Evaluating App Ideas
This document explains how to evaluate whether an app idea is worth building before investing time and resources. It is based on guidance from Y Combinator and common early-stage startup failure patterns.Purpose
To help builders determine whether an idea has real user demand, a clear problem definition, and a realistic path to value.Core Principle
A strong app idea solves a real problem that the builder personally experiences, for a clearly defined group of users, in a way that creates urgency. Ideas that lack personal pain, specificity, or urgency are unlikely to succeed.Solve a Problem You Personally Experience
Y Combinator consistently advises founders to build products that solve their own problems. Building from personal experience provides the following advantages:- First-hand understanding of the problem
- Faster iteration without guessing user needs
- Higher long-term commitment to the project
Evaluation Questions
- Have you personally encountered this problem multiple times?
- Have you attempted to solve it manually or with workarounds?
- Would losing access to this solution be frustrating?
Identify and Avoid Tarpit Ideas
Tarpit ideas appear attractive but are structurally difficult to succeed with, especially for small teams.Common Tarpit Categories
- Social networks for a niche
- Marketplaces without an existing supply base
- General-purpose productivity tools
- “Uber for X” local service concepts
- Broad AI tools with no specific user or use case
Risks of Tarpit Ideas
- High competition and weak differentiation
- Slow or nonexistent early traction
- Heavy dependence on scale and marketing
Heuristic
If the idea can be summarized as “X for Y,” apply extra scrutiny.Prioritize Pain Over Novelty
Successful products address painful problems rather than novel or interesting ideas.Weak Indicators
- The idea sounds interesting, but non-essential
- Users describe it as “nice to have”
- There is no evidence of users searching for solutions
Strong Indicators
- Users complain about the problem regularly
- Existing solutions are expensive or inadequate
- Users actively search for workarounds
Evaluate Problem Frequency and Intensity
Problems with high value typically score high on frequency, intensity, or both.Frequency
How often does the problem occur?Intensity
How severe is the problem when it occurs? Problems with low frequency and low intensity are unlikely to support a product.Define a Specific Target User
A clear user definition is required for validation and product focus.Poor Definitions
- Everyone
- All creators
- Small businesses
- Anyone with a smartphone
Effective Definitions
- College students tracking daily calories
- Solo founders managing paid ads
- Developers rejected by app review processes
- Athletes preparing for competition
Motivation Check
Consider whether the idea would still be worth building without immediate monetization.Question
If the product could not generate revenue, would you still want to build it? A positive answer indicates intrinsic motivation and higher resilience.Early Validation Signals
Positive indicators may include:- Explaining the idea naturally without prompting
- Users expressing surprise that the product does not already exist
- Requests for early access
- Clear intuition about which features are unnecessary
Warning Signs
Indicators that an idea may be weak:- Reliance on pitch decks to explain value
- Assumptions of viral growth without evidence
- Inability to name a first user
- Avoidance of early shipping
Short Validation Process
Before committing significant effort:- Build a minimal version with limited features
- Share it with a small group of target users
- Ask only the following:
- Would you use this?
- When would you use it?
- What would stop you from using it?