DoInk.com, like many other startups, uses Java, and in-spite of the trend towards dynamic cotton-candy languages, I still love the overly verbose jTongue, if for nothing else than it’s static typing system and amazing catalogue of libraries.
Larry #1: I know Google invests heavily in Java technologies, and with good reason: it’s the best way to make maintainable large-scale suites of websites. I love your open source Java library contributions, and use them actively.
Larry #2: I can’t imagine you give a flying-duck about Java. I suspect it wasn’t relevant to Oracle’s acquisition of Sun, and I’d understand (though be disappointed) if Oracle let Java languish.
Larry #1: Larry #2 isn’t incentivized to grow Java (see above). PLEASE, is there anyway you could be persuaded to take Java “off their hands”? It would mean a lot to our jCommunity in the long run.
My blog has sat ‘naked’ at aaronwhite.tumblr.com too long, today I gifted it with its own domain name: you are now reading Restriction Is Expression.com. It’s not the shortest URL I own, but the phrase is a tenet of mine.
Adversity & limitation is the context for meaning-creation in the world. (Or, if you prefer, its not about what’s waiting on the other side, it’s the climb). I hope this serves as a reminder for creators, developers & artists: this struggle is what makes your story so great.
By now, many of you have seen Facebook’s new ‘featured loser’ section. You know, that little area up-and-to-the-right, politely suggesting you re-connect with a friend who is no longer actively using The Facebook…
As a social website builder, I understand how powerfully this simple message can affect engagement, on the other hand, now I know Facebook’s holding my social reputation hostage.
It’s becoming hard to sleep at night knowing that if I don’t feed the wall, Facebook is going to slap a scarlet letter alongside my picture and ensure all my friends see.
Well played, Facebook, well played.
(Unrelatedly, I just integrated Tumblr to post to my newsfeed…)
I’m sure you split stories like this into two pages for a good reason: to save my bandwidth. After all, the remaining 3,126 characters of the story’s body (1,530 bytes as transferred with gzip compression) would have increased the page’s total size by 0.0032%. No, I’m just yanking your chain. I know you’re double-charging your advertisers for the same story by artificially inflating your pageview count. It’s just like the old auto-frame-refresh trick, but this one’s better because most of the ad networks haven’t banned it yet. That’s their problem, right? Why should you leave money on the table? You’re a business. But it doesn’t really work as well as you had hoped because only a tiny percentage of viewers will actually read page two. You know that, but you don’t care, because you won’t give up a chance to make a few extra cents. Who cares if it annoys the crap out of that tiny slice of your audience? Who are they, anyway? The people who actually read your content thoroughly instead of skimming the headline and moving on? That can’t possibly be your most important audience segment — they’re just the most involved and attentive. Repeat customers. You already have their “eyeballs” that you can sell to your real customers. And these dupes get their eyeballs double-counted. What a steal! Keep up the great work, publishers.
Steve Blank Quote: It should go without saying that this post is not advice, nor is it recommendation of what you should do, it’s simply my observation of how companies using Customer Development positioned themselves to successfully raise money from venture investors.
Rafer sez: I’m all for being non-judgmental, but this is ridiculous. When you are in a position of authority, it’s incumbent upon you to say when something is a terrible idea. Do not publish instructions on precisely how a founder would poison the next couple years of their lives.
I’ve shared my thoughts on it, but I’m curious (since you have more experience than me) what you find so objectionable.
Rafer sez: @cowboy You aren’t the only one who asked, so I must have been unclear. Blank is laying out a path to raise a round of capital before there’s a business. Raising such a round has such a tiny, tiny probability of providing economic benefit to first time founders that it’s the startup equivalent of Russian Roulette instructions — using five bullets instead of one.
He ought to have written “Don’t do this” across the top in big red letters. And since that’s the case, why write it at all?
Scott: I think we have two totally different take-aways from this article. First, Blank outlines “what companies ‘used’ to do (read: still)” - business plan -> funding -> execute.
In the second section, he goes on to suggest if you follow Customer Development and iterate to product-market-fit (or at least close enough to it), *that* is the time to raise money, when you need it to fuel a viable business, and can demonstrate to VCs that you have a viable business (or are close to it)
How does this poison a founders next couple of years? Still unclear on your objections.