Why Being Better Isn't Good Enough

A few weeks ago I had this moment while wrestling with a workflow inside a supposedly premium tool. Ten minutes of lag and three confusing menus later, I had already opened a fresh note titled "We should just build this ourselves." That impulse is my biggest addiction as a founder: the instinct to rebuild anything that frustrates me even slightly. 

I catch myself doing this all the time. I'll be using a popular SaaS tool or a consumer app, let's call it Product X, and I'll hit a snag. Maybe the UI is clunky, the dashboard takes three seconds too long to load, or it's missing that one specific integration I desperately need. In my brain it sounds exactly like:

"I could build this better. I'll build Product X+1. It'll have the features they missed, it'll be cleaner, and it'll be faster."

It feels like a valid startup idea. Until the "Founder Anxiety" kicks in.

Product X has been around for five years. They dominate the SEO rankings. They have a brand people trust. They probably have $50M in the bank and a team of 100 engineers. So, how do you decide? Do you back down because the incumbent is too big? Or do you build because you know you can make a superior product?

Before we even get to frameworks, there's a trap worth calling out. "Better" sounds noble, but it's usually meaningless. Better UI is not a moat. Better feature coverage is not a moat. Cheaper is not a moat. Incumbents win because they own trust, habit, and distribution. Switching tools carries an invisible cognitive tax that users refuse to pay unless the gain is dramatic.

To answer this properly, I recommend a two-step filter. The first is Kunal Shah's Delta 4 Framework, and the second is what I call The Sharp Knife Theory.

Filter 1: The Delta 4 Framework

Kunal Shah (founder of CRED) posits a theory that changed how I evaluate ideas. He argues that wealth is only unlocked when you move a human from an inefficient state to a highly efficient state.

To test this, you assign an Efficiency Score (1-10) to two things:

1. The Status Quo: How users currently solve the problem.
2. Your Solution: How your solution changes that.

The formula is brutally simple: Efficiency (New) - Efficiency (Old) = Delta (Δ).

The Rule:

If the Delta is less than 4, don't build it.

If I build a tool that has a slightly better UI and one extra feature, I might bump the efficiency score from a 6 (the old way) to a 7 (my way). That's a Delta of 1. A Delta of 1 is the "Graveyard of Good Products." Humans are creatures of inertia; we won't switch for a "slightly better" experience.

And here’s what most builders underestimate: switching cost. Even if your product is truly a 7, the friction of migrating data, relearning workflows, or convincing a team subtracts one or two points instantly. A Delta 3 idea becomes a Delta 1 idea the moment switching cost enters the equation.

The Data Doesn't Lie

When you look at the massive successes of the last decade, they all pass the Delta ≥ 4 test:

Booking a Cab

• Old Way (Street Hail): 3/10 (Heat, rejection, haggling).
• New Way (Uber): 8/10 (AC car, fixed price, one click).
• Delta: 5 ✅ -> Irreversible change.

Messaging

• Old Way (SMS): 4/10 (Paid per text, no media, char limits).
• New Way (WhatsApp): 9/10 (Free, instant, rich media).
• Delta: 5 ✅ -> Irreversible change.

Ordering Food

• Old Way (Calling Restaurants): 4/10 (Busy lines, reading menu over phone).
• New Way (Zomato/Swiggy): 8/10 (Visual menu, tracking, reviews).
• Delta: 4 ✅ -> Irreversible change.

Buying Shirts Online:

• Old Way (In-store): 6/10 (Try on fit, instant gratification).
• New Way (E-commerce): 7/10 (More variety, but wait time).
• Delta: 1 ❌-> This is why offline retail hasn't died. The efficiency jump isn't high enough yet.

If my "Product X+1" idea only offers a Delta of 1 or 2, the incumbent's SEO and brand will crush me.

Filter 2: The Sharp Knife Theory

But here is the counter-argument. What if the incumbent is a Delta 4 product for the general public, but I still see a gap?

This is where my personal mental model comes in. I call it The Sharp Knife Theory.

The Incumbent (Product X) is a Swiss Army Knife. They have raised millions and have thousands of customers. To keep growing, they have to build features that appeal to the average user. They have to be "good enough" at everything-SEO, invoicing, project management, chat, file storage.

Because they are broad, they are blunt.

You can beat a Swiss Army Knife if you build a Scalpel.

Even if the incumbent has an efficiency score of 8/10 for the general market, they might only be a 3/10 for a specific, high-value niche.

This is where delta and wedge diverge. Delta determines whether you deserve to exist. Wedge determines where you enter the market. You don’t need to beat the incumbent everywhere. You just need to beat them somewhere very specific, where their broadness becomes their weakness.

Example: The "Linear" vs. "Jira" Battle

• The Incumbent: Jira is a massive Swiss Army Knife. It does everything for everyone. It has the SEO, the enterprise sales team, and the branding.
• The Problem: For fast-moving developers at startups, Jira is slow, clunky, and bloated. For that specific user, Jira's efficiency score is actually low (let's say 4/10).
• The Wedge: Linear didn't try to build "Jira + 1 feature." They built a Scalpel. They focused entirely on speed, keyboard shortcuts, and design for high-performance engineering teams.
• The Result: For that specific niche, Linear offered a Delta of 4. They didn't need to beat Jira's SEO on day one; they just needed to be the sharpest knife for a specific group of people.

The Decision Matrix

Once both frameworks are clear, the real question becomes simpler: Does this idea deserve the right to exist?

I run a two-step decision filter that forces brutal clarity.

1. The General Check
Is my product dramatically more efficient (Δ≥4) than the status quo for the average user?

• If Yes: Build it. You will win on product superiority eventually.
• If No: Move to check two.

2. The Specific Check
Is the incumbent a Swiss Army Knife ignoring a painful niche where I can be the Scalpel?

• If Yes: Build only for that niche. Enter with precision.
• If No: Don't build it. This is a feature, not a company.

Most ideas die here. And that’s good. This filter removes wishful thinking and leaves only ideas with structural unfairness built in.

The Mirror Test: Founder Sanity Check

If an idea survives the full gauntlet, the final risk isn’t the market. It’s you. Execution is a long road, and enthusiasm on Day 1 doesn’t equal endurance on Day 300.

So, before committing, ask yourself one last set of questions:

• Do I have a distribution or acquisition edge in this niche?
• Am I willing to spend the next 3 years inside this problem without hating my life?
• Do I have, or can I build, an unfair advantage here?
• Will at least one narrow niche adopt this with genuine enthusiasm?
• Does this truly save real time, money, or cognitive load?
• Would people be genuinely annoyed or angry if this product disappeared?
• Is this a company or just a polished feature?

If the internal answers are weak, even the strongest idea becomes a slow death march. If the answers are strong, momentum compounds.

Final Thoughts

If an idea survives the filters and the mirror test, something interesting happens. You stop asking “Will this work?” and start asking “How big can this get?”

Every breakthrough product begins this way. Not with optimism, but with clarity. Because the market doesn’t reward effort. It rewards transformation. Users don’t switch because something is nicer. They switch because the previous way becomes unbearable once they experience the new way.

Breakthrough companies follow the same arc:

1. They start as a wedge.
2. They become a habit.
3. They turn into infrastructure.
4. Then the old world quietly collapses.

The best products don’t win because they are better. They win because they trigger an irreversible shift in how people think. Once someone experiences the new way, the old way becomes impossible to tolerate.

And if your idea has even a small chance of creating that kind of shift, you owe it to yourself to go all in.