>>14068386>if you can't think up anything of your own that hasn't already been done successfully by an established operation then you shouldn't try to do that, because its not possible.Sounds like we mostly agree on that part.
The part that you emphasize is related to 'innovation/game-changers'... something where new technology allows for a ('brute force') coup. In 'Uber's' case it was kind of brute force as you say, but the technology of 'apps' and everyone having a phone on their person, helped sway the opportunity to golden. And I'm not arguing quality of product, simply that such ideas are possible but expensive and hard to get credit for.
Another active thread on Kary Mullis and the 'PCR' procedure. If we say he had the idea, while being well funded and well connected and that it changed the market position/business and even then there were major patent disputes in court.
-basically, I'm just pointing out that brilliant ideas, or innovations are not valuable until they are executed. Maybe the easiest route is to do something that gives a slight advantage and some credit to an existing insider. They get credit and profit, you get a mediocre position in the company and are allowed to feed insights to the insider, if all goes well.
It's a lot more complicated than the 'low hanging fruit' theory
