This was great. Especially the end. Definitely worth making it all the way through.
624 karma · joined February 17, 2008
I've never developed an API but the difference between 10 and 1,000 features is huge for the consumer of an API. With big enough APIs, even if the individual calls are beautifully simple and well-documented, I always wonder if I'm ever using the right parts just because there's so much there.
From the article: "But APIs are different. An API with 60 options makes for longer documentation, certainly. But if the options are well-chosen and well-documented, an API with 60 options is barely more complex than an API with 20 options. You should be able to safely forget about features you aren’t using, and just use the features that matter to you. Done well, incremental features in an API only increase complexity by O(log-n) or even O(1) – virtually no complexity increase at all."
This is true, but how is this different from a UI that's done well? With a great UI you should also "be able to safely forget about features you aren’t using, and just use the features that matter to you." Isn't that just good information architecture combined with a design that prioritizes and encourages accomplishing the most common tasks?
A poorly designed API adds just as much complexity and frustration as a poorly designed UI. But I doubt that a UI "done right" still increases complexity by O(n) or O(n-squared).
1) "what’s marginal to one user might be core to another"
2) APIs can afford to have more marginal features than UIs because the complexity is largely hidden. Done right, there's more API documentation but the main interactions aren't affected or made more complex.
I don't buy it. Can you elaborate?
Some things I wish were touched upon:
- How do angels"investing money because they want even more money back" differ from VCs?
- What are some examples of these malicious angel blog posts? What bait is in them exactly?
- "Those are the only types of companies interesting for the angels." Why?
- Why is "a simple product company that has a large market and that will pay your bills quickly" right for the young programmer? Why is it better than what angels supposedly advocate?
- How do you distinguish between "ambitiously dumb" and disruptive innovations?
I agree with some of the bigger ideas here, especially: "Don’t see venture capital as your aim. Don’t see seed investments as your aim. Don’t build only things that google may acquire." but the post does little to back up a pretty sensationalist title.
In his indomitable way, Dave McClure describes this shift best, but I have to screen-scrape his posts, paste them into Word and clear the formatting to read them.
In Berkeley there's:
- the new David Bower center (aka The Hub) in downtown
- Caffe Med on Telegraph near campus is pretty spacious
- the 2 story Starbucks on Oxford & Center in downtown
Emeryville is kind of limited:
- Peet's on Bay Street seems roomy
Oakland:
- A'Cuppa Tea on College & Alcatraz is bigger than the average local coffee shop, open late, and has free Wifi
I'd also be happy to put you in touch with someone in Startup @ Berkeley for more help and ideas.
Not justifying points like these is a really weak start to the post. Makes it hard to take the rest of it seriously.
I think marriage is a more appropriate comparison. Divorce affects your immediate (investors, employees) and extended family (users, partners, other stakeholders). It's a decision I know I'd think about a great deal more than a break up with a girlfriend.
#4 is approaching the same thing from a different perspective. It's still a worthwhile question but I would put it under #1.
I'm currently working on the same exact problem: http://slipstre.am/