I don't know - on the other side of the coin imagine if no data was collected. It would be near impossible for companies to do any sort of troubleshooting or QA.
Taking it a step further, it'd also be significantly more difficult for them to understand their audience and users... which could actually make the experience worse for those users.
Even in the more nefarious case of ad-tech, I'd personally prefer more relevant ads than generic non-relevant ones.
I'm not saying all data collection is fine and well intentioned, but I also don't think it is necessarily as zero-sum as people think.
I do think when data gets licensed or shared w/ 3rd parties it should be more clear how it gets used.
That's not exactly accurate. Transocean was the contract driller on deepwater horizon but BP still took the brunt of the liability and PR backlash. The contract structure actually hasn't changed much in the past 20 years.
^This.. I don't see why people thinking hoarding cash when capital is cheap is a bad strategy. It totally ignores the fact that ease of raising and cost of capital is time dependent. If you had a war chest of cash in 2008/2009, that'd be insanely valuable.
This is really good advice. I'd say it generalizes to learning most engineering challenges:
Pick a problem you're interested in and solve it from top to bottom, tweaking all components as you move forward.
Isn't something about to be open source the opposite of vendor lock-in? Couldn't you just use databricks and then pretty easily migrate over to your own managed spark cluster if you so desired?
Honestly, if you really rationally break it down, starting a business rarely makes financial sense when factoring in the risk. If you want to maximize guaranteed lifetime income, having a job w/ a high demand skill (That can remain in high demand) is probably the way to go.
This is more of an opinion, I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the founders didn't know each other directly but were introduced due to common interests and it worked out just fine (My current company included). Yea, you probably shouldn't jump right into it, but I don't think it is a bad idea. Also - if you're sticking to your current network, I imagine the chances of finding someone who has more complementary skills is lower (ie: I'm an engineer & most of my network is engineers, what I'd really need though is more of a business/sales guy)
The interesting thing here is that I find many young engineers want to work on the newest tech, however, they also want the 10-5 schedule.
If you want to work on new and exciting, you have to be willing to own the consequences and stay up late digging into the bugs, learning the ins and outs, and committing to delivering what you said would be delivered. </endrant>
TLDR: If you want to work on interesting, it'll take more commitment.
Exactly, would allow companies to hire from pretty much any major city and would allow people to relocate back to where they are from and maintain a great lifestyle and still have some level of camaraderie at work.
I actually think we'll end up somewhere in the middle, where people work remote most of the time but companies may have more smaller offices for people to go into.
My wife works remote a lot of the time (But has the option to go to an office) and when she goes weeks w/o going to the office, the lack of interaction can get to her.
In terms of "How will you make money", are you interested in the market for the initial product/use case or what we think the product can eventually grow into?
ie: We think our total initial market has the potential to be around $30M/yr but can grow to take on other use cases.