I don't quiet agree with that. I believe "lean" definitely is a "state of mind" and the truly lean entrepreneurs are lean irrespective of constraints and I have seen this first hand on several occasions. I know more than a handful founders who have made their money with multiple exits and yet they are lean across the board in every way.
Sad but I am not surprised. Its incremental value was always questionable and I never understood why they thought they could build a successful browser based on niche features that only a tiny segment of the online population would want. It would be interesting to see what happens to RockMelt.
Rahul, awesome reply. Kudos to your team for a well executed product.
I am curious to know if you are using Rapleaf to get social profiles or if you are doing it yourself (which is tough/only partially possible). If you are using Rapleaf, aren't you loosing money with every lookup?
Right on. And I am looking forward to what you do next.
Having said that though, what you have right now is a "nice to have" and it excites everyone for the soft value it adds. But I wonder if the current product can pass the Penny Gap. I know you don't think its meant to, but I am really not sure if the current users will be the ones who would pay for whatever it is that you will build in the future. Xobni is a good example of it. Dropbox on the other end is a great example of a free strategy that sold users on the same product that they expected users would pay for. Basically with a strategy where you acquire a lot of free users thinking they will pay for what they have not seen as yet, can be a dangerous one.
This is something you end up discussing every so often. But I think its not about the fact they have ugly interfaces or that they are successful inspite of the ugly interface. I think its about the fact that they were a certain way then they gain critical mass of users, who got used to using these sites in a particular way, knew what to find where and the familiarity with the interface - however it was - grew stronger and stronger. When this happens, if you decide to suddenly change the interface to make it better/sexier/etc, you might be shooting yourself in the foot. I think its important to understand this aspect when you consider such case studies.
Couldn't agree more. I think Amazon really had tried to design based on the user experience at the center and not colors/how it looks/cool AJAX etc. A lot of times you see a big letter from Bezos on the homepage and I think its brilliant. Amazon is basically what every ecommerce should to copy - because they have figured out what works.
Awesome for the "single founder" part. I think its a myth that single founder companies are few and far between, and that its tough to make it happen alone. I don't disagree that being a single founder is tough, but I think there are founders who are at their best when they are running "single founder" startups.
+1 to that. I think that is the best explanation. Sometimes the best way to get a face-saving exit in the Valley is to be VC funded and by the right guys who make sure all their bets get some sort of an exit. I know of a similar one in the recent past.
I don't think Wave as a product failed. I think it failed as a product Google imagined/wanted it to be. They expected Wave to replace the way we use email. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now, after the fact. The tech was cool and useful but changing consumers habits and especially on something like communication is very very hard. So I am not really surprised it did not get adoption. I agree with some of the comments below that if it was integrated tightly within Gmail, it would worked better and PERHAPS it would helped more users try it, like it and adopt it ..slowly.
Max is awesome and I love his attitude. But I just never ever understood Slide. And why Google would buy Slide is equally difficult to understand, if not more. Are they buying technology? Or users (on Facebook!)? Or revenues (most likely not!)? Or Max and his team?
Ah, I think it would be a mistake for anyone to assume they are an expert unless they are in a field that has nothing left to be discovered (rare!). If you are in tech, then I think "Ancora Imparo" (I'm learning) - as referenced in an earlier comment - is the way to go. If you have anything to do with startups, then I think you should be ready for your knowledge and expertise to be disrupted everyday.
Not sure I agree. Its not about technology or familiarity. Video is not (yet) a comfortable medium of communication for most people. They won't be confident on video, and most likely will come off less perfect than they really are. I think it could potentially be bad for employees as well as employers. Comfort is critical if an employer wants to truly evaluate someone's skill set. Maybe video becomes a comfortable medium in the future, but that would perhaps be another generation.
I think most candidates who are good will find this to be way too much work to prove their point. They won't do it. Secondly, depending on the job a lot of people may get disqualified just because they seem lame on video, though they are stellar at what they do.
But as an idea, I like it for its novelty. The jobs space is broken in many ways and this is worth a shot. Just don't think it will work for every job type. For hiring at Crate & Barrel or Starbucks perhaps.
I know of a couple of entrepreneurs who made a good few mil by selling their startup and were looking to start a business as a lifestyle cashflow only business. When I asked him why, he said they did not want to dip into their savings for daily expenses and wanted to have a business that was sure to make them just enough money without way too much effort. I think this is not a bad strategy unless you just don't want to work, which I think is rare.
In terms of growth, I think its wiser to invest in BRIC where the core domestic markets are getting stronger and the stock market returns are a lot better, though choppy. Also if you diversify into real estate (recurring income), CDs (monthly income), and such other opportunities, then you can strike a balance for yourself.
Influence is VERY tough though. I wouldn't count on it as an indefinite opportunity to earn money when needed, assuming you are able to cut through the noise and build credibility (which itself may be tougher than having a decent exit. Plus it is not for everyone). New influencers constantly displace current influencers and it would take a lot more work to maintain it unless you founded Google or something.
Its indeed awesome for a company as large as Apple to keep things this way. I have several friends at Cisco and Oracle and the teams there are just bloated beyond belief. I think a lot of this flows top down and the management needs to get it. Once you work at a well-run startup, you know that the only way to get things done is with small teams and a core team of star engineers who move around and get things done.
Looking at the set of investors who endorsed their vision, I think they probably have a lot more to come which may define why its more interesting beyond the mashups they have right now.
Rapportive is awesome because its simple and easy to understand. Everyone gets it without any confusion. Would be interesting to see how they make money, though. Thats a toughie, especially considering the target market is Gmail users.
Also, anyone know how they are getting Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Skype info for email addresses? Are they using RapLeaf? If so, are they paying for every such lookup? That would be a huge cost to deal with.
I agree. This is true outside of HN as well IF you look at the aggregate smartness/knowledge of experts and compare that aggregate to your smartness/knowledge. Its incorrect to do such a comparison. If you look at the experts whose smartness you subconsciously aggregate, they are each not as smart in every one of the areas that others are smarter at. Sean Ellis is awesome as growing a startup who has achieved product/market fit, but not at achieving product/market fit (in his own words). Sean could say/feel the same. But instead he continues to be better at what he does. That, I believe, is the way to go. Master the areas that you are good at/can get good at, and learn the rest from others.
As you have agreed to in the comments, there are already a few competitors in this space and some of them have been there for a long time. I like your pricing model but I am wondering if that alone would be enough to win against the competition. The core idea is small enough that I can't imagine how different you can get. Have you thought of a customer acquisition strategy that would give you an unfair advantage?
I think "how you do it" matters a lot in this case a lot and context/relationship/the particular requirement all play a big role. Basically you are not just casually saying "pay me whatever you like". The customer already trusts you, values your skill/offerings, knows she wants to get the task done from you, and understands that it may be tough to price so a more flexible approach is good to ensure no time is wasted in coming up with a price.
This is very well articulated. I have definitely tried this before and it works like a charm. However, you do have to be careful about who you try this with though. Long term satisfied customers, customers in urgent deadlines and ones who are generally reasonable about costs value this sort of a pricing/engagement.
I have seen that a bigger benefit from this sort of a pricing model is a stronger relationship that develops with customers who come back to you time and again.
Another thing I have done in the past (ours was not really a services business but a niche solution business) is defined the pricing and after discussing with the customer that it doesn’t fit with their current quarters budget, I agreed to discount it to “make it happen” and they greatly respected that. And then made up for it the next quarter.
I would highly recommend it, but you need to know "how" to do it right. You should not come across as casual or clueless in doing so.
It is a good idea but there is a fundamental problem, I believe. The developers who have a great environment may not have any incentive to share it, and a lot of other who share may lead to spam/not-so-useful screencasts which may be laborious to clean (even if you use the community to rate it). Also how do you think this service will make money?
I couldn't agree more. I have been a Cofounder (with 4 others) once and a single founder twice (all 3 companies are profitable and alive). Based on my experience, I feel convinced that "unless" you start together as cofounders, its just very difficult/rare to "find" a cofounder who works out. There are a variety of reasons and I have seen some in my attempts at looking for one.
Being a single founder is tough, but for those who can do it , it can work really well. There are some strategic downsides to it like decision making is based on just the single founder's gut/knowledge/experience, and its important that single founders understand the downsides and work around them.
I couldn't agree more. B2B can also be a lot more profitable in the long run and there are clear differentiators that can be built with a focus on vertical/niches.
I agree. Its highly unlikely that this was done on purpose with complete transparency to higher management. But I still wonder how the manager or the manager's manager of the project didn't see this happening. I am pretty sure the team and their 1 or 2 levels up researched plurk and its success in the region enough to recognize that it was copied. The product manager could not have missed this. I am sure a lot of people are under fire for this.