HN user
No I understand and certainly agree with what you were saying. My question was more when you've come to this realization that the site making you $500 / month is not going to go much further and not worth your time, what are people doing with these side projects? Try to sell them, leave them alone and reap whatever cash happens to come in, or other solutions?
Your condescending sarcasm aside, there is no reason for them to over market themselves or pursue pedestrian projects here (again, I agree this is a good business, but just relatively pedestrian for the Google X mission statement). Here are the reasons that would make no sense:
1) This is a pure cost center for Google (and a small one by their standards) and it doesn't report separately, so there is no reason for them to take lower risk projects to try and make it look like they are generating success (like there would be at a VC or incubator who is concerned with profitability). And for the Google X mission statement, I wouldn't even consider this a success (this would be like a VC fund backing a small business that was profitable but never had a chance of generating exponential growth, it's just not in the investment / research profile)
2) They have Google Ventures to fund something like this if it was an idea they want to pursue (and as I said up top and was seconded below, that may be why they are spinning it out). But that raises the question of why this was ever something they undertook at Google X in the first place? Another possibility here is they took a shot at something much bigger and found that wasn't viable, and fell back on this portion of it which was viable, then decided to spin it out. That would actually make a lot of sense (just thinking as I'm typing here)
3) If for some reason they are just over marketing Google X and it's just really a pedestrian incubator for some projects... well, going back to the original question I posed, i would find that very disappointing!
Is anyone else slightly disappointed about this coming out of Google X? Don't get me wrong, it's a good business idea, bringing together otherwise disparate data sources, capturing tailwinds of sustainable building trends, seems like a differentiated product etc. etc. but it's not really the "moonshot" or game changer that Google X purports itself to be developing (potentially why they spun it out?).
I read this article recently which I thought was very good, but it paints a very different picture of the types of things that should be coming out of Google X. This type of Company is something I would have expected out of an incubator.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/28/meet-astro-teller-head-of-m...
Anyone else feel this way?
Not a financial startup or related to my specific product, but in terms of skills someone with that background is expected to bring to the table:
1) Experience with evaluating market markets 2) Knowledge of business models and experience analyzing competitive dynamics 3) Financial planning and modeling skills 4) Business development experience
Those are all skills that should be very helpful in a startup. Has anyone had experience on how skills actually translate in practice?
One underlying assumption the author seems to be making here is that he is discussing B2B businesses rather than B2C. I actually think this message is much more applicable in the B2B space than the B2C (where I think it is wholly wrong).
I disagree that these are simply "books" and cannot supplement courses. There are many college students who simply attend lectures, turn in homework, ask a few questions and take their tests. MOOCs provide everything you need to have that experience virtually. I agree this model does not describe everyone, but I believe this is more an issue of motivation than resources.
Going back to the comparison with textbooks, there are a good number of people who could teach themselves subjects purely out of textbooks if they were motivated. But even after mastering several subject in this way, your employment prospects and marketability are not significantly increased. Instead, people do their learning (online or in person) under the umbrella of a College, who can offer them "credit" / verification to the rest of the world, which in turn increases employment prospects and marketability. The MOOC product does not offer that benefit upon completion (they give you a certificate, but right now it is not respected at all and therefore does not give the desired effect), so only those interested in the intellectual knowledge have motivation to complete the MOOC courses (not surprisingly, a very low number of people).
But I think if they give it more time they / the market could develop products that provide value for completion of these courses. Maybe some sort of independent service that tests and certifies completing students (i.e. what College Board has done for high school courses with the AP program). They could even track combinations of courses students complete to ensure a rounded knowledge of a subject area.
That is just one idea off the top of my head, but the point remains that this is an economic issue of motivation and benefits for completion, not an issues of resources.
The sentiment below is correct, there should not be a real concern here for Mozilla. Here's how you should think about it from a business perspective. Most (but not all) companies should be concerned about their bargaining power with customers when revenue is highly concentrated. This concern comes from the fact that customers can threaten to leave, which will significantly decrease revenue and be difficult to replace. Consequently, many companies will lower prices under the logic that retaining 90% of that revenue is better than the results from trying to replace it with smaller revenue opportunities.
However, this is far from the case for Mozilla. Google pays Mozilla in order to be the DEFAULT search engine (which is valuable on the theory of consumer inertia). The default position is a limited commodity; there is only one default position and, therefore, by doing business with Google they are passing on other business. If Google left then Mozilla would be able to sell that default position to someone else (probably Yahoo or Microsoft) and would be able to replace most of that revenue with comparable revenue very quickly.
I would argue Google is in the more difficult position here. Google has a some (not a lot) concentration of their acquired traffic from Mozilla (I think ~10%), and that is not a limited commodity. If there were other comparable traffic acquisition opportunities available, Google would pursue them. Google is not necessarily passing on other business because of their business with Mozilla (while, as explained above, Mozilla is passing on other business because of their Google deal). So presumably if Mozilla and Google part ways, that Google business (revenue, profit etc.) would be lost (at least for now) and take some time / effort to replace. While Mozilla’s power over Google is definitely small, I would say with certainty Mozilla should not be concerned about their Google concentration in this scenario.
The title of this article should read "Instagram is now a business". Seems like adding non-seamless adds for this platform is not the best way to utilize the product they have. In my opinion, they should be driving more seamless integration with their apps that do generate revenue and use this as a property to prop those up. That's really why they bought this thing, to keep mobile pictures in Facebook's realm. They should drive more integration towards that goal. They certainly did not buy it because they thought it would generate revenue and profit eventually to provide a good return on the invested capital, so why try to utilize it like that?
This is worth 500 to 5000 in the same way that the Winklevoss twins should own half of facebook
What was the invoice amount for? You list all those reasons why "it's not worth a lot" is not a good argument...so what are you arguing it is worth? I have to say, your "I was going to use it" argument sounds a lot like "I had that idea first" argument for start ups. In the end, buzz feed can just execute with that photo better, your idea (no offense) was never going to touch 4.2MM views.
Definitely not saying you necessarily deserve nothing, but what amount did you put in your invoice? Want to know what you think the value is
Thanks, that list of online courses is a helpful starting point (although I would argue no complete, just after doing some quick searching).
I think there are definitely enough classes available to create something like you were mentioning, or even just comparing classes available online to offerings in degree programs of top institutions (so show what classes are available / you have to take to get a Stanford CS degree for example and show what similar classes are online and where). Might consider making this a project of mine
Is anyone familiar with the legal implications of scraping sites? Just for things that are easily viewable to anyone with a computer, such as Tweets, a stores prices, descriptions of things etc?
What metrics / standards would you use to vet a potential hire? (someone with no previous professional work experience). Personal work portfolio, strictly interview questions? The benefit of a degree is an implicit sign off from a reputable institution. How would you think about replicating that comfort for someone who is self taught?
There are many team collaboration and project management tools available in the market (many with leanings towards ease-of-use concept). It is impossible to say how yours will fare without knowing more about your product relative to the market place?
Not to be harsh, just to be direct, does your product solve a problem that other team collaboration and project management tools do not? Or is your product in actuality a tweak on other available products?
If your product has any chance at 60k / month, you should be able to easily answer that question with a problem much more poignant than ease-of-use.
The interesting point to the article is that under the assumptions which most Americans would use (and I agree with the author's assumptions in this regard), the 85kWh Model S ends up costing about $940 / month
Here is a pretty good approximation of what a normal person would be able to claim (to themselves) about the actual cost of owning the 85kWh. Comes to $940 a month of actual cost. This type of advertising is obviously very misleading.
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/04/02/the-s...
Another key variable in this equation is your table image as well. The big stack 8-9 hand is much more effective for the strategy discussed when you are playing an aggressive style and taking a lot of pots.
When you hit the straight or flush with the 8-9 and you are seen as an agreesor, you are likely to get significant action from an overpair, top pair top kicker and (depending how you play the hand) you will likely get one round from 2 good overs like an AK / AQ as well.
With a tight table image you will likely get one round from each (unless you flop it Q, J, 10) because the other possible cards on the board are unlikely to have made the hand of a tight player. But a sizable bet on the turn or river will begin to smell an awful lot like over pair or set and you will likely not see big action from many of the hands mentioned above.
Author mentions there are many factors which go behind each decision, but I think this strategy is implicitly relying on having a good understanding of your table image
Your comment seems to imply that services like "Dining-In" and other Seamless providers that have independent delivery services require the blessing of the restaurant to engage in that activity. Is that actually true?
I think the main issue is a matter of motiviation for the classes. And I do not mean people being lazy, but the original impetus behind signing up for these classes.
For the Coursera classes I did sign up for, I did it because I am interested in the subject area, know almost nothing currently and wanted to gain some functional understanding. I would say of the classes I signed up for, and probably 50% of those I have seen all the lectures. But then I go off and incorporate into side projects to test out / make sure I understand the materials. I have never turned in an assignment, (almost) never posted on a message board and never opened a final exam. Why should I? I am going straight to the application of the content into my projects, I've already achieved my goal of understanding and expanding my capabilities.
What reasons would someone have for wanting official completion of the course? On most courses, you do not gain any officially recognized credit, the certificate has limited (if any) commercial marketability for someone... so again, why would I want to go through the hassle of officially completing the course?
Two takeaways from these thoughts are the following: 1) How many people like myself have utilized the content of the course but are not seen as retained due to the fact they do not partake in the academic completion side? 2) What potential motivators can exist in the future to drive completion of the academic side of the coures? (college credit is the first one that comes to mind, but still does not help motivating many users who are above that age). What other drivers could come into being to incentivize?
Thalmic Labs I think is the only one that should not be considered a yawn. The applications are endless, if you have not seen it watch the demo video below, shows some very consumer friendly applications which currently have no equal substitute. Only question is how long until it works that seamlessly?
Right place right time seems to sum up all these people, and most of life is about that! But the only way to fight it is work your ass off and put yourself in a position to be at the right place at the right time (give yourself a platform for an investor to find you for a high acqui-hire price cough cough what happened here). For the many people who complain all the time on this site and critique but have never started / built or done anything except complain, you have no ground to stand on. Sitting on your computer complaining has (almost) never put someone in a right place, right time opportunity (except when blogs were first invented)
Right place right time seems to be your shot at all these people, most of life is about that!
Did anyone else know that about Tim Allen? That is crazy.
Not surprisingly, it seems like the tech entrepreneurs were already on their way at 25. Classic theme of more entrepreneurial vs. corporate America hierarchy?
Andrew Mason posted on here a few times, but when the website was in the early stages. See below for the posts
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=picnichouse
However they were not well received (as has been discussed in a couple other threads)
This idea is great in concept, but has been tried before in several versions and has yet to gain traction. I believe in the social arena, no one has found a viable solution yet.
The real crux of this (at least one crux, if you see this more as a gimic dating then you may view it another way) is creating a verified online image / reputation. This site simply applies that to dating, with the idea here being you are not creating the profile so it is by definition verified by other people who created it.
I had friends who attempted a social network startup based on this idea. The obvious problem you run into is the temptation by friends to write jokes / things that are untrue, which I think actually increases with a site like this. I absolutely want to see who starts reaching out to my friends after I write describe them as "Avid Harry Potter fan, captain of the local quiditch team" and add a status updates like "He's in a bad mood today, very upset he scratched his wand yesterday". Our friends attempted to put some legitimacy behind their site by requiring you to accept statements before they were publicly viewed, but then you lose a lot of the legitimacy / verified nature of the profile.
Eventually they pivoted to the professional arena, with recommendations by professionals, professors, etc. People who by the nature of your relationship are more likely to respond accurately. There are issues with this model as well, such as co-workers who you pissed off writing bad things, selection bias if you get to pick who reviews you (anonymous helps that) etc, but I think there are significantly inherent advantages in the professional arena. But even in that area, I don't think the main "issue" has been resolved.
This is definitely a concept with real business potential should it be mastered; it solves a "real-problem" which many startups do not (with the specific application here being online dating, but there are 20 other great applications which could become viable businesses). I certainly do not mean to discourage the work done (I think the site actually looks good in form and function), but it is my opinion a tweaks on this current model will not emerge as solutions to the broader reputational verification issue online. I believe an outside the box and completely different solution will emerge in this area.
What do people think? Is anyone familiar with a version of this model that really does work? Or has anyone seen another model which solves this issue and works?
The White House response is now the lead article on the home page of the Wall Street Journal. This petition has elevated the issue to a mainstream discussion in a way it was not previously. I think most skeptics would have to agree that type of response certainly constitutes a win. Short of a referendum (which is not possible here), what else could you be hoping for?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732349450457834...