten years. Is that the is that the minimum sort of you have to be able to put yourself out there for ten years and survive and then start to think radically differently about how you're going to progress your product, your company? You can't start immediately and just go, Right. Right we're going to create this right now. Say this was seven years ago. We're gonna create this AI sales managing tool. Did they need to have that experience, that ten years experience of what the CRM world looked like? speaker-0: That's a good question. the answer is it depends on the industry, it depends on the founder, and it depends on the problem that you are trying to solve. However, if we take a look at the best, I would say, innovator in our century, Steve Jobs, Bill Taplin, right? In the beginning stages of the company, not necessarily beginning, it's in the middle, actually. They already are a massive company. They've already launched multiple different computers at that point. They had a computer called Lisa, which is a direct competitor with Windows, Nathan, at the time. And then the entire engineering team, the entire bulk of the engineering team works as a corporate kind of like like it's fixed this the same optimization problem. How are we gonna be better compared to Windows? How are we gonna be better compared to Windows? Whole engineering teams, whole set of engineering teams, a whole set, and I'm telling you, engineers are very expensive. The companies investing in engineering teams at scale. Nathan. Yeah. Companies. that company, Apple. They were trying to solve Lisa too. Cause right, Apple is known to be releasing new innovative features every almost every single year, every single two years. At that point, that was not really the culture, but they needed Lisa to exist. They speaker-1: Yeah. speaker-0: needed Lisa to exist. At that point, Apple already had like a very big corporate structure. It's not just Steve Jobs in the garage with Steve, his founding partner. It's not just two of them like, and then make a fast decision, right? They already have like stakeholders, multiple different managers, mid level, all of the levels, right? But what Jobs did was that he pulled in a very small group of creatives, design. engineer software hardware very small group and then he said this is the most important thing I don't care about the Lisa thing. I don't care. And if you're gonna look at his biography really, he was quite harsh. To put it plainly and this is gonna be an explicit kind of episode he would he would be i it it's a it's a paraphrasing of the attitude he was like fuck the Lisa team I don't fucking care if that's like bringing in ninety percent of our revenue. That's how important Lisa as a computer is, Nathan. It's ninety percent. Ninety percent, right? But today we're talking about the practicality of innovation. 90% of the freaking revenue of the company is coming from that product. The logical way, na thing, is to develop that product again, even further, because you already got an existing audience buying it. What what why do you have to write? This is this is my the stakeholders' face at the time. Why? You're the founder, you're the innovator, come back in here to Lisa to let's solve this together. We need you in here, right? 'Cause it's ninety percent of our money. It's 90% of our money. That should have been the logical, practical thing to do. But do you know what he did? speaker-1: What did he do? speaker-0: He said, Fuck it. speaker-1: Yeah. speaker-0: I don't know if like that's like if I remember I I don't think that he did, but it was that was the attitude of it. They tried to solve something. They tried and there were his his biography by Walterson was really, really good. But Jobs had failures too. Like I think I think I'm not sure if it's a two million or two billion kind of testing on a cube computer. He failed too drastically. But at the time, that's where really the bigger scalable shift of hop of Apple happened. Because if he had stuck in Lisa and stopped his like practicality around innovation, you wouldn't know Apple as you know right now. Because then it would just be an optimization game of how are we gonna make this better again next year? How are we gonna make this better again next year? What then he did was creates a whole new team that's gonna solve the problem around music. speaker-1: Right. A whole new product. speaker-0: Could you imagine? Could you imagine what that product was? speaker-1: HiPod. speaker-0: It is I've had. speaker-1: So we mentioned it last time. speaker-0: Practical yeah, that's how practical innovation is. Mm-hmm. speaker-1: That's again, that's quite easy. Well, maybe it's more difficult actually if you're talking about huge numbers like Apple would have been doing. If you're a if you're a smaller company, how speaker-0: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm. speaker-1: do you on the day to day manage to pivot from something that is providing ninety percent of what you've got coming in to creating something entirely new. What does that actually look like? speaker-0: I love that question. Thank you for pointing it that that way. Because again, we have founders who are going to be listening or are listening in here that has don't have that skill, don't have that kind of capability, don't have that leisure really in terms of like I need to shift my perspective and my focus in here. But founders, we have this massive responsibility to always look at all aspects of the business and to make sure that it's grounded on that 90% in. And so if that is ninety percent, you need to just find the right person to keep that ninety percent going. 'Cause they didn't cut that business off, Nathan. They were innovating, but the ninety percent is still functioning really, really, really well. speaker-1: Sure, yeah. speaker-0: So on a smaller scale, do not cut down the salesperson who's bringing in the 90% of the revenue. Keep that in as a structure, but develop the roadmap right now. Do not wait seven years until AI is fully developed before you can create an idea that the CRM apparently is going to be the AI intelligence for bringing in and improving sales teams' performance by what, 400% in three months? That's your technology. Let me buy that right now. speaker-1: So You need to have the building blocks, something that is gonna keep the lights on, keep everyone being paid, that will allow you to fund the innovation team at your company. speaker-0: Yes. It's not about funding the innovation team. It is about the whole company without and this is why even for structures, even for established firms, right? medical companies, med tech companies, everyone really, you have a division that's called research and development, RD. This is not really something that is quite new. However, research and development are usually treated as like An option. do you have an idea? I just have like I just need to make sure the safest way and the safest bet has already been kind of like simulated by your idea and your testing before I put the money in it. But again, we're just on the part one. Wanna break the industry as fast as you can? You cannot afford to be impractical about innovation thinking. Let's go to the number two. The practicality of innovative thinking is all about predicting the next five steps while those routes do not exist yet. speaker-1: So taking it back to a CRM company, it would be predicting where AI is going to be able to speaker-0: Let me take that back to Steve Jobs. Let me take that back to Steve Jobs, right? If he had stopped over there, the iPod is the core idea on all of our iPhones in the world. Yeah. They were a computer company. Yes. No iPhones. If he said he didn't say fuck that shit. No iPhones would have existed because he would have Dove Jobs is really smart, Nathan. He could have put all of his energies and problem solving in a Nexel sheet, understanding software and hardware integration. He did that too in his lifetime. However, however, right? He said, no, we need to fix this problem. We need to fix this. This is that five steps ahead, even though there are no clear pathways yet that people could see. It is the founder's job to create the pathway, Nathan, that nobody else fucking sees yet. speaker-1: Okay. Yeah. speaker-0: Because why? If we are the ones, if founder, founder, if you're listening right now, if we are the ones who build businesses and businesses then develop and shape economies and societies, now we're now we're all using iPhone. That's how powerful it is. That's how powerful it is, right? speaker-1: And it's basically become the standard every smartphone has music capabilities. speaker-0: One decision. That practicality of that decision. And so if we take a look at the point number two, which is five steps ahead, even if there's no pathway clear ahead, the reason why you're a freaking founder and you're listening to this is because you have the responsibility, because you have the capacity to take the biggest risks compared to normal human beings. speaker-1: Yes. speaker-0: And so there is no it's actually going to be counterproductive for you to follow a conventional path that's actually going to be impractical because you were not made as a risk taker to follow that paradigm. And so if your risk aversion has a higher capacity and tenacity for failure success, failure success, failure success, then it's your responsibility to create a five step ahead path that nobody else can see yet. And this is where this is why you've got VCs, this is got why you've got seed funding. This is why because the market knows that it's coming from the the next thing always comes from founders. speaker-1: But then how can something truly innovative no one else has created before? How can a market accurately price something like that? How can they get the money that they need and how can they convince To VCs to fund them when it's something so brand new. Is it just about people buying into the individual founder? Is it so like, you know, Steve Jobs could turn around and go, Look at look at my previous body of work, trust in me. Or would he still have had to have gone, this is what I'm seeing for the future? speaker-0: Right now there is a wide variety, and this is so exciting for every founder at this point, a wide variety in shape of VCs and angel investors, not just VCs, Ps, everything, all shapes and forms, right? There's so many, so many now avenues for you to try to get funding for your idea. However, I do not recommend founders to just, hey, I have an idea, I have a an MVP. minimum viable products, look at the website, look at the app. This is what we're trying to do, right? And just go at it. There is an there is merit to that. There are a lot of like incubators, startup incubators that are built to give me an idea, founder, give me something innovative, test things out, and then, you know, we'll see if we can get you funded. That that's a pathway. That is a pathway. That is probably the biggest market pathway right now for founders. However, however, again, I'm always on that 1% edge to push and challenge founders around innovation. And I was like, think a little bit more, think a little bit more. Because they would fund based on their belief on the founder, not necessarily historical data. Historical data adds value to it, but if the founder can show traction, proof of concept. What really is the gap in here that you're trying to solve and they see clarity and Nathan execution 'cause everyone's got ideas. speaker-1: Yeah. speaker-0: Everyone's like, I can solve the worlds. What have you done? What have you done in the past 30 days? That's like I did solve the world. If you have that in your structure as a startup, more people are gonna buy in. You don't it's really less convincing strategy at that point. Obviously, communication to VCs, all of these things come into play. But if you are just tenacious enough to push the idea, push it as long as you can and push it still, even if no one, nothing is moving, until you get a few buy-ins and you get that proof of concept, whether that is partnership, consumers buying into your idea, consumers buying into your product, it's easy for VCs to say yes. It is easy for VCs to say yes. So It's less of like what are the structures paths? Because that's not what we're trying to solve at innovation philosophy. speaker-1: Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. So we've had two parts so far. speaker-0: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Which is five steps ahead. The first one is the fastest pathway to bake to break the industry. Five steps ahead. Five steps ahead. And then the last is always going to be our messaging, an innovation philosophy, which is legacy building. speaker-1: In what in what way? In terms of having a lasting impact on an industry, on The world, on the people around you, all of the above. speaker-0: When we talk about legacy building and sustainability, because we talk about business architecture at large, right? At innovation philosophy. When we talk about that from that perspective and that concept, it is all of the above, but it is the longevity of the business and the impact of that specific business. So if we take a look at the biggest AI firms right now, open AI, right? Hold debacle around Open AI. Google is developing its own AI. And we we have we have very, very topsy big names. We've got Google, we've got open AI, and then we've got Claude, right? So Claude was a little bit behind when it comes to launching mass market because they had an intention to make sure they do right by the development of AI. While everyone else was just like, let's push this without thinking about the ethics of it. Let's push it without just all the pictures are coming in and then now you have kids on like pictures with all of these things. It's a whole thing. Because AI is so powerful, it can't do that. But Claude said, yes, we're still breaking the markets. Still br I'm still thinking five steps ahead. I'm still thinking five steps ahead. But I have to do it right because this is not a one year game. AI is shape is is shaping humanity. So I have to be very careful about what really, Nathan, is the foundational integrity values of what Claude is. Do you know that with Claude, and this has just only changed with Chat DBT? If you ask it to recreate, like for example, a contract, change the thing in this contract, it would not follow the prompt. What would you do? Because it would say that I It would say I'm not gonna do that. I would recommend for you to actually renegotiate that contract to the person you're you have that contract with. speaker-1: Okay. speaker-0: So if for example you have a PDF and like change the number in here so I can have the signature and like I have all these things. It would actually stop the prompt and say, like, I don't think that's in my capacity. speaker-1: Right. speaker-0: A few months ago, this is possible with OpenAI. On a few instances, maybe. Maybe they have done more iterations at this point. But there's a side by side comparison recently where this happened. And only since the recent version of Chat GPT that it had stopped that from happening. But before you can, you can change PDFs, you can change all these things in. Because there was no ethical layer on how the computer is processing everything. It wasn't taught that because what's the point? The point is the tokenization. The point is to acquire billions of users as fast as we can and to launch versions of this AI as fast as we can. It's all about the speed, which matters. But quad was intentional. So in the last two years, it was a very hard two years, but a really big push for quads. The big shift in their marketing, amazing marketing team, to be honest with you, was quads because they're they're trying to take a bigger pie chart with chat GPT. Chat GPT has a lifestyle of its own. Just like our iPhones, Chat GPT has then become like, what isn't the recipe for today? I have a heartbreak today. How can I how am I gonna deal with it? Like that, that's specific. That's specific. Yeah. There's an Andrew Garfield kind of movie coming out about this and that sp that's scary. That's so scary. Our lives are integrated with Chat GPT. That's how intimate the thing has been. People are solving depression through Chat GPT. speaker-1: Yes, yes. I know someone who's who's a therapist and they're saying, you know, a lot of people are a lot of people are using chat GPT. speaker-0: But Claude approached that from a longevity perspective and impact perspective. speaker-1: To what degree then when it comes to impact, it comes to longevity, where does responsibility fall into that? speaker-0: It has to be always then. It has to be always. Whatever the small problem you're trying to solve from within the company, it has to be always. Because if you again, for example, if we take a look at the Apple example here in this episode, it is if the culture is to think different. That's the whole theme of the entire it's an Apple university. They study this now. In Harvard, they have the whole thing. Think different. Two words, right? That's the whole ethos of it. Then that then becomes an application in every single thing that you do. It's like, for example, for us, Nathan. We have like, if it's not magical enough, don't do it. If it's not magical enough, we don't we don't that's not a choice for us, right? So every single firm or startup or company needs to be grounded with what really are they standing for, because then They get the right people, the right partners who are going to be on board with what they believe in. And then it's these people that scale that belief system in into every single marketing decision, every single sales decision, every single HR decision, every single part, every single revenue. Decision, every single budgeting decision. Do we focus on like spending the testing on RD and innovation on new products and new new lineups of like clothing and textile? Or do we do the same thing again? So when you are rooted in the foundational understanding of your mission and vision, right? Core values of it, the longevity. play is always in every single decision that is being done on a day to day basis. The the decision making then becomes binary. I know it's not simple always. It is not simple always. We have this book to kind of like help us out with Ray Dahlia's book is amazing around principles. It's not always a binary decision, but it will always come down to two options. Whether it is a big decision or a small decision, it always comes down to two options. And when you have the data to understand it, Right. And that's why we're still talking business architecture. We're not just talking about woo-woo ideas in here. You've got the data in, you've got the analysis in, you've put all of these things together. But there's this other aspect of like you've got to be bold enough then to make a decision or make a yeah, make a decision to go out and beyond of what we call quote unquote practical. Because at the end of the day, if you're if innovation thinking is really the most practical way to go about building big legacy scalable businesses. speaker-1: So if that's the case then Why does it seem like so many companies are optimising or going for safety, speed and sort of a ruthless efficiency rather than embracing a sort of messy, unpredictable environment required for original thought? speaker-0: It should be the balance of both or otherwise the the world would break. You need you need stability. You need stability. Yes. Societies need stability. They needs even for an let's mm let's put that a little bit more accessible as a concept. As human beings, we need routines. We can change the routines up to optimize our health, to be better human beings, to develop a better lifestyles for ourselves, to Read more, drink more water, be better, be better, right? But routines ground us. Without routines, we're just dilly dallying on wha what attention is grabbing our attention in a day. Is it four hours on Instagram and then four hours on the TV? What el what other destruction? So societies at large, we need the routines in, but that is why you n that is why we have this space in the internet innovation philosophy. Because you still need those pinks of outliers, Nathan, that allows us as a society, and that's why innovation philosophy is not for everybody. It is for innovators. It is for impact movers. speaker-1: So is it fair to say then that not everything can be innovation? We need for example, like you need a bottle of water to always be a bottle of water. You don't want someone speaker-0: Innovating on what? speaker-1: water taste like because they're speaker-0: Well there are there are in exciting innovations around water, so speaker-1: If I just want a bog standard bottle of water. I want the routine and the that's what I'm having. So there does need to be that speaker-0: You need that still. You need that. Not everything can be can be that. So if we take a look at Claude, for example, Chat GPT had still set the foundation of what AI can be. If ChatGPT didn't move enough for consumers to global consumers to adapt to it and really drop the price down, right, Claude would have to start from zero, introducing AI as a lifestyle choice. That's how hard it was going to be for Claude. Right. That was how hard it was going to be for quad. So there's this balance of cohesion of all of these things coming into play. And we want founders and CEOs in here to understand that yes, you don't always have to, you know, go to you you the practical way, as a founder, again, I'm just talking about the founders here, not the economy at large. Founders, that's the job really to innovate. That's our job. speaker-1: So is it fair to say then that there are levels to innovation that you can have a company come in, an AI company come in and they're they're doing A, B, and C, and you watch that, you witness it, and you go, right, we like how they're doing A and C, but B we think could be disastrous in the long run. We're gonna remove B, we're gonna add in our own elements and aspects. So so yeah, so there's there are levels to innovation. speaker-0: There are. You don't so let's take a look at this from an individual perspective again. Just so it's not super over complicated, it's not overly complex to consume. There are levels to dreams and goal setting, Nathan. speaker-1: Yes. speaker-0: If I say I want to earn one hundred pounds this week. 100 pounds this week. I would take tangible actions on how to get a hundred pounds. I might mow the lawn, my neighbor, ten pounds, ten of those things. I would be able to fix and get my goal. I would reach that milestone. I I'd wait tables. I'd do a part-time job, I'd do this. One hundred pounds this week, I'd be able to do that. Practical, logical. Pathway. I did that. Yeah. But if I said, but if I said I want to be able to earn in one year, my goal is to be able to have a recurring monthly income of 100,000 pounds. I would still mow the lawn. That's great, right? That's great. I would still mow the lawn because I need the survival thing to be happening still. I would mold along. But but you need to understand too that you set another goal for yourself that needs working within 12 months. And so outside of mowing the lawn, I'm hitting the other small ghosts. It's the same as the 9010 still, Nathan. It didn't drop the lawn mowing. That's still that feeds me. That's feeding me. So mow the lawn still. Founder, mow mow the lawn. Do it. Don't be like I quit I quit my job. And then I like you don't have anything to back it up because it's also kind of like a sanity thing. You need to get out of the survival mode to be able to kind of like. Top into creativity of innovation too. So mow, mow the lawn, but understands that while you are in a place still where innovation and that vision hasn't come to life, you need to build that background work while mowing the lawn. speaker-1: How do you balance Or maybe that's not the right way of phrasing it, but if you've got if you've got an idea speaker-0: Mm. speaker-1: and you are going for it and you bring something out and then other people can look at that idea and then they can innovate on that, how do you how do you judge when you should be like, Right, I'm gonna wait, see if someone else comes up with this idea and then I can innovate off of them? Rather than just going, I've got this, I'm gonna go for it and then everyone else comes along and just sort of p takes the best bits of your idea and adds it onto their own. speaker-0: The first option is never really an option for innovation thinking. Are you why while you're waiting for someone else to build your idea, then that's that becomes theirs. You're never waiting for someone to build your vision to come to life. If you're the founder, that's just part of the job. However, I want to how do you balance those two things? Because you're only human, like mowing the lawn and then building the entire thing in. Is all about capacity. And it's all about, hey, are you really committed to this? Do you really want this? Cause life could have been simple, Nazin. It's either I could mow the lawn and then maybe again hire somebody and now it's a lawn mowing company in the matter in the matter of like three years. Still amazing, right? But the reason why you, listener, are in here at innovation philosophy. So you want to innovate stuff. And so the demand then and the build and the capacity, I'm So sorry to say this, but really there is no it's not about the balance of like, I need a nine to five and then I need just you know, just working on this thing for two hours and then it's a balance of things and this and it's a bal everything balanced on a time scale perspective. No. Because again, sometimes we look at time as the measure of productivity when it's not. Sometimes when they're when our when we are on creative flow state, we finish way more. in one hour than just looking at a computer for eight. So it's a very it's a very different approach. However, as a founder, really, it's not about it's not about the balance. It is about the tenacity of how long you can go until the vision comes to life. Really no shortcut. Unfortunately so. Unfortunately, so there's no shortcut. You really have to do the groundwork of it until you are viciously tenacious enough to say, I've se I can see the vision now. Look at this, Nathan. We're we're doing the thing and then we're doing the thing. And then we did those three moves today. We're doing we're getting closer. That's the difference. speaker-1: So there really is no get rich get rich quick scheme when it comes to innovation. You've just got to you've just got to do it for the love of for the love of doing it. And I guess that's where speaker-0: I love doing it. speaker-1: impact and the longevity comes from. It it has to be something that means something to you, I guess. speaker-0: And you really also have to believe in it so much because the it's not it's not a motivation kind of thing. You can't wake up and say, I need to feel motivated to do this. If the mission and the vision is strong enough and it calls you to the core because it's important, Nathan, and it's gonna change people's freaking lives. And like for example, for Claude, their dimension of integrity and values is that this is gonna use AI to the right ethical path that it doesn't destroy society's moral values. We have to do it. speaker-1: It's a it's a calling. speaker-0: It is a calling. It is a calling. And for those listeners out there, thank you for for diving in into our conversation. As wacky as it is, but I wanna kind of like summarize this so we could pinpoint the most important things and why it is so practical to think speaker-1: That wraps up today's episode of Innovation Philosophy. You've got to break the industry, always think five steps forward, and it's all about impact and longevity. if you have any questions about anything we've covered today, send them to us at the Innovation Philosophy Instagram. See you next time, Impact Maker.