I played around with the site, and I like it. I was able to quickly check off skills that I have, and make an assessment of areas that I could potentially focus on learning. I appreciated the fact that I can choose to learn the additional skills using the recommendations provided, or any other platform I desire and still credit myself for the skill achievement. Pretty straight forward interface.
I happened to like the "gamification" of the UI. But mostly because it does not muddy the value prop. It does not detract from what you can, or cannot do to make a quick assessment and checklist. IMO, I do not need another no frills site in my network. I already have a github, evernote, and many others. Bring on the silly funness!
We talk about this alot in my office and there is always a mix of opinions. We talk more about things like the ability for a user to customize the UI. It is hard for me to understand why people spend so much time personalizing their facebook or twitter page, instead of concentrating on posting good content. But there are enough users that spend time doing it, to validate the format.
Keep the fluff, as long as it does not derail content objectives.
I get it and no disrespect, but not sure that I would need an analytics provider to know what happens when google goes down for any period of time.
I guess I was hoping to see a bit of analysis as to options available to compensate for these instances. I kinda already knew that we rely on a handful of major players for everything, the hope that we can effect some change in that structure is why we hack-on!
This may very well be at the heart of his submission, especially since he is the first to point out that most of the real kinks have not been worked out.
What do most of us in the general public really know about how projects like the high speed rail get on the ballot. A lot of people have their suspicions, but we have to ask ourselves if there was a competitive bid process to determine the best solution.
I, for one, would have voted to throw money into future technologies over current rail solutions. Mostly because I shudder to think how much current tech will be old news in ten years when the high speed rail is completed (if at all).
If we pursue the hyperloop or similar tech, and whether it can be completed or not, at least it would be a first of it's kind and on the cutting edge.
Somewhere in the book written by the founders of 37signals they allude to the premise that we should all remember that the term "start-up" is interchangeable with the term "business". As such, you have to protect your interests as if you are running a business, and not get lost in the idea of a start-up. Getting things in writing can be tricky prior to launch and proof of persistency, but at the point where you are hiring additional staff and opening satellite offices, the topic has to be addressed.
The authors' attitude, while polarizing, is not really as important as the underlying issues that the article is trying to address. I agree and disagree with a few of his points, but just understanding the current environment in education, there are too many obstacles to overcome systematically.
How do you strike a balance between budget, administration, curriculum, and execution. Inevitably, one of these stakeholders prevents change and growth.
In the end, it may fall upon us tech professionals to continually improve UX. As far as the masses are concerned, that is the point of our professional existence. When a car breaks, they want a mechanic. When a computer doesn't connect to the inter-nets, they want a tech professional.
Just to throw it out there. Think of how much tech has advanced in the last ten years (Google is only 10yrs old)... do you really think, knowing what you know about agility in education, that public schools could have kept pace??? There are tech giants that have fallen by the wayside over the same period of time.
I think this is spot on. Many of the brick and mortar stores are scrambling, but finding ways to be just fine They have a certain customer base and actually are being forced to provide better service and value. I shop at Macys now more than I ever did because I can buy items online and deal with a live person at the store if I have any issues. I can't say that I ever shopped there often before getting on there mailing list.
Best Buy is being forced to step-up their price matching policies because of the "show-rooming" trend, supposedly leading to better deals for buyers.
I tried to Love AWS, but right now I just like their effort. There is something organically that feels right about the way DO has positioned themselves, they can always scale pricing based on additional features added. Yes, there margin is thin, but the the fact that the service is easy to use means less user support issues when adding them at 500 per day.
I would bet my ten dollar watch that you are a developer and not a marketer. I suppose that you might point out that geckos can't really talk, and Flo will not answer your questions about car insurance :)
Maybe my glass is half-full, but furloughing everybody for one week may have prevented them from cutting a number of individual positions completely. The thing that I find interesting is the statement about efforts being made to return the business model to sustainability: "new product launches, investments, acquisitions, changes to its go-to-market, new client centers of competency for Linux and flash memory".
Did I miss something or is this a list of things on any viable business model. I would have liked to see them make "out of the box" moves, but alas, this is the IBM we all know and love.
This makes sense when there is, in fact, a story to tell. Depending on the item, I think that the story can be simplified by concentrating on the BENEFITS of the item. For example this is the description of a watch for sale in a daily deal I just received on email:
Lancaster XXXX
Quartz movement
Case diameter: 43mm
Mineral crystal protects watch
Stainless-steel case; black dial
Water-resistant to 165 feet (50 M)
Rewrite, with story:
When you hit the street, do it with style and confidence. The Lancaster XXXX features a big face, steel case (unapologetic rhyme there), and a quartz movement that is more reliable than your cell phone service! Oh yeah, and if that unassuming pothole is deeper than you thought, this watch will survive a dip in the water.
So you get the general idea, there is a story in the benefits. After all, how many people buying a $10 watch really care or know what a quartz movement or mineral crystal are?
Being a champion of world class service is always the goal and stories like this never get old. Keep in mind that there are also hidden/intangible costs associated with delivery of this level of service, for every "Bob the 4 million dollar client", there are 10 "John the 2 hour time-syncs". I am not saying that you should not strive for world-class service, because you should. I would speak more to pricing your services accordingly and not under valuing them to the point where you cannot take care of clients properly.
Seems like he thought that the price was right for a publication with such a strong legacy, even if he doesn't have a grand plan for the immediate future. This sale was only offered to a very narrow pool of buyers, so I think that it was a very prudent purchase. He is friends with the previous ownership and undoubtedly felt that if he can preserve the publication in some shape or form, there is nothing but upside given the "drop in the bucket" price.
You deserve kudos for your efforts so far. Every failure will breed some type of insight. The statement, "I believe that my previous two ventures failed mainly because of the founding team (which I’m included in)." - may be true, but could probably just as easily be said of solo founders. Especially after reading your list of deficiencies in the founding team members, they may be the same short-comings as the person staring at a solo founder in the mirror! It is sometimes harder (or impossible) to find that rare person who can wear all hats.
My major concern about being a solo founder would be the possible loss of productivity- how much more a team can accomplish over one person, and collaboration. Also, and this may seem horrible, but if we crash and burn, we can do it faster as a team, and pivot or move-on without the time equity that one person will have invested.
To answer the questions you posed at the end of your article, my two cents is that I have found it impossible to succeed at scale without an agile team (one mans opinion).
I hate to preach process and organization, but if a team follows the resources available to start-ups, such as business model generation, etc. You can identify holes in the team, or where someone needs assistance.
This leads to the second part of your question and the most important attributes to look for in a co-founder. They should already have expertise, but the two attributes that I would look for are Objectivity- nothing ruins like the inability to be flexible, and Leadership- in the sense that leaders tend to be people of action, they bring people along, and they celebrate success wildly.
Not that you cannot achieve success alone, but it is definitely a lot tougher to celebrate alone.
I happened to like the "gamification" of the UI. But mostly because it does not muddy the value prop. It does not detract from what you can, or cannot do to make a quick assessment and checklist. IMO, I do not need another no frills site in my network. I already have a github, evernote, and many others. Bring on the silly funness!
We talk about this alot in my office and there is always a mix of opinions. We talk more about things like the ability for a user to customize the UI. It is hard for me to understand why people spend so much time personalizing their facebook or twitter page, instead of concentrating on posting good content. But there are enough users that spend time doing it, to validate the format.
Keep the fluff, as long as it does not derail content objectives.