{"slug": "how-to-get-startup-ideas-in-2026-paul-graham-was-right-and-here-s-the-update", "title": "How to Get Startup Ideas in 2026 (Paul Graham Was Right, and Here's the Update)", "summary": "A developer revisits Paul Graham's classic essay 'How to Get Startup Ideas' with a 2025 update, arguing that AI tools have made building easier but choosing the right idea harder. The post emphasizes Graham's core insight that founders should look for problems they personally experience rather than trying to invent startup ideas, and warns that 'made-up' ideas like AI writing assistants for solopreneurs often fail the test of urgent demand.", "body_md": "Paul Graham wrote \"How to Get Startup Ideas\" over a decade ago. It's still the best thing ever written on the topic.\n\nBut a lot has changed since 2013 — especially for developers. AI tools have made it easier than ever to build something. That same ease has made it harder than ever to build the right something. The traps PG described have gotten deeper. The good paths have gotten more valuable.\n\nHere's my updated breakdown of his core ideas, with honest 2025 context added throughout.\n\nThe One Sentence That Changes Everything\n\nPG opens with this:\n\n\"The way to get startup ideas is not to try to think of startup ideas. It's to look for problems, preferably problems you have yourself.\"\n\nThis sounds obvious. It isn't. It contradicts almost everything the startup ecosystem encourages you to do.\n\nHackathons encourage you to think of ideas on demand. Accelerator applications ask you to pitch ideas. Twitter threads tell you to \"brainstorm startup ideas in your niche.\" Notion templates exist for \"idea generation sessions.\"\n\nAll of that is the wrong approach, according to PG. And based on what we've seen over the past decade, he's right.\n\nThe reason it's wrong is subtle but important: when you consciously try to generate startup ideas, you produce ideas that sound plausible but aren't. He calls these \"sitcom ideas\" — the kind a TV writer would invent for a character starting a company. Social network for pet owners. App for tracking restaurant wait times. A marketplace for Small Tech Startup Owners.\n\nThese ideas aren't obviously bad. That's exactly what makes them dangerous. You can waste months — even years — on an idea that was never real.\n\nWhy \"Made-Up\" Ideas Fail: The Pet Owner Trap\n\nPG's pet owner social network example is worth dwelling on because it describes a failure mode that's everywhere in 2025.\n\nThe logic seems solid on paper: millions of people have pets, many spend a lot on them, surely some percentage would use a dedicated community platform. Run the math, it looks like a real market.\n\nBut when you ask actual pet owners if they'd use it, they don't say no. They say \"yeah, maybe.\" And that's the tell.\n\n\"Maybe I could see using something like that\" is not a user. That reaction, summed across millions of people, produces zero daily active users. People are being polite, not honest. They don't want it urgently. They just can't immediately think of a reason to say no.\n\nIn 2025, this pattern shows up constantly in AI products. Replace \"social network for pet owners\" with \"AI writing assistant for Personal brands\" or \"AI-powered Writing for Solopreneurs.\" The same dynamic plays out: impressive demos, polite interest from potential users, and then flat retention curves after launch.\n\nThe test PG gives is sharp: who wants this right now, so much that they'll use a crappy version made by a two-person startup they've never heard of? If you can't name those people specifically, the idea probably isn't real.\n\nThe Well vs. The Pond: The Most Useful Mental Model in Startup Thinking\n\nThis is the most practically useful framework in the entire essay, and it's still underused.\n\nPG describes two shapes of demand:\n\nBroad and shallow (the pond): Many people are mildly interested. Your idea sounds appealing to a wide audience. But nobody needs it urgently.\n\nNarrow and deep (the well): A small number of people need it desperately. They would use a terrible version. They would pay for it on day one.\n\nAlmost every good startup idea is a well, not a pond.\n\nMicrosoft's first product — Basic for the Altair — had only a few thousand potential users. But those users were programming in machine code without it. They needed it badly.\n\nFacebook's first site was only for Harvard students. A few thousand people, but they were obsessed with it.\n\nStripe's early users were developers who were so frustrated with existing payment processing that they would have paid almost anything for something better.\n\nThe 2025 version of this: The best AI startup ideas right now aren't the ones with the broadest potential market. They're the ones where a specific group of people has a specific workflow that's genuinely broken, and AI can fix it in a way nothing else could. Narrow, deep, urgent. Not \"everyone who writes\" but \"contract lawyers who review 50-page NDAs every day.\"\n\nAsk yourself honestly: is my idea a well or a pond? Most ideas people are excited about are ponds.\n\nLive in the Future, Then Build What's Missing\n\nThis is the central prescription of the essay, and it's the hardest one to actually do.\n\nPG cites Paul Buchheit's line that people at the leading edge of a rapidly changing field \"live in the future.\" His own synthesis:\n\nLive in the future, then build what's missing.\n\nWhat this means practically: if you're genuinely at the frontier of something — using it daily, pushing its limits, running into its walls — you will notice gaps that other people don't see yet. Those gaps are startup ideas. You don't have to go looking for them. They find you.\n\nDropbox didn't start with Drew Houston thinking \"what's a good B2B SaaS idea?\" It started with him forgetting his USB drive and thinking \"this is absurd, files should just be everywhere.\" He was living in the reality where that was obviously missing.\n\nAirbnb didn't start with market research into the travel accommodation sector. It started with two designers who couldn't afford rent and had an air mattress and thought \"someone might pay to sleep on this.\"\n\nIn 2025, the most interesting \"live in the future\" positions are:\n\nBuilding with frontier AI models daily — not writing about them, but actually integrating them into real workflows and running into their real limitations\n\nOperating in industries that are 5-10 years behind software — legal, construction, agriculture, healthcare administration — where you encounter broken processes that software people haven't gotten to yet\n\nBeing at the intersection of two domains — PG notes this specifically: if you understand both programming and some other field deeply, you see opportunities that neither group alone can see\n\nThe point is: you can't shortcut your way to this. It requires actually being in the future, not reading about it.\n\nThe Verb Is \"Notice,\" Not \"Think Up\"\n\nOne of the most clarifying lines in the essay:\n\n\"The verb you want to be using with respect to startup ideas is not 'think up' but 'notice.'\"\n\nThis distinction matters enormously.\n\n\"Thinking up\" ideas is a conscious, effortful, top-down process. You sit down to generate. You brainstorm. You run through frameworks. The result is almost always ideas that fit the shape of ideas rather than ideas that fit real problems.\n\n\"Noticing\" is different. It's what happens when you're deep in some domain and you repeatedly run into the same friction. When you find yourself building a workaround for the fifth time. When you talk to people and they all describe the same pain. When something that should exist doesn't.\n\nThe best startup ideas almost always feel obvious in retrospect — but not because they were easy to see. Because once you were in the right position, they were hard to not see.\n\nPG's advice on how to get yourself into noticing mode:\n\nWork on hard problems driven by genuine curiosity\n\nKeep a second process running that notices gaps and anomalies in whatever you're doing\n\nPay attention to things that chafe — annoyances are often signals that you're brushing up against something real\n\nBuild things that seem interesting, even if they don't immediately seem like companies\n\nThis last one is important. Many of the best startup ideas started as side projects that \"just seemed cool.\" What you shouldn't do is pre-filter for \"is this a big company idea?\" Too early. That question kills good ideas before they have a chance to develop.\n\nTurn Off Two Filters You Don't Know You Have\n\nPG introduces two mental filters that prevent founders from seeing good ideas:\n\nThe Schlep Filter\n\nThis is the unconscious aversion to ideas that involve tedious, painful, or \"unsexy\" work. Stripe is his canonical example: thousands of developers knew how broken payment processing was. They all looked away, because dealing with payments seemed like a nightmare. So nobody built the obvious thing.\n\nThe schlep filter is especially strong for developers, because we prefer elegant solutions to messy real-world problems. We'd rather build a cool distributed system than deal with chargebacks and bank integrations.\n\nBut the schlep filter is often an illusion. The schlep that's keeping other people away from an idea is also keeping you away from competition. Stripe had comparatively easy user acquisition because no one else was trying.\n\nThe Unsexy Filter\n\nThis one keeps you from working on problems you find boring or distasteful. eCommerce seemed boring to the Viaweb founders (they built it anyway). Enterprise software seems boring to most developers. B2B SaaS for Hospitals doesn't feel like a startup story worth telling.\n\nBut unglamorous problems are often where the real money is, precisely because glamorous people avoid them.\n\nIn 2025, the strongest version of both filters is pointed at \"boring businesses\" — service businesses, regional markets, industries without a tech scene. These are exactly where AI can create disproportionate value, because the incumbents are weakest and the tools are newest. The founders who can turn off both filters and look honestly at what needs to be built — not what would make a good TechCrunch headline — have a real advantage right now.\n\nCompetition Is a Good Sign (Seriously)\n\nThis one is counterintuitive enough that it's worth stating directly.\n\nWhen you come up with a startup idea and find that someone else is already working on it, most people's reaction is to feel late. PG says this instinct is almost always wrong.\n\nA good idea should feel obvious — that's how you know you've found something real. And if it feels obvious to you, it should feel obvious to others too. Discovering a competitor usually means you're onto something.\n\nWhat actually kills startups is almost never competitors. It's building something nobody wants. Or running out of money before finding product-market fit. Or founder conflict. Competitors are way down the list.\n\nThe one exception: if a competitor has genuine lock-in (a network effect, proprietary data, exclusive contracts) that would prevent users from switching to you even if you were better. That's worth being careful about. But a competitor simply existing? That's validation.\n\nThe 2025 addendum: In AI especially, there's a temptation to look for \"white space\" — areas with no competitors — as a signal of opportunity. Often it's the opposite signal. No competitors usually means no market. A crowded market means demand is real; your job is just to do something importantly different.\n\nGoogle didn't avoid search because there were already search engines. They had a specific thesis about what everyone else was getting wrong.\n\nThe Recipe (When You Need an Idea Right Now)\n\nPG is honest that the organic method — living in the future, noticing gaps — is the best approach. But sometimes you need an idea now. Here's his practical recipe for that situation:\n\nLook for unmet needs, in this order:\n\nYour own problems — What frustrates you daily? What workaround do you use that shouldn't need to exist? What do you wish someone would build?\n\nProblems in your area of expertise — Not just \"I'm a developer so I'll build dev tools,\" but specifically: what friction do you personally encounter in your domain that has no good solution?\n\nOther people's explicit needs — Have honest conversations. Ask people what's tedious, broken, or missing in their work. Don't pitch ideas; just listen. What do they say they wish existed?\n\nIndustries that are dying or being disrupted — What's failing? Who's going to lose? And what kind of company would profit from that disruption? (Not a replacement, but something that comes in from the side.)\n\nWaves you can ride — What technology is improving on a Moore's Law-like curve right now? Gene sequencing, AI inference costs, battery density — what becomes possible in 3 years that's impossible today? Who gets hurt and who benefits?\n\nThe filter you need when using this approach:\n\nWhen you land on an idea consciously, be more skeptical than you would be with an organic idea. Organic ideas feel like inspirations. Consciously generated ideas can feel the same way — but more often than not, that feeling is misleading. The organic method has a built-in filter (you wouldn't notice something unless it was clearly missing). The conscious method doesn't. You have to supply the skepticism yourself.\n\nThe questions to ask every idea through:\n\nWho wants this right now?\n\nHow urgently do they want it?\n\nWould they use a bad version of it?\n\nIs there a path from this initial group to a larger market?\n\nWhat This Means for Developers in 2025\n\nMost developers I talk to are thinking about startup ideas in exactly the wrong way.\n\nThey're trying to find the right idea, then build. The right order is almost the opposite: do work that puts you in the right position, then notice what's missing.\n\nConcretely, that means:\n\nGo deep somewhere real. Pick a domain — not \"AI\" as an abstract category, but a specific industry or workflow — and spend real time in it. Use the tools. Talk to the people. Run into the walls. You're looking for problems you can feel, not problems you can describe from the outside.\n\nBuild things that interest you, even if they don't seem like startups. The side project you build to scratch your own itch is more likely to become a real company than the idea you dreamed up in a brainstorming session.\n\nTake the unsexy idea seriously. If an idea would make a good case study for a business school course on boring but profitable software companies — that's probably a better signal than if it would make a good TechCrunch launch post.\n\nStop worrying about being late. If you feel like someone else might build it first, that's a sign it's real. Move fast, but move because the problem is real, not because you're afraid of competition.\n\nPG ends the essay with a deceptively simple line:\n\nLive in the future and build what seems interesting.\n\nThat's still the recipe. Everything else is just commentary.\n\nThe original essay is at paulgraham.com — worth reading in full if you haven't. This post is my interpretation and update, not a summary.\n\nWhat's a problem you keep running into that nobody's solved well yet? Drop it in the comments — would love to hear what people are noticing.", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/how-to-get-startup-ideas-in-2026-paul-graham-was-right-and-here-s-the-update", "canonical_source": "https://dev.to/moeed_ul_hassan/how-to-get-startup-ideas-in-2025-paul-graham-was-right-and-heres-the-update-3l3k", "published_at": "2026-07-30 04:46:28+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-07-30 04:59:44.312375+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["ai-startups", "ai-products", "ai-tools", "developer-tools"], "entities": ["Paul Graham", "Microsoft", "Facebook", "Stripe"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/how-to-get-startup-ideas-in-2026-paul-graham-was-right-and-here-s-the-update", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/how-to-get-startup-ideas-in-2026-paul-graham-was-right-and-here-s-the-update.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/how-to-get-startup-ideas-in-2026-paul-graham-was-right-and-here-s-the-update.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/how-to-get-startup-ideas-in-2026-paul-graham-was-right-and-here-s-the-update.jsonld"}}