Seems to be some logical inconsistencies in the startup community over what is and is not ok to copy. Usually, like anything, it comes back to whatever is self-serving to the person doing the talking.
Investors speak out against patents on methods of doing business because their well-funded current or future portfolio companies could "build on" the ideas and use the cash lead to make a ton of money.
Digital media distribution platforms want online content to be freely distributed off of or outside of the publishers' sites that paid for the content to be produced.
This is all still pretty new and the rules of law and of decency are still being determined (and, in the case of the latter, are different for each individual).
I think the more productive outcome of this line-crossing is this exact discussion to help shape those rules.
> Seems to be some logical inconsistencies in the startup community over what is and is not ok to copy.
Let's not pretend that we're dealing with a couple of noobs here, people.
If it weren't for the cumulative years of technology-related experience of everyone involved, a case could be made for excusing a blatant misstep with an admonishment, but for outright copy/paste theft? Allan Grant knew better and decided to steal anyway.
Nice look and feel. I don't yet have the need, but I'd try it when I do.
Your home page has an info-graphic and some advantages/benefits, you also have a how-it-works walk-through and you have a 4-page tour. Seems like overkill, but you probably know better than I do:
1. which of these is converting?
2. which are most prospects (not people like me who just wanted to look at the app) visiting and spending time on?
3. were any of these pages or sub-pages a direct response to customer requests (implicit or explicit)?
I'm not asking for a defense - I'm asking because the answers would really help us our with our own site!
1) Its hard to say anything conclusively from a conversion perspective yet.
2) A lot of visitors go to the tour before signing up. That is also where they spend most time.
3) Not really. Most pages are still in a transition, and we're trying a bunch of things. Currently, the changes are based on "what we want our users to know", rather than user feedback
Does it really promote innovation to advantage 2nd movers? Sure it is possible to add to the software and improve it, but often, the innovation is simply execution, buzz, sales and other non-trivial business things. How can there be a reward for the equally important talents of having the vision for new solutions and ability to create them if there is no patent or licensing protection?
Also, it scares me a bit when someone as influential as Fred takes this to his blog - read by so many startups. VCs make money from execution and have an (or another) incentive to suggest that patents are not an acceptable tool for startups.
I agree with the need for patent reform, actually, but a) I'm not sure eliminating software patents is the answer and b) would encourage each startup to make their own decision on how to use the current laws to give them every advantage they can get.
I think people exist in circles, but they don't necessarily talk or share in circles. If Google, or anyone, wants to mimic real social interaction, they need to find a way to enable talking to the right people for that moment and that content. Even the closest circles don't work in daily life. Rarely do I think "I'd like to go skiing with 'best friends' or 'school friends'". I'm much more likely to think of who skis, who hasn't just had a kid, who hasn't just lost her job, who has a job that allows vacation, etc. Maybe I make a circle for just that, but it seems a) difficult and b) overkill. The outreach and sharing only to that circle just isn't the hard part of the communication. Seems like all that solves is "I can't find that email thread about the ski trip in my inbox".
I'd love replies to this line of thought b/c it actually was a bit of a look in the mirror on some stuff I'm working on.
You are on the right track IMHO. What is key is that 'best friends' or 'school friends' are highly contingent and ambiguous constructs. They are not fixed, but rather are dynamic through time–people flow in & out of circles for a multitude of reason–which is very hard to operationalize technically. More engineers & techies should at least be familiar and respect more social theory, not because it represents some 'true' representation of how real social interaction works, but more as food for thought when designing social/technical infrastructure(or as we say in the biz sociotechnical ;). I see echos of Erving Goffman, Harold Garfinkel, Anslem Strauss, and Emilie Durkheim in RWW's description of circles.
Nobody has seen the UI of Google Circles yet, so maybe creating a circle is as easy as drawing a loop around a group of icons, kinda like how Bumptop, another company Google recently purchased, let you group desktop icons with gestures.
well, you make the laws. that's the beauty. personal responsibility - I would have guessed that an entrepreneurial community would expect people to look out for themselves. sure, don't cheat people, but also don't expect that a system totally eliminates cheating. no free lunch.
I'm starting to get disillusioned with the general community thoughts these days. When it's clear that the surest way to a popular article is to blame 'Wall St' for all your problems, to me this is a sign that the actual original thinking entreprenuers are being outnumbered by ordinary employees holding mainstream political views. Populism is a poor form of argument.
Note I'm not exclupating 'Wall St' from blame, merely expressing regret that 'piling on' takes more of a front seat to trying to work out what went wrong, where the opportunities now are, and what lessons can be learnt.
For the record I am an entrepreneur have had 3 successful exits and now run a consultancy with quite a few employees and I blame wall st. I would never operate my business the way that they have and am appalled at their actions. Further if my company was responsible for great pain in America I would not pay bonuses to my employees. I have seen a lot of entrepreneur support this kind of action and I wonder if their is a deep seeded desire on their part to join the ranks of the abusive. For me I think it is reprehensible to act in this manner sometime honor is more important that a buck. Whether my view point is Populism or not, there is no honor in what Wall st. did and therefore I blame them as a citizen and as a entrepreneur. The evidence is overwhelming to ignore it is to have an agenda (not saying you do, but I am suspect of entrepreneur who make excuses for them).
Well, my point is not to say that Wall st is not guilty of many bad practices - it's just to say I don't like seeing a populist movement of blaming them for everything and calling for their heads, as if this will somehow fix current problems. The damage is done - lets look at ways to avoid this and stop it happening again.
I don't excuse Wall St, but I do think the government is as much, or more to blame. Individuals on Wall St were given a set of rules to work within, some broke them, many stayed within the law. The entire industry cannot be declared bad. It takes an entire economy to mess things up. Everyone is complicit, including the media and even some parts of the general public.
It's the aspect of finding a single scapegoat that I don't find comfortable. Because I feel that hunting down a responsible party and blaming them results in avoiding valuable life lessons. The valuable life lessons here are making sure you don't go along with the crowd, do your own critical thinking and don't for one minute believe the government has your best interests at heart.
I don't excuse Wall St, but I do think the government is as much
I absolutely agree, the problem is determining who is who, the relationship is so incestuous that who is the government and who private enterprise is sometimes vague when it comes to who they are acting for. When it comes to being weight in the balance I think the general public is the least wanting. By no means am I saying lets intact laws and retroactively throw these guys in jail, but the reality of the situation is that given the cozy nature of business and government in this sector nothing is going to happen until the general public starts calling for blood. They are embolden by all they have gotten away with it will not be reduced and no laws will be enacted until there is a fear of the general population. I think the mid-terms helped to stoke that fear. I don't want to get into the politics of the change but a mass flushing of Washington should send a signal. As well I think the general public has paid for their sins, I think the government has paid some with the mid-terms. I don't think the banks have covered their part of the tab yet. Which is why my tone reflects them being the most accountable.
If 2x the money wins the race, then get 2x the money. A good idea has a case that can be made for it and, at least, an expectation of the value you will create. That is what you (and others) invest against. There shouldn't be such thing as "they have more money" for an idea that you expect to generate well more than that investment. There is only "they were willing or able to get more money". This isn't trivial - believing in the projections and selling your passion and networking to find investors are all really hard.
Losing to the competition is a possible outcome, but not necessarily the "likely outcome". Anyway, the way to manage that is still to execute better. Competition helps teams that need competition to rise to the occasion, but rising to the occasion is what is needed. Without it, losing is the likely outcome whether there was competition or not.
Seems like the argument for 1st mover advantage is: first mover = funding = success rather than first mover = success. sure, I do believe that funding can lead to success -- any resource advantage leads to success. Yet, I do think first mover advantage has some more important benefits. Things like taking most of the market out of the gate (why would we need a second brown fizzy sugar water?) or defining the landscape (oh, a good carfax score is what tells you a used car is good). I think certain circumstances make first movers better and others make 2nd, 3rd or later-movers better, but an absolute is pretty hard to prove.
I would say you need customer feedback or maybe expert feedback. Some sort of feedback always helps. But, so does vision. However you get to a good product is how you need to get to a good product. You just need to know and do that. The reason feedback - specifically from actual customers - is usually chosen is because it is more on the science side than the art side, but I surely can't knock those people and teams that can deliver product excellence due to vision, luck or art.
