grantph

And to keep making money in these markets — already a ridiculous $27 in ARPU for the last three months of 2017 — they need us to give more time and attention to them.

And that there is the Achilles' heel of both Google and Facebook: disrupting the attention market.

I've been having a debate with someone on this subject, and it prompted me to run a consumer survey asking people: "Thinking about free services (e.g., print, radio, TV, websites), do you like it when they sell your attention to advertisers?" Yes, No, Undecided.

Of 511 responses, only 6% liked having their attention sold. 68% dislike it, and 26% were on the fence.

Personally, I think there is a huge opportunity to re-invent the attention market. Until then, companies like Google and Facebook will keep stealing our attention and selling it to the highest bidder.

How was Google making a living before advertising?

It wasn't. Every search engine at the time had struggled to make money. It wasn't until Google "borrowed" pay-per-click auction bidding from Overture that advertising became their focus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search_Marketing#Patent...

I suspect they'd planned to roll out enterprise products. (You know - "the box" - like they did in Silicon Valley). That business started later (circa 2002):

https://enterprise.google.com/search/products/gsa.html

But, by that stage, their ad revenue was killing everything.

BUT the ideas are easy. The problem is market testing each idea to see what works.

ProductHunt is going in the right direction - but unfortunately the products are already built with little or no market testing so I predict a high failure rate.

KickStarter is a nice way to see if there is some market demand, but also a high failure rate (55%) by people who lack the experience to execute.

It sounds like Andy Hunt has finally discovered ISO 9000. Plan. Implement. Measure. Review. Improve.

The pattern I keep seeing is the IT community's need to re-invent the wheel and give it names like 'agile', 'scrum', etc. Why can't people call a wheel a wheel?

I usually start by writing comments first in plain English based on a variation of psuedocode. That way I'm focused on process first without distraction. Comments are the plan. Clearly articulated steps like any good cookbook. Easy to translate into any language.

// 1. Write plain English psuedocode.

// 2. Translate into scary looking code blocks.

// 3. If maintaining, remember to update comments first (goto Step 1, then Step 2).

The irony is another developer once claimed that my code was generated by a machine. Apparently it was too methodical to be human. Like that was some excuse for him to write crappy code. Urgh! To be great at anything, you need to have excellent communication skills!

I'm enjoying the interesting analogies.

I rather view the internet as a party where everyone is invited. The social networks are the loud attention seekers yelling "look at how cool we are". People are wow'd and sucked in. The problem is, it's a keg party and the only way they've been able to monetize is to sell ads at their party. Once the ads go up, the venue is no longer cool and the party moves to a new venue.

Of course, there are other types of parties and my prediction is that quality is going to trump quantity in future networks. Who wants a keg party that sells advertising when the quality of the people I meet at a cocktail party could lead to new opportunities without advertising?

The next wave will build on social and actually generate real value. Therefore, it'll have a new name and it won't be Social 2.0 It'll be something entirely new that addresses that value.

I ALWAYS quote fixed price projects regardless of scope. Some software engineers would say that's highly risky. For me, it tends to be highly profitable because my estimates are usually accurate. If anything, I've learnt to over estimate and impress clients by delivering on promises.

I am amazed by the number of people who try to portray computer science as a pseudo science like voodoo, where estimates are impossible because the problems are unknown. Just because information is abstract doesn't make it any more difficult to estimate than something physical. Computer science IS a science and software engineering IS engineering. Good engineering involves breaking problems down into small manageable pieces that are easily understood then planning how to implement them. This practice is called design. On more complex projects it's architecture - a sexier form of design.

Let's get back to basics. Who has heard of "the software development life cycle"? Everyone, I hope. It's modeled off something from the early 19th century called the product development life cycle. It needs to be mentioned because IT people like to think they're special and mysteriously invented SDLC. Feasibility, analysis, design, development, testing, deployment, etc. Agile methods are simply a minimal version of this repeated fast and frequently. Release the minimum viable product then iterate. Unfortunately, so called "hacking culture" has led people to jump straight to development without considering analysis or design. Real hackers design their attacks first. Successful hacks are well thought out and executed in small brilliant steps.

The analogies of sudoku in defining a problem and construction in defining a project are perfect, so I'll borrow those.

If someone presents me with a 1000 sudoku puzzles of varying difficulty, the first step in estimating is to DESIGN a solution. Allocate time to categorize each puzzle by complexity. Then estimate times based on complexity based on past experience. Anyone who says they can't do this because they have no experience with the problem should be immediately fired. You've obviously misrepresented your experience and/or skills as an engineer of sudoku problem solving.

If a problem is truly unique and novel (and very few are nowadays), then simply factor in time during the analysis & design to perform a few experiments that will more accurately help with estimation. Or training. OR HIRE SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE IT BEFORE to help with design and estimations. Then find the most effective resource to implement (solve) each puzzle.

As for construction, any idiot can slap a few lines down on a piece of paper and call it a design for a house or a building. That's the way some people are building software. Real architects and engineers exist because construction can be broken down into hundreds of thousands of pieces and estimated accurately. They know exactly how many bolts it will take and what types of contingencies to allow for. Software, although abstract, is no different. The software industry has been around for 40+ years and it's modeled off past industries like construction and manufacturing. It can be accurately designed and estimated.

Once a clear design exists, estimation is easy.

My preferred estimation method is function point analysis. It's simple. Break each problem down into the smallest manageable piece. Any piece that takes longer than a couple of hours is too large and should be broken down further. That's an excellent rule of thumb. Anything longer than a couple of hours also suggests the design was poor.

Of course, in some organizations this fails due to a lack of clear process. An analyst will be tasked at collecting business requirements to write a specification. That is often full of nonsense written by someone with no design experience. That specification is given directly to a developer for estimation and development. Where was the design? The nonsense works it's way into the product. It becomes an estimation nightmare. Projects and budgets run over or worse, fail.

How do I know this works?

When I break a job down for a client into small manageable pieces I know the entire scope and can estimate accurately.

Clients love it because they can see every single piece of the puzzle in the design. The quantity and times for each piece look reasonable when broken down. The clients begin to appreciate the scope but ultimately don't care how it's built or what technology is used. They just want to know how much and when? If there is a deadline? Either add more resources or cut functionality. Let them make that choice. It's not my concern.

The cream, and why this industry is so much better than construction and manufacturing, is to look at all the pieces and see the re-usable patterns. Design optimization. Copy, paste and re-use as much as possible. Clients don't care about re-usability. I charge top of market rate and still manage to be cheaper than competitors because my estimates were realistic (as opposed to their crystal ball methodologies). Re-usability and working smarter then gives me 4-5x that hourly rate. Shh! Don't tell the clients :)

If you can't estimate software accurately, you're clearly in the wrong business!

Does PickFu allow inplace split testing like Google Analytics?

It seems to be more an independent polling service. My idea of split testing is to always be inplace so the user doesn't realize they're being tested.

A good tagline is like much most marketing. Lots of experiments with split testing of multiple taglines to see which one the market responds to the most.

As for the comments regarding branding, branding should be always done in-house without an agency. There's a misconception that outsourcing marketing is a good idea but often, the outsourced company doesn't know your business as well as you do. Read the Marketing Game by Eric Shulz(marketing for Coca Cola and Disney). He has some clear opinions about outside agencies. http://www.ericschulz.com/

Google releases maps and their evil behavior is quietly swept under the rug... brilliant timing!

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4915206

I disagree. If you're using Java properly then your data structures should be similar to that of C++. I've programmed assembly language, byte level machine code, C, C++, Java, C#, etc. They're all fundamentally the same. You can always use various compilers to dump to native too to overcome interpreter problems. Technique is what matters.

So Larry and Sergey don't want Google to be evil, but Eric certainly does and wants it known that he's an evil overlord. Now I understand their holy trinity!

I think the UK government will enact some clear laws that hurt Google as a result.

Definitely search advertising like AdWords + Yahoo + Bing. Capture the people looking what you are offering. Therefore, they will probably search and be willing to pay. Think about search terms. Worth every cent if done right! And don't believe the "automated" bid stuff in AdWords. Fine tune your own bids and review regularly. Squeeze as much as you can out of your spend and understand your market. Use LOTS of different messages to experiment.

FB is nothing more than broadcast advertising, like TV. Too unreliable and not worth the money. I'm still dubious about click fraud on FB.

Consider your VPS environment and make sure it's redundant (ideally multi-location). Depending on your project, nothing worse than disappointing your paying customers, so best to get the production environment right.

Hold on to as much CASH as you can so that you can react to opportunities as they arise. Depending on your product, some other careful marketing could really pay off - like booths at appropriate conferences.

Make sure you build up lists of interest (email & sms) so you can repeat market later at much lower cost. Conversion isn't just about immediate sales; sometimes it's acquiring targets to sell to later. Depends on the sales cycle and decision process of your offering.

Hope it helps!

I should also add, polling is why I'm with the late Steve Jobs on HATING flash. Way too many Flash "designers" have NFC when it comes to good code, so they poll rape the CPU which is NOT good on mobile devices for battery life! Evil, evil Flash.

It's usually far more complicated than a choice of language. Most of the problems I see are related to poor technique. Especially related to accessing resources.

"Browsers" are a good example of that. Often it's not the browser but networking problems, lost packets, latency, server responses, etc. Windows frequently waits 30 seconds when accessing network resource to tell you the resource is no longer available. Painful!

In my experience, fast code is usually beautifully written. Very logical and methodical. To be an awesome developer you NEED to be a perfectionist.

AND AVOID POLLING RESOURCES! Everything should be event driven. This is a concept very few developers truly understand. Events, events, events, events!

Agree that there's also a business case. However, $150ph developer who knows techniques is worth way more than 10 $15ph programmers because they implement the right solution the first time or make sensible decisions when taking shortcuts. Worth every dollar to find people who know what they're doing! You get what you pay for! (If you know what you're looking for!)

Except it's wrong. It should be... Experiment. Learn. Repeat.

There's too much emphasis on failure. If you keep focusing on failure, you keep thinking about failure. I prefer to think of learning experiences. Learn. Learn. Learn. Eventually you find a combination that works!

Is it really worth saving?

holychiz, I'm interested in your experiences as a parent with Bing. Any chance we could meet up to chat?

I can be reached on grant@criticalyears.com

Thanks in advance!

Agreed. Most companies seem to be oblivious to the reality that they spent money to get people to like them on Facebook and they own nothing as a result.

I believe this is called insanity!

A direct email campaign would have been cheaper (MailChimp quotes <$2500) and more effective. Despite the social media hype, we keep seeing statistics that support direct media when communicating with existing clients.

Okay... 2004 and now it's 8 years later. I'm curious to know what PG thinks of great hackers after 500 startups and plenty of exposure to would be hackers. Surely his thoughts have matured?

Paul Graham, care to oblige us?

Here's some insight which I had with a senior partner at a "big 4 consulting" firm and their attitude to age.

The buy up highly educated people in their 20's because they're cheap and eager to work. In fact, they're cheaper than most people when you do an hourly analysis (probably cheaper than cleaners).

BUT... the simple fact is, they also know they burn out by their 30's. Life takes over. The doubt. What am I doing with my life? Why don't I have a family? Maybe I missed out on other things my friends were doing?

By that stage, they no longer care about you because they've got a new batch of cheap 20's burning the midnight oil.

However, the good news is that they noticed that there's a reversal when people reach their 40's. They've got experience in life and business. They're no longer in doubt mode.

Ironically, these organizations have standard pitches to sell the career delusion. "People are our greatest assets" and similar rhetoric. The reality is ... THE DO NOT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT YOUR CAREER. Careers do NOT exist. It's like selling women the idea of being a "homemaker" in the 1950's.

I have noticed that people are more likely to be successful in their 30's and 40's (read some evidence that suggested that too but can't remember the reference). People getting rich in their 20's is an aberration.

Neuroplasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brain_That_Changes_Itself) also suggests that we never stop learning, so I have to disagree with point 3 "Your brain finishes forming in your 20′s." Dribble! That's like the rhetoric about careers. People just get lazy.

What people have going for them in their 20's is no commitment and all the time in the world. But no experience which can also be a disadvantage. If you can recreate "no commitment" in your 30's-40's (20's + real experience), then you should excel because your ideas are more mature and hopefully clearer!

You're more likely to be successful as an actor in your 30's for the same reasons!

In an iterative industry, I think there is too much emphasis on "launch". From day 1, you should have someone interested in your product/service. If you haven't got at least one early adopter, someone sold on the idea, why bother?

The real "launch" is the tipping point where there is enough functionality that it fully solves the problem for the intended audience. But you won't get there without early usage and feedback.

Rather than think of chicken and egg problems, start adding cells together and see which one evolves first.

I prefer a hybrid solution. 99designs to weed out a good designer. For me that tends to mean good comprehension, a knowledge of how to use their tools and their unique style (each designer tends to certain styles).

A contest on 99d is simply a precursor to further work. Once I find the designer they will earn a lot more than the prize on offer. I find this to be more effective than big agencies because they are hit and miss - but way more expensive when missed!

I have also used 99d to simply browse successful projects and approach designers directly without a contest. Sometimes they have a style I like, so I hire them.

With regard to "design" - I ALWAYS separate functional from aesthetics. Most "web designers" that I've encountered have no clue when it comes to function and process. Safer to give them a wire frame and let them make it pretty. If you can't come up with a sensible wire frame then your website has bigger problems than how nice it looks. I always think Hollywood for design: story, storyboard then production. A designer can't provide the story - you must do that!

I have major issues with the entire article. 45 "healthy" students in an MRI is hardly solid evidence of anything. It's too small a sample to be meaningful. Presumably they were all students of "higher education" which may not represent society as a whole. Perhaps what they discovered simply represents the way the students have been educated/conditioned? What about other cultures and socio-economic groups?

I'm also skeptical of this kind of academic theory because it can be biased. If the theory doesn't pan out, then funding might stop. So better find data to support the theory.

Speaking from personal experience, I've always treated empathy as an analytic process. It simply involves additional perspectives. That's not intuition! Empathy is an extension of analysis. To claim they are mutually exclusive seems (feels?:) outrageous. It's also not consistent with other evidence that suggest that neural pathways can and will change. So why not both pathways or a hybrid pathway?

That leads to the duck-rabbit illusion where they say it's impossible to see both. I see both and it looks like a mutation. A quick search yields other interpretations too such as seeing neither. Seeing only the lines for what they are. (I can also see either duck or rabbit but the mutation is much cooler!)