mehuldesai

Im going to comment on the model for Facebook and how it seems unnatural and forced. With Google, the user has indicated intent via a search or visiting some site of interest. Google associates ads based on the content which is based on the users intent to find information.

Facebook for their newsfeed and ads on the right seemed to inject ads right into content and force some portion of its users to see them. The user likely never wanted or had any intent on seeing anything but friends posts. Thus its not surprising many users may not participate with clicks. Its interesting from the article on bus insider that the click thru rate is high for news feeds. I suspect that forcing ads in the middle of a friend to friend conversation gets the users attention and some clicks. However, is it what a user really wanted to do in the news feed. The user wants friend-to-friend information. Facebook for the news feed ad inclusion reminds me of TV infomercial or tv ads but on a channel that the user themselves value. A bad experience overall.

What can drive real conversions is user intent. A user wants to find information or opts in to an ad channel, then you'll get very good click thrus and conversions. Thats why i like Google's model so much. However, google suffers from a hit or miss approach on actual content and its value. however, as we know, the page rank/etc... tries to make computers get a good match.

i think if we can have a social fabric that is truely social and valuable and not polluted by injected ads that may be very very valuable. I think Facebook could suffer a demise more and more for this ad strategy they have. Ads, promotions, attractions should be a fun and willing experience not a forced one. Perhaps this is an idealist view. comments ?

apart from actual coding, suggest a foundation like in CS 101. ie algorithm books (eg O(n) binary/sort) kind of things, perhaps Design Patterns. for lower level, Kernighan and Ritchie c language is a bible. structured and functional (eg python) type programming are good to understand. there are tonnes of cookbooks on the technologies you decide. LAMP and thin b'ends seem effective for most web systems initially anyhow.

rails an phython are sometimes thought of as next generation languages. Java/C+ suffer greatly from the amount of scaffolding to do something simple like have a object used between layers. Python and I believe rails, says it will do stuff like setter/getters (scafolding), you concentrate on the logic. php also has some great use, they are untyped languages. typing for java/c++ can be argued as not as necessary as one may think, thats where python, php, and I believe perhaps Rails (dont quote me on that) say again, concentrate on whats needed and not having to type everything. if the web results in a string, then no need to declare that throughout your stack.

anyhow, my 2 cents. not the fastest path necessarily, but over time you may want to have good code, useable by others and designed reasonably so its not as hard to get to next steps like scale...

Your skill in the js front-end is a valuable asset. Silicon Valley startups have moved architectures and frameworks from multi layer b'ends to far lighter archs on the b'end and new derivative next gen languages on the b'end. Eg like LAMP stacks, python and rubi (2 next gen functional languages). The line between f'end and b'end has shifted where the f'end takes on some of the responsibilty (via its own frameworks like backbone.js, node.js,etc...) that the b'end traditionally would have. Bottom line, trend is your friend and js and its frameworks are in very good demand more than ever in the valley!

I would say the biggies like ebay, google, apple , etc... may look at your degree (or lack of) and rank it for eng positions. I know goog may look at it a bit. they used to like high ranking colleges. However, for your valuable skill in js, small startups may value your skills and are open to sponsor. some are starved for f'end talent.

heres my advise to getting in to a small startup:

look in HN jobs, startups for hire indeed.com, network friends, linkedin etc... find small cos, private make portfolio of your apps, design docs, blogs, etc... and put them online. take them to interview and show them to everyone small cos may sponsor you. there is usually a cost in salary i think (20+%) demonstrate your knowledge of js in the interviews, good attitude *take a strong double shot cappuccino in the interview, it works for me to get my brain supercharged!

good luck

Programming is like being able to build a house. the house is the product. some builders are completely driven and passionate and build the worlds most beautiful structures. Others build the ones we dont like.

programming is a toolset, its in the eye of the programmer where the passion for creativity, design and ultimately product lies. programming when combined with architectural skill creates the beautiful products we call iphones, devices, web stuff...

if someone is stuck thinking programming is just a tool they will naturally see it as boring or mundane. If someone takes that tool and changes the world with it, then Im sure they will not see it as such.

Quality should be there overall, but especially on those things that really matter. This may be features for an app like facebook, or performance in a highly responsive game. My point is blindly following performance is not achieving quality. Quality is in the eyes of the user and has different meanings depending on what the user perceives and is doing. We could say the web experience using browsers has extremely bad quality characteristics from an engineering point of view, yet it changed the world. So maybe Steve wasnt so spot on :)

On Instagram, have you read about its starting and also Pinterest. Instagram had a product about Bourbin or something that was not a widely used app, but did attach to a niche of presumably drinkers. What made Instagram is that they somehow recognized that people on the Bourbin site were really into the pics taken of their hobby. Instagrams next app was a buggy system apparently! However, I recall reading it was that they recognized the uptick by recognizing the users wanted to post pics (with the filter stuff). So here, there was no real quality, just a feature not exposed well in the social market. Pinterest also seemed to recognize that wedding dresses and women gained them traction. In my judgement its this recognition of opportunity and gaps in the social market combined with what you say, the right time and place. Right time and place can also mean partially that there is a need in the market for something thats not well done.

Excuse me, but why all this energy on a millisecond type performance change. Why dont you guys focus on build apps that solve problems or are new companies. Your energies and brains are misplaced. Maybe its fun though.

Here's the deal. Instagram, Pinterest or SnapChat probably never considered about the time it takes for an iphone generation X to perform. They didn't design for it, they designed what the user needed and wanted.

I would say millisecond snapness isnt perceived by lets say 98% of the users of these systems. Focus on the application. Whats missing in mobile ? Facebook and Twitter are missing the picture. Focus on that guys, you are smart, but put energy on the big problems and not some low level hardware/software layer.

Would have to disagree on everyone being focused on the stock option lottery. 1st its not a lottery. You can do analysis that shows that working for large entrenched dominate company, think Apple, Google or such over 5 years will beat a engineer joining a series B,C company that makes it. For startups there is often a trade of salary for ownership. If you calculate it over many years and payrises, bonus's etc... the numbers may play even.

Many many people in the Bay Area are not in startups at all and not playing the option lottery, they are married with children. Some play the management ranks and others contract, etc... I met a woman once in the dot com boom that confided in me that she made $1mill in 2000 over a short time. It got me thinking about the real equations at work. You need to do math, simple math but you need the data which you may not have.

Anyhow, that said, it is true I think that engineers do not get their fair share of equity many times in companies even with dozens of people. So this is when ownership or foundership or close to starting is a stock option play. Options are a contract to own at a price set on the contract. If the price rises dramatically you have a massive amount of capital. Stock options are very risky, compared to straight risk adverse salary jobs. For risk there is reward. It has not much to do with lottery, manly with risk and reward and statistics. You need to crunch the numbers and consider risk and then decide on your career paths.

Typical of the billionaires. Is the aging funding for society or there own motality. Ellison does stuff like this. I didn't read the article fully but on the surface they would be better doing as Gates is doing, funding suffering. Funding their own future to me is not very honorable and respectful.

The article gives valuable insights into raising capital and the art of negotiation in this domain.

Overall, negotiation and funding could almost be expressed as a rule table. Certain heuristics and rules. Rather than flip flopping strategies on how to negotiate and deal with investors, I think it may be good to have a set of rules/heuristics to follow and see if it leads to your goal. If it fails, alter it and see the result. Anyhow, thats what I intend to do for my company, GridCrowd.

For negotiation PG mentions that its may be ok to just admit your a noob or not knowledgeable on certain aspects of funding. I respectfully wonder if there is another stratedgy from what I've learnt in negotiations in the non-funding world?:

Negotiate from a perceived position of strength.

You don't have to say your a noob, miss the detail and expose it if it becomes necessary. This way you may be able to attain more action on behalf of the investor moving through their process. The noob strategy allows them to indicate a process that could be tailored to their advantage. I don't know investors, so its hard for me to understand their objectives and how they behave. I'll re-read PGs advise again, he does have great credibility and wiseness so maybe I need more study on this strategy.