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?
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?
