[iiJDSii]

Indeed that's a good distinction that I don't think is made. Some of the other advice I've gotten from YC/PG essays is of the form 'build what seems cool' (if you're a technical and curious person). This seems to be the 'high reward, high risk' route. I suppose VR would fall into this bucket, it's definitely cool to a lot of people, but from its inception, has taken decades to really get anywhere in a commercial sense - and it still seems quite niche.

Other examples: even though PG mentions them as solving problems, would Microsoft (starting with OS software for a niche machine) and Facebook (college kids online directory) really have been starting as 'problem-first' products? It seems like the founders were more building what seemed interesting to them, and got the high reward by stumbling on the right things (and building them better than competitors).

Still even with the distinction ('person not in search of a problem'), it seems there could be a hammer/nail phenomenon going on if someone, say, builds cool tech of a certain type, and then tries to commercialize from there, in that order. What seems to make sense is to 'build what seems cool', keep an up-to-date mental model on new and emerging technologies, and stay open-minded to problems arising that can be solved. But even then, without a 'problem-first' mindset, could one get too pigeon-holed I wonder.

Not sure where I'm going with this, just thinking out loud. The topic fascinates me.