Tesla's Musk Says Model S Sold Out; Should Turn Profit in 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-28/tesla-s-musk-says-model-s-sold-out-should-turn-profit-in-2013.html <comment><USER2> For those who doubted Tesla's ability to turn a profit, this is my anecdote. I used to be one of you. Selling an absurdly priced boutique sports car that can only run 250 miles did not seem like a viable business strategy. The battery packs had their issues. The range was terrible. The car was tiny and cramped, even smaller than some small sports cars.

And then I chanced upon a LivingSocial deal that let me drive a Roadster S for a day. For the record, I've driven a handful of supercars and more than my share of regular sports cars. I have almost _never_ felt what I did in the Tesla (with the exception of the Gallardo), mainly because of the instant thrust available at any RPM. It was not like anything I ever felt before. As I drove, I felt inexplicably that this was the car of the future -- as a tech aficionado, I was finally driving a car that _felt_ like the future. The lack of an engine roar was strangely soothing (and I LOVE engine roars!). The pickup meant that I could smoke most Maseratis on the 0-60. The thrill of pressing down on the accelerator and feeling the thrust in your chest was unparalleled (again, with the exception of the Gallardo). As I drove past clubs in San Francisco with their Porsches and Bentleys outside, I felt above it all in my tiny all-electric sports car. _They_ were stupid flash-mongers; _I_ was one with my machine. There is something pure and beautiful about driving a Tesla Roadster, well beyond the gas-free aspect. This was the thoroughly impractical car that my inner child always wanted from the future.

It thrilled me to drive that car in a way that I cannot fully describe. I am an eminently rational man. I have children, and am not prone to being wild and reckless. But now, as a result of driving that beautiful machine, as soon as my GOOG stocks vest, I will be driving down to Menlo Park, CA with my checkbook in hand to drive out with a Roadster.

That, dear friends, is how Tesla will turn a profit, in the face of ridiculous product shortcomings like range. They enchant, and they delight, and because of that I will gladly open my pocketbook for Elon Musk.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for sharing your experiences. I am also a car enthusiast.

Have you driven an Ariel Atom [1]? Granted, it is less practical than the Tesla Roadster; however, the cost is considerably less, and you could easily afford a secondary car to supplement it.

 _"This is driving nirvana. You can forget anything you've ever driven. Anything. There is no car, nothing on four wheels, that's as fast as this. Nothing."_ [2]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Atom>

[2] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v4YNkurhLk>

<comment><AUTHOR> The Atom has long been on my list of a car to buy once I have more than enough truly disposable income (and an OK from the wife).

<comment><USER4> Thankyou for a well-timed reminder that I really should buy a sports car _before_ I get married.

<comment><USER5> Or, the longer you wait to get married, the more you get to do. Just saying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really hope that Tesla can actually become a profitable company, because it's time we had some real innovation in terms of car technology. I'm not a car buff or an environmental buff, but having a real zero-emissions car that will help get rid of our dependence on oil just makes sense.

However, can any experts educate me on the status of the Li-ion battery? My understanding is that Li-ion batteries lose 30% of their capacity over 2-3 years. So what does that mean for the range of the Tesla cars? My Honda Accord lasted 11 years and 200k miles, it doesn't sound like Teslas have nearly the same durability and range. Is this a ticking time bomb, or is there a solution to this?

<comment><USER7> Lithium ion batteries can last well over 100,000 miles while still retaining 75% or more of their original capacity. See: Chevy Volt.

I'm anxious to see if Tesla can compete in this regard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 6500 sales is actually pretty significant. By way of comparison the Nissan Leaf (which is much cheaper) has only sold 7217 cars in North America since launching in Dec 2010.

To be fair though, Nissan originally had 17,000 pre-orders but had trouble filling them due to production issues. It remains to be seen if Tesla can actually deliver their first run, but let's hope that Tesla is able to get some magic done in that NUMMI plant.

<comment><USER9> Saw a leaf for the fist time up close yesterday. Damn it's ugly. They could really murder sales with a Deiter Rams/Johnny Ive aesthetic design instead of this fake space age plastic crap they cover the car with.

<comment><USER10> I can never understand why car companies put out such ugly cars. Is there such a huge price difference between making a decent looking car and an ugly car that they have sacrifice design? Or does someone at nissan actually thinks it looks "space age".

<comment><USER11> I don't have the research on hand, but it's generally accepted that the reason the Prius was so successful as a hybrid was because it LOOKED very different than other hybrids, so people who bought one could conspicuously show off that they were hybrid drivers before it was cool.

Models like the Honda Hybrid Accord and Civic didn't do nearly as well because aside from the badge and carpool sticker, they didn't scream "I'M A HYBRID LOOK AT ME SAVING THE WORLD"

My hunch is that the Leaf was an attempt to capture some of that "conspicuous hybridization" momentum. Agreed, though, it's an ugly car.

<comment><USER12> The Prius is shaped like an upside down boat hull. It's a shape that offers little drag through a fluid.

I find the Prius OK, not beautiful, but not ugly either. Don't have one yet, but would likely consider one as a practical replacement vehicle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Are they really "sold out"? An employee told me they pre-sold 6,600ish, but i believe this includes people who reserved the cars with a $5K deposit, those who prepaid the entire amount, and those who out down a $40K deposit for the signature model.

Personally my allocation number is the 4,XXX range, I put down the $5k deposit and have yet to truly decide if I'm going to buy it, but I suppose it also presents and opportunity to flip the spot to the guy who has to have it now. I went to he factory event a few weeks back and it was a pretty wide demographic.

<comment><USER14> Are you allowed to sell your spot?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I visited the Tesla store recently, and I can definitely see why it's sold out --the car is gorgeous, it has a 17" touchscreen in place of the dash and, in some ways, it's actually more practical than a comparable normal sedan (it has storage space in the front and the back, for example).

Especially for people who do not drive long distances too often, this really is a great car to have. I would definitely see getting one of these over a 5 series or the like; for daily use, you wouldn't be sacrificing quality by going electric.

<comment><USER16> _17" touchscreen in place of the dash_

In all honesty that's an idiotic trend that I hope ends soon. Touchscreens (especially ones with menus) are impossible to navigate without taking your eyes off the road. In my old Toyota Echo I could find _every_ control (and its state) by feel alone.

Now, if they added tactile feedback to the touchscreen (say vibrations as you moved over controls on the screen, and requiring force to "click") and got rid of menus, at least that'd be usable (if not still silly).

...That said I'd still buy the car if I had that kind of disposable income.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Damn, the carrot I was dangling over my head for a breakout success over the next 12 months has been a model S. Now I need a new carrot. The Leaf's not all that carroty.

<comment><USER18> <http://www.ussubmarines.com/submarines/phoenix_1000.php3>

(Ok, that might be a BIT more pricey, how about this?)

<http://www.brammo.com/enertia/>

<comment><USER17> The Enertia is out -- when getting married, to close the deal, I had to agree to never get another motorcycle. But she didn't think to rule out submarines!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wow, I'm really excited! But it still looks like a "car" :)

</comment><comment><USER20> selling out the inventory is not that hard when the volume is this low + the price is pretty low to make it affordable to a lot more people than the roadster

<comment><USER21> Building the car and selling it at a low price point without making a loss is pretty hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Should turn-profit translated to non-Wallstreet speak = Will not make a profit because something unforeseen will happen.</comment>


T-Mobile iPhone goes from myth to reality: $580, but no contract - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/03/t-mobile-iphone-goes-from-myth-to-reality-580-but-no-contract/ <comment><USER3> I really hope transparent pricing takes off in mobile. When consumers see the true cost of the device they are buying, manufacturers are going to have to compete on price. Which is awesome.

I think what T-Mobile is doing here is pretty brillant. Their biggest obstacle is that consumers don't care if the iPhone really costs $600 when all they see is the $199. But they've managed to find a way that makes the upfront costs significantly lower at only a slight bump to their monthly rates. I think this has a chance of working, but I worry that T-Mobile doesn't have the muscle to push other carriers into doing something similar.

<comment><USER4> It's hard to break the mental model of subsidies. As an example:

Last month my wife dropped her old phone and it broke, and I got her a Nexus 4 for $299 and we signed up for simplemobile (which is a Tmobile MVNO) for about $90 a month for the both of us.

Our previous bill from Tmo was $130 a month, a full $40 more AND on contract. Since it took a few days to wait for the Nexus she was asking "Why don't we just go to the store and get the free phones instead? Why spend all this money on a fancy phone?"

I'm glad tmo is doing this, but I think they will need to market it in such a way that it is obvious to consumers that they will save money in the long run.

<comment><USER5> Until MVNOs allow roaming, the idea that they are an acceptable substitute for real cellular coverage is dangerous and we need to stop spreading it.

There are ENTIRE STATES and some major cities where networks like SimpleMobile have zero coverage. Green Bay, WI, for example, is big enough for an NFL team, but if you find yourself there with a SimpleMobile phone, it will be a brick. Be prepared for the fact that you cannot call roadside assistance on a cross- country road trip, from a suburb that's too far away from town, or from some minor population centers. Forget small towns (I have some extended family in fairly remote areas).

If you stay in San Francisco at all times, I'm sure SimpleMobile is great, but it would not be a very good idea to do this in the Midwest. Maybe if there was still a cost savings when you factored in an emergency dumbphone on a strong network like Verizon.

<comment><USER6> Why pay an extra $480 a year for emergency service, when you can get it for $30 a year?

$30 is what PagePlus will charge you in a year of prepaid service, using the per-minute pay-as-you-go plan. You get access to the entire Verizon network at 10 cents per minute, _plus_ roaming access at 29 cents per minute.

In fact, this is even better for emergencies than postpaid service. Now you have access to _both_ the GSM and CDMA 2G networks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> US carriers were give too much power. I'm surprising that government doesn't want to intervene. There are virtually no pre-paid offers, which are immensely popular elsewhere in the world. They are also the best way for people to control in flexible way how much they spend on mobiles.

For US vs rest of the world price comparison: I spent 1 week in SF last year, and was shocked to spend $60 for cheapest SIM card with data (it was T-mobile AFAIR). In UK (and all other EU countries) you can get plenty of minutes and unlimited data for under $25

<comment><USER8> There are plenty of threads with comparisons on Hacker News every time this comes out, but yes.

Here's an example of prior discussion and prices:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4342617>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Virgin Mobile[0] (Sprint's pay as you go provider) has the iphone 4S for $450, with unlimited text/data[1] plans starting at $35/mo.

[0] [http://www.virginmobileusa.com/shop/cell-phones/iphone- phone...](http://www.virginmobileusa.com/shop/cell-phones/iphone-phones/)

[1] Where unlimited data really means 2.5GB at full speed, and then 256KBps afterwards.

edit: Uses Sprint not Verizon

<comment><USER10> Virgin actually uses Sprint's network. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Mobile_USA>

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the correction, I've updated the original.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So what's really different with their new plans? Just that they are trying to educate people that phones' subsidies are included in the 2 year contract price?

If they are trying to do that to get people to buy phones at full cost upfront instead, I guess that's fine, if that's indeed their strategy. But if they are just going to promote their $99 phones with 2 year "installments" - <USER2> nothing has changed, and their "un-carrier" marketing is invalid.

<comment><USER12> You can come in with your own phone and not pay anything. That means you could buy a used phone online or bring an old phone from another carrier. Or, after the two years is up, your monthly price drops by $20 so you're saving money by keeping your old phone instead of upgrading.

I think there are a lot of advantages to this.

<comment><USER6> If T-Mobile is successful, this will have far-reaching effects on the industry.

Given the choice between a $20 price drop and a new phone, how many people will insist on that new phone?

Given a $40 gap between T-Mobile and ($20 price differential + $20 subsidy differential), what will happen to T-Mobile's churn rates vis-a-vis the subsidized-plan carriers?

If they can force the other carriers to respond, then this will have benefits for everyone in the US who has a cellphone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In all honesty, I don't know why people are "so much" hate contracts? You know, I need the service anyway and in all likely hood I stay on the same carrier for two years, why "so much" hate?

<comment><USER14> It's the fact that "subsidized phone + 2 year contract" ends up costing you more money than "full price phone + no contract". Yes, you are in all likelihood going to be paying for some phone service or another for the next two years. Would you rather be paying $130 a month or $50 a month?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > The iPhone 4S and iPhone 4 will obviously not work on LTE, but they will > function on T-Mobile's "4G" HSPA+ network.

I've been using my unlocked European iPhone 4 for 2 years at T-mobile now because it's the only GSM carrier that has reasonable plans. But while my plan includes unlimited data (awesome) I have a slow EDGE connection 90% of the time (not so awesome). There are some spots (Concord, San Jose) where I magically can get 3G but never in SF or any of the other areas I frequently am. So, I'm wondering if this statement is accurate and something's going to change in their coverage.

<comment><USER16> T-Mobile has been upgrading their network to provide "4G" in the 1900 Mhz band which makes their 4G compatible with any 3G capable AT&T smartphone.

Oddly, San Francisco appears to have been upgraded already ([http://blog.t-mobile.com/2012/11/20/t-mobile-enhances- covera...](http://blog.t-mobile.com/2012/11/20/t-mobile-enhances-coverage- in-10-new-metro-areas-just-in-time-for-holiday-travel))

I have an android phone just switched to T-mobile here in DFW, I get 3G and HSPA speeds at work, but EDGE at home.

<comment><USER17> I get good coverage in most parts of SF, I've seen speeds around 15mbit, usually at least 5-6. But then you hit areas where it just sucks and you get basically no coverage at all, like my apartment. :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Good news for Android users too, they no longer have to subsidize the $400 that Apple demanded from carriers.

<comment><USER19> Didn't they get a phone in return ?

<comment><USER6> > _Didn't they get a phone in return ?_

They got a $400 Android phone. They could've gotten a $600 iPhone without paying any more money.

But T-Mobile is not subsidizing the iPhone. If you want an iPhone, then you have to pay more than people who buy Androids phones.

If T-Mobile succeeds, this will be a serious setback for Apple. The other carriers will have to respond if they start seeing defections. I'm surprised that Apple is even allowing this. T-Mobile is the smallest of the four national US carriers. The additional customers from T-Mobile can't be worth the risk of losing an advantageous market structure ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> But all this will end up being the same thing right? I paid $199 for the iphone with Verizon. T-mobile will charge $99. I looked at the plans and it is better to go with verizon because they have a better tethering plan and better coverage and service. T-mobile's unlimited plan allows 250MB ~ 500MB or tethering only.

<comment><USER21> The difference here is that the subsidy is explicit and optional and limited in time.

<comment><USER22> In the plan the article outlines, you pay T-Mobile $20 a month for 24 months to pay off the phone. On one hand it is better because because you can leave anytime and the cots are clear, but on the other, it looks a lot like a two year subsidized plan.

<comment><USER23> As long as they un-bundle the price of the phone from the price of the plans, consumers win.

<comment><USER22> But wouldn't you say they are just un-bundling it into a separate line item on your bill? You still pay $20 a month for 2 years. I really do appreciate the transparency, but I'd still make a choice based on overall cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think this will be my next phone, but I don't understand why I can't just pay for the phone up front. I like my transactions to be over and done as soon as possible. If that makes it cheaper as well, that's a nice bonus.

<comment><USER25> You could also just buy the unlocked phone directly from Apple.

It's $70 more but it's unlocked immediately – instead of after you paid it off – meaning you can switch plans at any time. (Though currently that doesn't make all that much sense in the US.)

<comment><USER24> Wait, what? This iphone is locked for two years? How is that "no contract"? It's seems you are right [1], and I guess it makes sense, otherwise there would be no reason _not_ to get your unlocked iphone from t-mobile.

I actually just wanted an iphone with a t-mobile plan but without a contract. T-mobile's pages are surprisingly hard to navigate, so I could find a way to _just_ get a plan. Maybe I should look further.

[1] [http://thenextweb.com/apple/2013/03/26/t-mobile-gets- iphone-...](http://thenextweb.com/apple/2013/03/26/t-mobile-gets- iphone-5-99-99-up-front-with-no-annual-contract-starting-april-12th/)

<comment><USER25> I'm not sure, but I think you can pay it off immediately and unlock the phone that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is getting too complicated. :( Does anyone have a good link for which iPhone/iPad models work on each technology (HSPA+/LTE) in each tmobile market?

</comment><comment><USER27> This is a pricing model where Android devices will start gaining serious ground. When the average consumer compares a Nexus 4 ($309) to an iPhone5 ($600) and starts looking at closely at the specs, the brand loyalty will quickly start eroding. Competition will be based less on marketing and more on the devices specs and pricing.

<comment><USER28> It would be more realistic to compare the iPhone with the Galaxy, which is also sold for profit.

The Nexus 4 is sold at a loss or barely break even, following the same model as Amazon's Kindle line. It's a class of devices sold using a different business model, regardless of Android.

It remains to be seen whether these can be manufactured at scale--it costs to commit to large scale production, which can be seen in LG's inability to deliver Nexus 4 devices at launch. And it is also doubtful that they can remain competitive over time. Other loss making devices such as game consoles don't see frequent hardware revisions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "This is an important day for people who love their iPhone but can't stand the pain other carriers put them through to own one,"

Buy an unlocked one, then, and be completely free to do whatever you want?

<comment><USER21> Completely free to pay off the phone subsidy that you aren't even using. It's like buying your phone twice.</comment></comment>


A Fortnight into 2019, Bitcoin in the Red Again - <AUTHOR> https://www.btcwires.com/c-buzz/a-fortnight-into-2019-bitcoin-in-the-red-again/ <comment><USER2> Who said $4,000 was Bitcoin's "normal price?" Is it because that was the price just before the hockey stick?

In the red is based in what you paid. It's still very early for Bitcoin. Too early to call.</comment>


An idea for non-technical co-founders: try a service-first business - <AUTHOR> http://benogle.com/2013/03/25/an-idea-for-non-technical-founders-service-first-business.html

<comment><USER3> This is a good approach for non technical people, no doubt. That is if it really suites their skillset.

 _As a non-technical founder, you are likely good at building and maintaining relationships. You are probably good at selling things. You might be great at framing, so people buy into your vision or get excited about your ideas. These are amazing, difficult-to-acquire skills._

Unfortunately, too many non-technical founders do not have those skills. Many people believe that an idea and "hustle" (working hard, being persistent) is enough. Now they just need to find people to build it, people to market it, people to sell it. They have this great idea! the rest will just fall into place.

The OP saw teams that made it through the YC process. Likely, those are not your average non-technical founders. If you do have those skills, then for sure - this is great advice.

<comment><USER4> If they are non technical and don't have the hustle and flow skills then what exactly would they be bringing to a startup generally?

Assuming of course it's not money cause money solves most problems.

<comment><USER5> Potentially domain knowledge, contacts, access, name...

Whether they are what is required will depend on the situation.

<comment><USER6> Contacts/access/name are useless if that's the primary skill someone brings. If you are an intelligent engineer, a few months in the Bay Area will get you contacts with investors. A great product will also get you contacts and access.

Domain knowledge _is_ useful, however (i.e. a lawyer at a startup doing online legal documents).

<comment><USER7> Contacts/access/name is about more than investors, in some industries that's what you need to reach customers or suppliers.

<comment><USER6> I put that under "domain expertise."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This post made me really happy. THIS is the kind of encouragement that 'non- technical' aspiring founders need. Less of the "if you can't code you don't have valuable skills" attitude. I have a blog post sitting in draft form that has scarily similar advice to this based on my own experiences, however this describes it with some really inspiring YC examples.

I started working this way at the start of 2012 and all of my projects since then have been far more popular/successful and more pleasing to work on. This is because I'm fully in control of project progress, I can see things through to launch, pushing the limits of my coding skills and bringing my 'concierge' MVP to life.

For those looking for technical help with a project longer term, don't forget that by starting this way you're stripping back and leaving pure technical issues which allows those with technical skills to clearly see where they could bring value which makes offering help very interesting.

<comment><USER9> More importantly most non-technical founders (my past self included) have a habit of bringing very little to the table. With this kind of approach there's a clear value that both the technical and non-technical people are contributing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is GREAT advice. And not just for non-technical co-founders - this is how I would start almost _any_ business, if I didn't already have money in the bank and my goal was to have a close-to-sure economic success. (Btw, Technical founders I would urge towards starting with a consulting practice as a way of getting a) money and b) business experience.)

Another benefit that isn't mentioned in the article: this gets you money in the bank from day 1, making you a lot less reliant on giving away equity to VC's, with all the good that implies. And honestly, if all you need is a technical person to help you scale after you've already got some money in the bank, you can always pay someone to do it - saving you even _more_ equity.

</comment><comment><USER11> Absolutely spot on. I would even extend this to developers. Why take a week to build a way to automate something that takes a human half a day when you don't know if anyone is ever going to pay for it?

I don't remember the company, but I was inspired by a fresh fruit+veg box- delivered-to-your-door founder. He made all the deliveries himself to start with rather than building a grandiose delivery platform or hiring.

I started my B2B company the same way. Initially I copied and pasted my code into customers sites. My 'ordering system' was just a PayPal express checkout. Zero backend. Man was it dull. But as a developer I knew I could automate 90% of what I needed to, when I needed to.

Now it's completely automated apart from support. Meaning my notional margin (cost of sale being my previous contracting rate) is at 85%. And I know I've just written the code I needed to so as to not do the mundane manual tasks anymore.

<comment><USER12> > I don't remember the company, but I was inspired by a fresh fruit+veg box- > delivered-to-your-door founder.

Could it have been Manuel Rosso of Food on the Table? He was the "Concierge MVP" example from Ries's book. They started by meal planning for a single family. If I'm remembering this right, he and his chef co-founder walked the grocery stores each week looking for the best food values, then drew up the week's menu...for that one family.

<http://www.foodonthetable.com/>

It worked, and they automated things as they scaled.

> I started my B2B company the same way... Now it's completely automated apart > from support.

It's great to hear this. A film industry friend and I started a company last year with a very similar approach, but we're earlier along than you are. So far so good!

<comment><USER11> Ah, it could well be the Food on the Table guy.

All the best for your company!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think this is excellent advice for developers too. We often get caught up tinkering with code because we enjoy it, when we should really be looking for an off-the-shelf or non-technical solution. If you can validate your ideas with nothing but google forms and manual email, all the better.

<comment><USER14> Definitely. All too often, I'm into building what can be bought (often bought for $0). I'm a developer because building stuff is fun, but it isn't always the right choice for the business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Good points. With the abundance of services like Wufoo forms, Shopify, Weebly, and other "make your stuff without code" products out there, it is easier now than ever before to pull together a MVP, even if it means to take care of things behind the scenes manually. See how nastygal.com made it big with a humble start from an ebay store. [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/technology/nasty-gal-an- on...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/technology/nasty-gal-an-online-start- up-is-a-fast-growing-retailer.html)

<comment><USER16> An in-depth interview with PandoMonthly: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y04gnM57Sow>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> >In practice, when I was attending meetups, I did not meet a single non- technical person who had done any of this leg work. I would have taken them and their idea very seriously if they had.

This is why I've stopped attending meetups that aren't specifically targeted towards devs. It's a shame, because there are many interesting people at those events, but every time I go to one I get sick of explaining why I don't want to work for startup X or be represented by recruiter Y.

</comment><comment><USER18> "I did not meet a single non-technical person who had done any of this leg work. I would have taken them and their idea very seriously if they had".

In the last year I've met more than a dozen such groups. Of those, _2_ had actually done some legwork on their own - one had attended a tradeshow showing nothing more than a powerpoint and had collected some leads. (initially, that was impressive). Another had done a lot of exploratory work, and when I asked them to do XYZ, they actually did it and gave me the results from it.

In both cases, I've extended a bit more of my time to work with these people in hopes of getting the project to a point where we might work together long term. In one case, we simply parted ways because the vision was shifting a lot on his end - no focus. In the other case, that team has actually called it quits - they had simply underestimated the time and effort involved in making it work, and I appreciated the halt vs dragging it on for months on end.

But _rarely_ do I meet groups or people that have done any significant legwork at all - they're the typical "idea man/woman", and just need someone to "make it work".

</comment><comment><USER19> I studied entrepreneurship at USC, and this was one of the big lessons. It's a whole school about startups from a non-Silicon Valley POV, and the point they drill home more than any is to get out and validate your concept in the market as early as possible. Talk to people in your target audience before investing in building a product. Every class in the program requires interviewing 25/50/100/etc. "strangers" in your target audience.

In fact, USC's online graduate program for education started this way. They were trying to decide whether to do it or not, so they put up a landing page with a broken buy button and bought AdSense against it. When they realized how many people were trying to buy, they decided it was a market worth satisfying and built the program behind it.

</comment><comment><USER14> As a tech person involved in a small company (not a startup), I can vouch for this reality, because I see it every day. The tech I bring to the table is very helpful, but the service side of the business is core.

There are tons (tons!) of businesses out there that can be made to scale, optimized or otherwise improved through technology, but can be proven out with nothing more than a wordpress blog (or other free, non-custom infrastructure).

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm a non technical co-founder and am building a combination of a serviced based business and technology business.

I think this article is spot on for most people. A lot of very successful businesses can be started with a wordpress blog and very little technical capability.

A business based around the technology itself is a highly risky venture. I would argue it's a lot lower risk to first develop a business without much technology, build up your customer base and then gradually build technology to automate more aspects of the business as you go.

PayCycle purchased by Intuit for $170million is an example of this. They started doing the payroll for businesses completely manually. Literally writing out checks etc. Then they gradually automated each step of the business.

For most businesses it's a better strategy to build the business first get customers and then build the technology second. Technology startups where you build the technology first are the exception not the rule.

</comment><comment><USER21> Even the search engine, cited as an example of something that must be implemented to be useful, is something that was once done manually.

In the movie, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, Spencer Tracy's character calls his secretary and asks her to check out his prospective son-in-law. Today, we would just ask Siri to do it.

</comment><comment><USER22> I would say this is not only for non-technical co-founders, but even for people with technical skills, starting with service, but the type of service whose value is not measured by hours. Then just come up with the engineering to automate said service. This approach has several advantages:

1\. You will be working with real, money paying customers from day 1 - <USER2> there you are ahead of 90% of startup projects.

2\. You get to work your customers to understand their pain points, needs directly, without annoying them - they will actually be delighted that you are trying to understand them better!

3\. You have revenue coming from day 1.

4\. When you launch your product, you already have a group of people in your target audience, with whom you hopefully have already eared trust.

</comment><comment><USER23> Well written article and as a non-tech founder with experience starting a business, you nailed it. I started a company that I didn't know anything about prior to starting and if it wasn't for a lot a lot a lot of hustle I'd be in a much different place then I am today. It's great to have my own office, employees, and take care of personal finances from the revenues my business generates. The reward is great. But the hustle never stops. Actually that's the most exciting part of the business. Is waking everyday with a mission and being solely responsible for the success.

</comment><comment><USER24> _> I graduated from YCombinator a few months ago ( S12 Easel )._

Anyone else bothered by this view of YCombinator as a kind of university programme?

I may be wrong, I have only met a few YC founders and they all seemed like nice, smart people, but it seems a bit off-colour to treat the mere fact that you've been through the YC programme as some kind of "graduation".

Maybe I'm just being grumpy or something... It's certainly not a big deal... but something just rubs me wrong when I read that sentence...

<comment><USER25> I think it's meant to be a training program that you graduate. Military guys will tell you when they graduated A-school or what ever is applicable. Welders graduate from vocational school. "Graduation" is applicable for any training program, not just university.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I mostly agree. I just want to specifically say for the games example that as a technical person, I'm willing to work with someone who will prove the game in the real world as a pen and paper game that can be much easier as an online game. Admittedly graphics heavy, programming intensive games I'm less interested in working with a game-designer as a co-founder but for something that's mostly a single screen app it's interesting.

<comment><USER26> And no, I'm not available, I'm quite happy where I am, I'm just saying there are plenty of good real world independently designed board games that could be turned into better online games.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Loved this article - non-technical people should learn how to SELL. There's no point in building something unless you have money in your hand first.

</comment><comment><USER28> The premise of do what you're good at is great. However, even the non- technical examples listed still require quite a bit of technical knowledge (accounts, management, payment flows, notifications, etc.). The good thing is that these are fairly simple processes nowadays and can be picked up within a few months of studying.

</comment><comment><USER29> As a non technical founder I liked the article. Many of the ideas in the article are similar to things discussed in the book The Lean Startup by Eric Reiss . I think PG is a big fan of the way of thinking as well so the fact that the article was written by a YC alum isnt surprising.

</comment><comment><USER30> Fantastic approach. Great post.

My takeaways: (1) Look for unconventional ways to create a MVP (2) Hustle is a very valuable asset to a startup. For startups with high hustle-to-technical ratios, they may consider building a culture around hustle rather than code.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is great advise. You have an idea, tell it to technical person (you do not learn to code, lazy), make the idea a 'technical' challenge (focus on wrong thing) and get stuck in 'technology creates a market'. Create a marketplace and use technology to scale it.

</comment><comment><USER32> Good advice. Wish it was a little less condescending. I'm a marketing type who can code (more) now.

There is a vast amount of knowledge one needs to learn just to be a beginner. I don't blame so many idea people for trying to find shortcuts.

</comment><comment><USER33> Seriously, this is one of the best pieces of advice regarding the founding of new businesses i read in along time. And very encouraging, too. Especially for non-tech guys like me!

</comment><comment><USER34> I think you hit the nail on the head. Very helpful article - I have passed it on to my less technical co-founder as an idea for our approach. Thank you.</comment>


Ask HN: Is the world a positive sum game for the earth, not just humans? - <AUTHOR> I have observed the distinction pretty clearly, several times, that the world is usally divided into two parts, humans and everything else (including other animals and nature). Even sustainability is defined in these terms: "In the 21st century, it (sustainability) refers generally to the capacity for the biosphere and human civilization to coexist." From wikipedias introduction to that article.^[1]
I also have read a little bit about zero-sum bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking), and also read about it being intuitive, but not rational, especially as pointed out by economists. An article is highlighed are here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5CyuxotJ5XkeXXbZK/one-reason-why-capitalism-is-much-maligned
I seem to understand, in very simplistic terms, that it's the ability to create and think, that what gives rises to win-win games. And in general, it's better to have a win-win attitude, than a win-lose or the worst, have a lose-lose attitude.
But my question here is, all these discussions are pertaining to humans. Humans have become beter off than they were 50 years ago. But, with respect to what I start the discussion, sustainability, is it that nature is becoming worse of overall, for the humans to become better off ? Or it's a positive sum game for whole of earth ?
I would be really greateful for the thoughts of the HN community on this idea.
[1]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sustainability <comment><USER2> Nature heals itself over time: trees grow back, endangered species grow their numbers, etc. Even deposits of fossil fuels reconstitute themselves, albeit over millions of years.

So nature isn't exactly a fixed pile of resources that we draw from.

The earth isn't a closed system. Sunlight, which is for all intents and purposes infinite, is a vital resource for the world's food supply, plants, and everything that depends on them.

With 7+ billion humans on earth, if you knew nothing about the water cycle, you might think that the oceans would run out of water in a few centuries. But ocean levels are rising, not falling. Because much of the water we consume goes back to nature one way or another.

It's more complicated than zero-sum.

<comment><AUTHOR> I still don't understand that why is the system not zero sum. The system has a way of replenishing itself. But if we consume (or harm nature) at a rate higher than it can replenish, then it'll not be able to sustain.

Why do you say that the system is more complicated that zero sum ? Is it because of the infiniteness of sunlight ? Or is it because of the scale at which humans effect nature, or the sheer vastness of nature. Is this from the system perspective, or a human perspective ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Do you believe the Earth provides unlimited resources or do you believe there are finite resources?

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe that earth has finite resources.

<comment><USER3> I think then ultimately there could be no way to not have a zero sum allocation of finite resources between two parties.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could you please elaborate on that thought. Because I haven't understood this idea entirely i think. It has always been, maybe because of chemistry, or because of equations, or because of the idea of equivalent exchange, that if it is a finite resource, then the allocation between to independent parties is zero sum. Unless they collaborate together, in which case, it's still zero sum, but rather of a dynamic nature where the possession of the finite resource sways between the two parties over time and no one is in actual abundance of the resource.

I will really appreciate if you could provide more insight on your understanding.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Challenges of micro-service deployments - <AUTHOR> http://techtraits.com/microservice.html <comment><USER2> I've yet to see a big reason for this whole SOA / microservices architecture other than in 2 specific instances:

1) massive projects with lots of developers/teams that work on well-defined functionality

2) massive projects that need to have precise capacity at each service level rather than the application level

Other than these situations, monoliths (both in architecture and deployment) will likely be faster, easier, more reliable and more productive.

<comment><USER3> #1 describes most software projects of any business significance.

<comment><USER4> But describes near zero projects in startup world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > A micro-services architecture does force you to be more conscientious about > following best practices and automating workflows.

This 100x. With a monolith, you can get away with SSH'ing into boxes once in a while to fix or debug stuff. Micro-services must be automated.

<comment><USER6> But if ssh'ing into boxes every once in a while is all you need to fix or debug stuff, why is it "best practice" to build out a lot of infrastructure to replace that?

<comment><USER7> I don't think that this is what he/she meant.

If you ssh into the box, check some logs or something, find wrong configuration option and then roll out the new configuration in an automated way then that's all good.

The problem comes when you change the configs manually over ssh and call it a day. A few fixes and a few months later, no one really knows how to set up some service because of those undocumented fixes (infrastructure automation serves as documentation). Now image that you have a dozen of services, some people quit, some people join, a year or two of manual fixes passes... And you have an awful mess where no one knows how to set up the services and just hope that you won't need to setup any new servers or migrate to different ones.

<comment><USER5> Nailed it. Micro-services are not necessarily always the answer (good devops is), but they encourage doing the "right thing".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The only good way I've found to do it is to have each service define it's logical (network) dependencies in a formal way, just like it does with it's GAV dependencies (including versions). This way the graph can be statically analyzed, cycles and transitive conflicts can be identified, deployment and roll back can be automated, the graph can be output to graphviz and visualized, and an automated tool can set up QA environments with a given vector of versions.

All that being said, the above setup only addresses about 1/2 the problems mentioned in the post.

<comment><USER5> Any good resources for doing that?

<comment><USER8> No, for us it was all custom tools built in-house :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Only using optional fields and coding for missing fields helps us ensure our > services are resilient to version mismatch.

I've seen this before and I've always been suspicious of it. So if version 1 has field r,g,b and version 2 has fields r,g,b,a and i use version 1 in a version 2 stack any data on alpha field is ignored. O.k. so you didn't get a stack trace, but is that working software?

<comment><USER8> Totally agree. I think the microservices thing is actually a distraction from the real concepts at play. As a good thought exercise, imagine if the same thing happened within a single process.

If code was written that expected version 2, and a version 1 object was provided, the static type checker would catch it at compile time.

But with microservices, there is no static type checker and you're essentially coding as if you were in a dynamically typed language.

Hopefully you've at least set up integration tests where you can test the service you're about to deploy against the others, but I think in many microservice situations the only integration testing that happens is in production.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Totally agree. Actually went in depth on this with Heroku for an article a while back.

[https://blog.codeship.com/exploring-microservices- architectu...](https://blog.codeship.com/exploring-microservices-architecture- on-heroku/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Re Distributed Debugging / Centralized Monitoring, Logging and Alerting, this is exactly the kind of problems that our team at Takipi (www.takipi.com) tackles. It's a new way to get all of the information you need (source, stack, and state) to understand what's going on in a large distributed deployment in production - without relying on logs

<comment><USER12> You should probably mention its a JVM-only technology (from what I can tell)

<comment><USER11> Correct, JVM only

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tons of good stuff in there. Best deployment post I've ever read.

</comment><comment><USER4> Key point: don't use microservices in small teams or on v1's.

<comment><USER13> Microservices can work great for v1, but you absolutely need a common rpc framework and a solid way to deploy, test and monitor. Most teams don't have the right building blocks. This will change with time.

<comment><USER8> You can do this in a company that is already big and mature. If you're doing this from day #1 in a startup environment, then you aren't very lean, and you better have lots of funding and an expert team with experience doing this.

<comment><USER14> If you want to help ensure success, having an expert team with experience on day #1 is going to have more positive influence than having a few, or a fleet, of inexperienced people banging on it.

<comment><USER8> Much of the world lives outside of the bay, and isn't backed by lavish VC funding. You gotta do what you have to in order to survive. Many exciting innovations have come from the duck-tape and bailing wire community.

<comment><USER14> I assumed you were talking about those with VC funding and in the bay area when you referred to "startup environments". And that's exactly who I'm ragging on: SV startups who hire a fleet of inexperienced fresh grads because they are cheap. I agree that you're not going to end up with a solid SOA setup, or anything really, unless you're having experienced experts doing it from day #1. I think you have a greater chance of ending up with an impenetrable majestic monolith if a bunch of inexperienced people are working on it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The physical Apple Card is a case of form over function - <AUTHOR> https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2019/physical-apple-card-case-form-over-function <comment><USER2> On another note my experience with customer service on the Apple card is absolutely abysmal. My card was locked on Monday probably because I'm traveling in Europe and that flagged some fraud detection algorithm. With any of my other cards I could resolve this in minutes with a quick SMS or at worst a phone call. Instead I'm _still_ waiting for a call back from a representative that was promised to come no later than Wednesday.

I guess I'll add this to the growing list of recent Apple products that look nice but are overdesigned and under engineered and functionally inferior to the competition.

<comment><USER3> That's interesting, because last year I called up Visa to tell them I was going to Europe, and they told me they don't need to be notified of that anymore, and my card would work fine.

Perhaps different CC providers have different policies, or maybe this is some Apple thing?

<comment><USER4> 10 years ago I traveled to china. 8 and 6 years ago I traveled to russia. In all cases, I used my standard credit card for most stuff. No issues at all, and I didn't tell the bank beforehand.

5 years ago - months after the last russia trip, I used the same card to buy a small service from a company in sweden. I'd bought multiple times before - same service, same company for many years - and this was... $9?

Transaction flagged - entire account frozen, without warning or notification (no call or email or text) - marked as 'fraudulent activity'. Without telling me what was going on, several auto payments were declined over the next few days, and it took hours to sort everything out.

Absolutely no rhyme nor reason I can see as to how 'fraud detection' is done.

<comment><USER5> Security policies must be changing all the time due to changes in fraud patterns. The $9 transaction getting flagged in a different country isn't a surprise anymore since banks figure out that fraudsters "test" credit card numbers with small transactions and then sell that to others (for more fraud) or use for larger fraudulent transactions. This doesn't explain why the same transactions from the past weren't taken into account, but must be related to this fraud pattern having a higher weight in flagging transactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I used to be a customer of Simple, which sends out white credit cards -- plastic, yes, but still white. And in a leather wallet, every one looked like crap in weeks. In my current Tom Bihn, non-leather wallet, they... didn't get any worse. But the reality is that white cards get crappy easily. (In fact, the reality is probably that _all_ cards get crappy easily, but most cards don't _show_ it as easily.)

The form of the physical Apple Card is: the form of a credit card. I would argue that it absolutely shouldn't have been a _white_ credit card, given my experience with Simple, but, welp. I'm not sure I'm going to be carrying the damn thing anyway, less out of concern over its pristine Ive White Room-ness than because it only gets me more cash back than my Discover Card does when I pay with it electronically.

If Apple didn't publish this silly-seeming "how to take care of your Apple Card" document, then in a month, pundits would be screaming about how the Apple Card already showed signs of wear and tear, photos of cards showing unremovable leather stains or blue streaks from denim or whatever, and we'd be subject to endless bloviating about how terrible this was or was not. For better or worse, they've opted to front-load the bloviation.

<comment><USER7> Maybe Apple Card 2.0 will have a "dark mode" version...

<comment><USER8> A space grey version would be pretty slick.

<comment><USER9> check revolut, their metal plan has Grey metal card option.

Two major differences though:

\- monthly fee

\- it is a debit card AFAIK

<comment><USER10> Pay money for someone to hold my money in exchange for a cool looking card to access my money. Hard pass.

<comment><USER9> Of course it is not as simple as that, you could check the benefits you get from (Including recently launched zero commission trading) [https://www.revolut.com/en-US/our-pricing-plans](https://www.revolut.com/en- US/our-pricing-plans)

Still, I would agree that the fee is not worth what you get.

<comment><USER11> > Of course it is not as simple as that, you could check the benefits you get > from (Including recently launched zero commission trading) > [https://www.revolut.com/en-US/our-pricing- > plans](https://www.revolut.com/en-US/our-pricing-plans)

> Still, I would agree that the fee is not worth what you get.

When you say trading is this with regards to currency conversion?

<comment><USER9> No, I mean robinhood-style stock trading(Currently only some US stocks AFAIK): [https://blog.revolut.com/trading-revolut/](https://blog.revolut.com/trading- revolut/)

They launched it recently for EU, US and AU IIRC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >The Apple Card has been raked through the coals over this support document because it is not recommended for use near leather (the most common material used in wallets) or denim (one of the most common outerwear materials). Nor is it recommended to be touching any other credit cards. Nor is it recommended to be in a pocket or bag containing loose change, keys, or any other kind of potentially-abrasive items.

This is some Happy Fun Ball-level absurdity ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmqeZl8OI2M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmqeZl8OI2M)).

<comment><USER13> This is just pretty standard text for any metal credit card and is (as this article states) mostly for aesthetic reasons. You can and should carry your Apple Card in a normal wallet in a pair of jeans. That disclaimer stuff is just because indigo and leather coloring bleeds, and the card is white.

<comment><USER14> > This is just pretty standard text for any metal credit card

FWIW I have four different metal cards and have not received this warning with any of them. In the case of the Apple Card, I'd say it's due more to the fact that the card is white than that it's metal.

<comment><USER13> Fair point, I was more talking about disclaimers about the card getting scratched next to keys, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >because the physical card does not fit my use case, I've elected to keep it in a file cabinet.

This is exactly the intended "use case" of the card. The physical card is what sells the Apple Card account. Look at all of the people that signed up (on HN, no less — where everyone knows that XYZ card gives better rewards). Yes, yes 3% back at the Apple Store — it's only logical. Was everyone really itching to make a purchase the Apple Store last week? How many people would sign up if it was a only virtual card?

So the slick card gets people to apply on day one, then for a while, customers carry it and show it to their friends. "Ooooh, Ahhh. Where's the number?" Then (like a lot of metal cards) they decide it would be a lot easier to just use Apple Pay and stash the card somewhere else.

Incidentally, mine is crammed in a leather wallet and looks the same as it did on day one. But I would argue that the function of the physical card is just as much to be somewhat UNdesirable for daily use as it is to be desirable to obtain.

As for the declined charges and customer service, I imagine it's just growing pains (iMessage to opt out of arbitration only took a minute). It does seem like Apple should have a big button in the UI for traveling overseas. Hopefully, they'll evolve to be like Amex and just figure it out — especially since your phone is presumably coming along on the trip.

<comment><USER16> > This is exactly the intended "use case" of the card.

I'd say the intended use case of the Apple Card is have people using Apple Pay, not swiping/inserting the physical card. I'd bet putting it away in a filing cabinet is exactly what Apple was hoping most would do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This whole thing reminds me of American Psycho, people comparing how their credit cards look, kind of strange to me but I realise I must be in the minority if Apple think it's a good idea.

<comment><USER18> Every time I see people talking about the apple card, I have a bit of a double-take. The card was free right? It's not a luxury good, right? It lives in your wallet 99.9% of the time, right?

Also, it blows my mind that it doesn't support contactless. First American banks were behind by a decade on chip and pin, now they can't get on board with this either and it's holding back the adoption of contactless credit card POS readers in the USA which is also holding back Apple Pay. Weird choice.

<comment><USER19> Of course it doesn't support contactless. Apple wants you to use Apple Pay for contactless, not the physical card.

Edit: in a comment much lower down someone mentioned that the fact the card is made out of titanium may have made contactless hard/impossible. That had not occurred to me.

<comment><USER20> My chase sapphire card is metal and has contactless payment

<comment><USER21> It's a metal core sandwiched with layers of plastic on the front and back. Mine is starting to peel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm gonna be honest. I got the card for Form as I don't really use credit cards but always like to have one in case of an emergency. I was not disappointed. It is a beautiful card and has turned heads of every cashier have I handed it to. Getting the daily cash back notifications was genius on their part. I wouldn't be surprised if I use the card more than I thought I would solely because of the form.

I also purchased a cheap plastic sleeve to keep it in to keep it looking good.

<comment><USER23> > I'm gonna be honest. I got the card for Form as I don't really use credit > cards

I'd say you should always use credit cards, except when it is not possible to use them. Just don't use the _credit_ part. That way you get points and whatever features your card has (purchase protection, price matching, etc).

<comment><USER24> > Just don't use the _credit_ part.

How do you not use the credit part?

<comment><USER25> Pay in full every month.

<comment><USER24> You're still using the credit until the end of the month though?

<comment><USER26> Yes you are, but if you pay in full every month then you don't incur any interest charges. It's a free loan from the credit card company to you.

In the past, people who paid in full every month were called "deadbeats" by the card issuers because they were far less profitable than those who carried a balance.

<comment><USER24> The top tier of cards, like AmEx, are usually (not always) charge cards, so they don't structure their business off interest, instead they go for throughput and earn off merchant charges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > That's pretty ridiculous, because that rules out probably 90% of the valid > use cases for a credit card... and other plastic credit cards don't have > this issue.

But other cards DO have this issue. They look like crap after a while.

<comment><USER27> For anyone looking for a metal card with fewer physical disadvantages than the Apple Card, you might consider an Amex Platinum. The card is very pretty, and mine has stayed in good condition after extended (and ordinary) usage. Of course, the Platinum card comes with a very high annual fee. It's awesome if you travel a lot. If you don't, you'll struggle to make up for the fee. Beyond that, Amex customer support for me at least has been stellar, and their apps are quite good as well.

<comment><USER28> FYI you can call Amex and ask them to waive or refund the fee. As long as you are a regular user of the card, they will do it in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER29> No way they are waiving $550. But I'll try with the Platinum Schwab I just got in order to cash out 200K points. They've never waived my gold card when I've tried and I've had that card over a decade.

I'm done with AmEx after this because I just don't use the points anymore.

I find the Chase Sapphire to be my most attractive card. I'm canceling that one too though. 2% cash back is where're it's at for me from now on.

I got the Apple Card solely for Apple purchases and gas pumps and sketchy web sites. I don't use gas pumps or sketchy web sites all that often but I'm convinced I've been skimmed twice on pumps and it will be nice to have a new number at the tap of a button in the Wallet app.

I actually don't find the Apple Card very attractive, and don't like how heavy it is. BTW, you don't get a physical card by default. I think Apple clearly wants to steer folks to Apple Pay so I have no idea why they put all this effort into the physical card.

<comment><USER28> I've been an Amex cardholder for 19 years and never paid an annual fee. They waive it every time, both for business and personal cards. If you aren't an active user of the card then I could see them pushing back but I've never had any issue at all - it's a 5 minute call for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For what it's worth, I've been using the Apple Card pretty much exclusively for about a month and a half (in a leather wallet, and I only wear jeans), and it's been nothing but enjoyable.

<comment><USER30> Same. No discoloration or anything of that sort here.

<comment><USER31> My Simple card got quite a bit of discoloration from my leather wallet. I'd expect the same to eventually happen with the Apple Card.

That said, my wallet's been accidentally through the wash enough times to lose a lot of the dye in the leather. Maybe it'll be fine!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Well, Apple expects you to use Apple Pay for the vast majority of your transactions. The physical card is a last resort, it's allowed to be more form than function as eventually, you'll only want it for the former.

</comment><comment><USER33> I applaud apple for taking full advantage of their user base.

Millions of people addicted to the vanity of their products that leap at the next opportunity to differentiate themselves from the unwashed masses.

The truly hilarious part is that this newest "product" is just a mechanism to further indebt yourself to the largest corporation on the planet.

Bravo Apple, glad I own your stock.

<comment><USER34> See also upthread where twenty comments are dedicated to discussing cards that aren't white and which issuers will give them and how cool they look and how proud one person is of their gold signature on black card especially.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > _I also believe the physical titanium Apple Card is a marvel of engineering_

Three SpaceX rockets landing vertically in unison is a marvel of engineering.

This is a metal credit card.

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you held and inspected one? The thing is pretty ridiculous in its tolerances. It's not on the same scale as a modern rocket, but I'm willing to bet the microscopic tolerances and knowledge of metallurgy / material science (titanium alloys) is on a similar plane.

<comment><USER36> If its like every other metal credit card, it's a stamped piece of metal that comes from sheet stock. Then they glue the metal front onto a plastic backing that has the magstripe.

<comment><USER37> It's not like the others. Which you'd know if you had checked one out before posting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Has anyone else just ignored the recommendations from Apple in how to store the card?

I keep it in my wallet like any other card and haven't noticed any scrapes/marks on the card or issues swiping.

<comment><USER39> Vast majority of the outrage is from people who would never consider getting an Apple credit card to begin with. They just look for any reason to turn their nose up at Apple. In this case, it a CYA support document.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I love my Apple card. The noise it makes when dropped onto a desk or table hasn't gotten old yet. It's actually kind of ridiculous how loud it is. I don't plan on using it for anything but app store purchases, and maybe a new MBP next year.

</comment><comment><USER41> Of course, the credit card market in the US is so competitive that they are competing hard on even the look of the cards - anything to stand out and get attention. This has been going on for a while, less function for more glitz. Metal cards have been becoming more and more prevalent despite being functionality worse than plastic cards in almost every way[1].

The Apple card is just taking it to the inevitable extreme.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/churning/comments/4zwpvt/psa_your_f...](https://www.reddit.com/r/churning/comments/4zwpvt/psa_your_fancy_metal_credit_card_wont_get_you_out/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I continue to be surprised that no one seems to be discussing the fact the card is rotated 180° from normal. The EMV chip is in the right and the mag stripe is on the bottom.

An odd decision. I'd love to know the reason behind it.

<comment><USER42> Maybe so that the Apple logo remains visible during the transaction

<comment><USER43> but they could have just as easily put the logo and the user's name on the right and the chip on the left

<comment><USER44> Most people read left-to-right and expect text to start in the top left. It would look absurd if the name was on the right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> A metal credit card is a status symbol, for people who can't afford an actual status symbol like a Coutts card. Complaining about it's lack of practicality is like complaining that your Ferrari doesn't handle well in your local multi- story car park. Of course it doesn't, because you've bought the Ferrari to drive through town and have people stare.

The function _is_ the form. Let's lay aside the physical design, the Apple card has inferior benefits to most comparable cards and the notification features that Apple seems to think it's pioneering have been available from plenty of other banks for years. I already have my cards in my Apple wallet, I already have an App that tells me exactly what I've spent and when, I even have an App that aggregates all my spending and tells me my budget. As for privacy, it's still a Goldman Sachs mastercard, your spending history is going straight through them and pretending that your spending is private is simply a lie. In fact it's pretty astonishing that Apple is using the Facebook lie of "We don't sell your data" \- no you don't sell our data, you sell access to the profiles you create about our habits.

Anyway, this turned into a bit of a rant, but seriously, status symbols don't compete on practicality, they compete on status.

</comment><comment><USER46> > The card feels great in your hand. It has a beautiful white finish. The > letter and logo detail is impeccable. The way the magstripe seamlessly > integrates into the titanium structure of the card is beautiful, and > probably required some extremely precise machining.

Do you realize that this is pure American Psycho material? In fact the whole paragraph seems almost lifted from this scene:

[https://youtu.be/aZVkW9p-cCU](https://youtu.be/aZVkW9p-cCU)

</comment><comment><USER47> > With any modern iPhone, the Apple Card acts as a perfect RF block for Qi > wireless charging (which operates in the 80+ kHz range).

> This means, if you are like me, and store your credit card in an iPhone > case, say goodbye to the ability to charge wirelessly.

Yeah you really shouldn't be doing this with plastic cards as well... Really really shouldn't

<comment><USER48> I completely stopped taking the article seriously in any way at this point. Qi + credit cards sounds like a great way to have a wallet full of useless pieces of demagnetized plastic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Isn't that true of nearly all Apple hardware products now?

<comment><USER50> Yep.

The Apple MacBook keyboard is a case of form over function. The Apple TV remote is a case of form over function. Every mouse Apple has released is a case of form over function. ...

<comment><USER51> I actually like the apple tv remote, why is it form over function?

<comment><USER49> Too small, so it keeps falling between sofa cushions.

Ambiguous orientation (in the dark).

Too easy to press buttons unintentionally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Stuff like this is why I'm holding out for the Apple Card Pro.

</comment><comment><USER53> Note that "form over function" couldn't be a worse translation of what must have originally been "Form über Funktion".

1\. Form is supposed to deliver function. Useless forms are eschewed by the Bauhaus architects of thought.

2\. _über_ in some cases is connotated as _through, by, per, via, with_ , eg. "financed through a loan" (über einen Kredit).

3\. If one might authoritatively opine that "over" implies a hierarchic priority, this would pervert the idea to a degree.

In sum, I'm not sure what people think of the proverb or what was originally meant. Ironically, the form and function of the phrase are in Bauhaus style.

</comment><comment><USER54> I wonder if when released in the UK/Europe it will have a magstripe. I don't think I've ever had to swipe my card/sign except outside of Europe.

As an aside I love how I can disable the magstripe on my TransferWise card.

</comment><comment><USER55> So I have one. It is quite nice to hold and is well made, however because I cannot really carry it in my wallet or pocket, it stays in the desk drawer. I also have the Amex Platinum which is also metal. No issues on carrying that one. Here is a look at for those that care:

[https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/unboxing-platinum-metal- car...](https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/unboxing-platinum-metal-card/)

No relation to the site, just first good hit with details on the card itself, however I still have not found out what kinda of metal it is.

<comment><USER20> I have a chase sapphire card which is also metal. I have had to have it replaced twice. Once because the chip reader part flaked off and another because the magnetic strip stopped working

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> One thing I haven't seen discussed much is the change from the original marketing materials which described the user's name as being engraved on the card, rather than printed.

Ultimately I think complaints about the physical card are sort of silly. To be honest, I'm a little surprised Apple included one at all, since the point is to drive businesses in the US to supporting contact-less payments. Of course once they decided to include a physical card, it wasn't going to be a basic plastic card.

<comment><USER57> > point is to drive businesses in the US to supporting contact-less payments.

So the card does not support contactless payment by itself? Only magnetic strip and chip? I hadn't realised this, but I guess might be difficult to do in metal.

Is it too much to wonder whether making it out of metal is to distract from this missing feature, because they'd prefer you to pay with the phone?

<comment><USER58> They probably wanted to remove every single thing from the card that was superfluous - leaving the name, chip, magstripe, Apple's logo along with the bank and network logo (GS and MC).

Particularly, no numbers, signature, bank contact info, or NFC.

And yes, they get away with this by pushing wireless payment, number/CVV, and contact onto the phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> "The Apple Card has been raked through the coals over this support document because it is not recommended for use near leather (the most common material used in wallets) or denim (one of the most common outerwear materials). Nor is it recommended to be touching any other credit cards. Nor is it recommended to be in a pocket or bag containing loose change, keys, or any other kind of potentially-abrasive items."

It's the Happy Fun Ball of cards. I'm honestly impressed.

</comment><comment><USER60> I received the physical Apple Card a few weeks ago, and used it for the first time today (I have used Apple Pay dozens of times).

Something I noticed immediately when I started carrying it is that it seems to block the signal from my office door key, and I must separate them to open the door.

Two scuff marks have appeared on the magnetic strip, but otherwise there are no cosmetic issues like others have mentioned. Overall, I like it.

</comment><comment><USER61> It could potentially be used as a cutting tool or a knife by terrorists.

Perhaps it should be banned on flights for the paranoid.

</comment><comment><USER62> I wouldn't be surprised if 'form over function' is one of the company's mission statements.

</comment><comment><USER63> I hope the part about "pesky retailers" not accepting contactless payment methods was sarcasm.

<comment><USER64> At H&M this past weekend in Southern California they wouldn't allow contactless (Apple Pay) for payments over $100. It's arbitrary, annoying, and customer-hostile.

<comment><USER65> In places where chip & PIN is ubiquitous, the idea is that if your credit card is stolen, your card can't be maxed out without your PIN for verification. AFAIK the limits don't distinguish between contactless credit cards and Apple/Google Pay - maybe they should, since the latter typically does require some kind of authentication.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Let's see Paul Allen's card.

<comment><USER67> Oh my god - it even has a watermark

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> So, a v1 Apple product? All jokes aside, to me, Apple tends to release beautiful products from the beginning that often lack the killer functionality that drives mass adoption, but has a reasonably good track record of catching up on that in subsequent releases.

<comment><USER69> Apple Card 2.0 Pro - available in denim, leather, or diamond-coated black ceramic with turtleneck print.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> You're not supposed to _use_ the physical Apple Card. It's not just that the card is unusual or somehow hard to use, the whole service is designed to reinforce the fact that the card is a "worst case scenario" for paying: You get only 1% cash back when you use the physical card, but you get 2% cash back when you use the virtual card in Apple Pay. You're (not-so-)literally losing money when you use it!

The card is supposed to be a conversation piece, not your primary form of payment. Because metal cards have previously been the privilege of the upper classes, Apple's continuing its trend of trying to sell "affordable luxury" by offering this card to basically everyone. It's a promotional tool to get people to sign up for the card, and then start to use Apple Pay more. It's 100% form, and it was _meant_ to be form, this article is kind of missing the point.

</comment><comment><USER70> Meh it's perfectly designed. They want you to stop using a wallet. The ultimate goal of the physical card is to kill the wallet, other cards and eventually itself to be replaced by just the phone.

</comment><comment><USER54> I find it especially ironic given that Steve Jobs was so fond of jeans.

</comment><comment><USER71> The blocking wireless charging when using a card case has been a pain with all the new metal cards. I wish Chase and others would offer an option for "plain" plastic.

<comment><USER16> Dumb question, as I've never used wireless charging before: why can't you just flip the phone over so it's sitting screen down when you have the metal card in a pouch on the back? Will it not charge in that position?

<comment><USER65> It won't, the charging coils are on the back of the phone, and there's both too much metal and too much distance between the coils and the front of the phone. In some phones with removable backs, the Qi charging coils were actually on the removable back part. (e.g. Lumia 950)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> I too struggle to get the card out of my thin folder. I had to remove a few seldom-used cards because I couldn't get the card out.

</comment><comment><USER73> Pretty much like most of the products they've been coming out with lately.

With Hive gone things will go back to normal. Obviously he lost it.

</comment><comment><USER74> Two decades ago I used to bling out with Versace and other labels on items that were guaranteed to only last one season. I gave that up back then. I'm not about to start doing it with "gift cards" now. Trendy is such a wasteful way to live.

If you need to throw money away for status, I can think of far more beneficial ways to do it than a poorly designed payment card that scratches and stains too easily.

<comment><USER75> Like most credit cards, the Apple Card is free.

Of course, the merchant pays a fee when you use it, and you get some of that back in the form of rewards, so you have to compare how the Apple Card's reward scheme stacks up against other cards. I'm not an expert, but from what I've heard it's at least decent.

So there's really no money being thrown away here.

<comment><USER9> > the merchant pays a fee when you use it

You do know that they increase the default price to compensate for the commission they pay to the banks right?

Ultimately the result is:

\- the bank mostly is unaffected because it gets the point it gives you from the merchant

\- Merchant increase the price that to compensate for the commission

\- you are not affected because whatever you get as points you pay back with the increase in price

\- whoever pays cash is paying 3% more which goes mostly to the merchant

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> I have an Amex Platinum and it does have some of the same issues as the Apple Card. It's the metal.

</comment><comment><USER77> What functionality has been impacted?

</comment><comment><USER78> Why not launch a plastic card and have this as an option

<comment><USER79> Is there any demand for plastic cards beyond this one guy whose phone case doesn't work with them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> >and other plastic credit cards don't have this issue

Yes they do.

E: Are plastic credit cards really not susceptible to wear or discoloration? Doesn't match my experience.

</comment><comment><USER81> Not the most insightful article around.

It seemed to be mostly about his inability to use the card in his particular sleeve.

</comment><comment><USER82> TL;DR It's metal, like many cards, which bothers the author.

<comment><USER83> I read the article, interested in real examination of the usability issues with the credit card.

What I found was someone who doesn't like metal cards, and didn't realize they would be a problem before signing up for one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Did they really not chamfer the card? A metal 90 degree angle like that can cut skin like a knife. Any machinist would know that you have to break those edges.

</comment><comment><USER85> So... An apple product?

</comment><comment><USER86> You can sharpen the edge of the Apple Card into a pretty good knife. I think they should ban Apple Cards from airplanes in addition to (some) Macbook Pros.

<comment><USER87> until your post I didn't know this card was made out of metal.</comment></comment>