You’ll often encounter conflicting information. That’s just par for course. There context to this that needs to also be taken into account

For example if the idea is deeply rooted in a domain that requires high expertise and is still fundamentally new, you might typically find that the founders have spent years studying this field before even starting a startup, eg lots in biotech and AI

On the other hand you might find a lot of “applied” ideas such as the kind that are “the X forY” ( eg Uber for gym instructors) - you might find they aren’t very “deep” and so there’s more competition, but also the idea may be less refined so then we’d expect more pivots

Ultimately one shouldn’t think of pivots as something you should do, but rather a byproduct of deeper understanding of what the customer needs, you’re not a ballerina, the intent isn’t to pivot your way to success, but rather to accept that in order to success some pivoting may be required

Regardless I think we can all agree the buck stops with execution. Ultimately whether you pivot or not, if you don’t execute it doesn’t matter

It depends. Who are you… seed round… MRR… etc. While you’re serial founder, having a proven track record, and have some “warm relations“ with VC, then it’s not really important about idea. That case investors more tend to trust you as a great capable guy they would love to work. However, if you’re a fresher then idea is more important.

You can’t really separate space and idea that much. A great idea in a non-viable space with tiny market is not really great. You also will not have expertise across all possible spaces so are generally better off sticking with what you or your co-founders know.

Bottom line, I think don’t you really have two orthogonal dimensions here. Just choose your most promising concept given your background and knowledge, considering both space and idea.

The idea is obviously somewhat important for a number of reasons:

1. If the idea is for a space that is too small, even with success you are going to be highly constrained
2. If the idea is one that is going to require tremendous resources to execute on you are unlikely to have a serious chance (e.g., you have no chance of building a competitor to Boeing)
3. If the idea is an obviously bad idea, then that is important.

So, clearly the idea is important.

When Sam say’s he doesn’t see pivoting to success, in many (most?) cases this is likely true. You start on an idea, raise funding, build more, figure out it isn’t working and then… you have blown through all your money and can’t raise more or you realize that you need to pivot into a crowded area or you realize you don’t have the skills to pivot, so you disband before their can be any successful pivot. And of course there is the definition of what is a pivot… How much do you rotate before it is a pivot?

Going from say a CRM to a two-sided marketplace platform, for example, is a much smaller pivot than say a CRM to a TikTok competitor.

I run a branding agency and can say, with over a decade of making startups millions, that both work.

Take an average or even pre existing idea and execute it better than the competition or work a new angle and you’ll win.

Or, focus on making something truly unique that holds its place and you’ll still need to execute well otherwise someone will see your work, adapt it and own that space.

Take your pick, option 1 is by far the easiest option. Just get a great team and don’t expect to change the world. Sometimes a smaller slice of a better pie is worth it.

Start with a good idea. Execute on the idea. That means go talk to some potential customers that you do not know. If you can get some commitments there, then you’ve got a good idea and you can likely go make some sales once you have a product. It takes marketing and sales for a good product to be successful.

I believe that idea goes first. You should have a great idea and back it up with a good team.

I do not share YC’s point of view.