Gates Makes Largest Donation Since 2000 with $4.6B Pledge - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-14/gates-makes-largest-donation-since-2000-with-4-6-billion-pledge <comment><USER3> Although there are many cynics, it's quite remarkable the impact on the world donations can have. Here's what their foundation has actually been doing with the money: [https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and- Med...](https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual- Reports/Annual-Report-2016)

I wouldn't be surprised if private donations will eventually be responsible for the eradication of Malaria (1000 deaths daily, much more suffering and cost to society).

If you're in tech you're likely to be in a great position to create value beyond your company. For example, donating equity from your startup or a fraction of your income to the charities that can prove they are having the most cost effective impact on the world: [https://founderspledge.com/](https://founderspledge.com/) [https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/)

<comment><USER4> As much as like the new way of distributing wealth in this manner, some of the foundations Christians fundamentals worry me. For example - [https://www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/quick- links/gran...](https://www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/quick-links/grants- database/#q/k=catholic)

I tried looking for similar grants to religious services organizations from other religions, but my search came up empty. Very happy to stand corrected on this.

<comment><USER5> This is a silly complaint -- Some of the 'religious' grant money goes to Catholic Relief Services who happen to be one of the largest charity groups operating in Africa. Most of these funds go to Agriculture / emergency relief.

They've also given over $150 million to the Islamic Development Bank to support their vaccine efforts and smaller amounts to dozens of other Muslim- based groups for different initiatives. Likewise for Jewish organizations.

B&MG Foundation are incredibly results driven, all of their grants come with direction for measuring impact and reporting on it. They aren't giving to religious organizations to further religion, but because those organizations are best suited to reach the most people or best suited to responsibly steward enormous amounts of money and resources.

<comment><USER4> Just because it is called Islamic development bank does not make it a religious organization. Point here is - look at the profiles of some of the organizations. Some of them based on fundamentals I am not sure I feel comfortable about. Also about catholic church in Africa, see Rwanda case [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Rwanda#1994_Genoci...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Rwanda#1994_Genocide)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm surprised that people are asking how / why he is giving money away and no one mentioned his Giving Pledge:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge)

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet pledged to give half of their net worth away during their life or death to charity. They're practicing what they preach.

<comment><USER7> it's capitalism at is best you start a company in your garage take it to be worth Bilions an then give it all away, doesn't get better than this.

<comment><USER8> I don't think you can _really_ conflate capitalism with philanthropy like that. They're just... different things.

"Capitalism at it's best" isn't people giving away money... it's people being competitively compensated for their contributions to society-- the ability to take risks and reap the rewards.

Of course then you can argue that tax is a way to enforce a minimal amount of philanthropy onto people, forcing them to contribute to the greater good whether they want to or not... but people who seem to be very vocally in favour of pure capitalism also seem to be very vocally against high taxes.

<comment><USER9>
      *it's people being competitively compensated for their contributions to society*

Sorry to nitpick .. you're describing meritocracy I think, as envisaged by free-market economics (which is entirely reasonable - to a point).

Capitalism isn't so much the emergent market behaviour as a system that provides a means to create and develop wealth (i.e. _capital_ ). The labour market is one aspect of this, but it's not exclusively tied to it.

      *Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.*

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A different view on Gates' charity work: [1]

Some highlights:

 _" The first question concerns accountability... The Foundation is the main player in several global health partnerships and one of the single largest donors to the WHO. This gives it considerable leverage in shaping health policy priorities and intellectual norms..."_

 _" 'Depending on what side of bed Gates gets out of in the morning,' he remarks, 'it can shift the terrain of global health.'.."_

 _" It's not a democracy. It's not even a constitutional monarchy. It's about what Bill and Melinda want..."_

 _" In 2008 the WHO's head of malaria research, Aarata Kochi, accused a Gates Foundation 'cartel' of suppressing diversity of scientific opinion, claiming the organization was 'accountable to no-one other than itself'."_

 _" As Tido von Schoen Angerer, Executive Director of the Access Campaign at Médecins Sans Frontières, explains, 'The Foundation wants the private sector to do more on global health, and sets up partnerships with the private sector involved in governance. As these institutions are clearly also trying to influence policymaking, there are huge conflicts of interests... the companies should not play a role in setting the rules of the game.'"_

 _" The Foundation itself has employed numerous former Big Pharma figures, leading to accusations of industry bias..."_

 _" Research by Devi Sridhar at Oxford University warns that philanthropic interventions are 'radically skewing public health programmes towards issues of the greatest concern to wealthy donors'. 'Issues,' she writes, 'which are not necessarily top priority for people in the recipient country.'"_

More in the article...

[https://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates- charitable...](https://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable- giving-ethics)

<comment><USER11> Are you serious? This is almost too goofy to merit a response.

Yes, when a billionaire gives away billions of dollars he's not accountable to anybody else. Why the heck would he be? If he were, then he wouldn't have donated it in the first place but would have just "invested it" in a company he created and controlled.

There's no way to spin this where donating to a charity is more evil than what all the other .1%s do, hoard it.

<comment><USER12> Think about it for a second. He didn't really give the money away he gave it to a charity he controls. That gift reduced the amount of taxes flowing to the public/government vs if he cashed in the stocks himself personally.

You and I are paying more on a percentage basis to the government.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Think about it for a second. He didn't really give the money away he gave it > to a charity he controls.

He is in fact giving immense sums of his money away. You should indeed think about it for a second. The Gates Foundation has expended tens of billions of dollars so far.

Fact quote from their site:

"Total grant payments since inception (through Q4 2016): $41 billion"

"Total 2016 Direct Grantee Support: $4.3 billion"

That is an extraordinary sum already. That money is gone, it is not under their control. They're spending $4.x billion per year at this point, that money is non-recoverable, it gets spent. Over time, the fortune is extinguished, as they're forced to give 5% per year. Get it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Pledging to give away so much of your wealth has interesting side benefits. You get to keep your money out of the hands of the government and if you're donating to your own charity then you also get to keep your family in control of the money.

I definitely don't mean to diminish the contribution of the Gates Foundation though. I often hear that they're one of the good ones.

<comment><USER7> probably the money is more wisely spent by the private institution than the government.

<comment><USER14> The argument usually is that by donating your money to a charity that you control instead of paying taxes you effectively undermine democracy.

<comment><USER15> The majority of federal income tax receipts go to military spending [+] (ignore social security and healthcare, those are funded out of compulsory payroll taxes, which is distinct from federal income tax); you're doing more social good (in general) by diverting wealth to charities that promote social welfare than giving that money to the federal government (I'm sad to say).

Sometimes democracy is wrong. More social programs, less F35s.

[+] [http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/)

<comment><USER16> Your own source shows defense as 17% of overall spending.

As a percentage of income tax receipts, the number for military spending is closer to 25%. See, for example, [https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive- data/taxday/](https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxday/)

<comment><USER15> It's 21% for FY 2016 (which is a percentage based on including social security and medicare, which as I mentioned, are not part of federal income tax receipts; the percentage ). 2017 isn't done yet; I'm not using an estimate with an administration going sideways.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States)

"Military budget of the United States. ... The budget funds 4 branches of the U.S. military: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. In FY 2015, Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion, _about 54% of the fiscal year 2015 U.S. discretionary budget._ "

Yes, we're spending that much on the military. Yes, its pathetic. Yes, its why its best to avoid (not evade, which is illegal) paying income tax whenever possible. I prefer my welfare programs not enable the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians in a foreign country, but that's just me.

<comment><USER16> OK, that is bizarre; visit usgovernmentspending.com site on mobile and the chart says US FY2016 spending on Defense is 17%. On desktop, the chart says 21%.... In any case, as a percentage of federal income tax it does seem that defense is around 25%.

"U.S. discretionary spending" is simply spending which is authorized annually instead of authorized by laws spanning multiple years. It doesn't seem to be a highly meaningful categorization if you are arguing about where your dollars are going -- the dollars don't care what year they were authorized to be spent.

Separating out payroll vs income taxes -- in other words recognizing the different tax rates for "earned" vs. "unearned" income -- is not entirely irrelevant, because dollar for dollar your capital gains taxes will be spent more on defense than welfare, but it's still no where near 50% of your capital gains taxes being spent on defense.

<comment><USER10> For a different view on this, see _The Trickery of the US Military Budget_.[1]

 _" A key federal budget trick is using words to confuse citizens, such as labeling U.S. military spending as "defense" though much is for "offense" and sliding costs for wounded soldiers under "veterans affairs" and nuclear bombs under "energy," as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar explains..."_

Also, from [2]:

 _" The most recent figures related to President Trump's proposed increases in Pentagon spending, along with cuts at the State Department, show the general national security budget of the United States rising once again, with the 2018 proposal in the ballpark of $1.1 trillion."_

Finally, see [3], where the budget breakdown is:

The Pentagon budget - $575 billion

The war budget - $64.6 billion

Nuclear warheads - $20 billion

'Other Defense' - $8 billion

Homeland security - $50 billion

Military aid - $7 billion

Intelligence - $70 billion

Supporting veterans - $186 billion

Military retirement - $80 billion

Defense share of interest on the debt - $100 billion

[1] - [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33833.htm](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33833.htm)

[2] - [http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2017/06/02/1015056-the- milita...](http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2017/06/02/1015056-the- militarysecurity-complex-is-bankrupting-america/)

[3] - [https://warisboring.com/the-trillion-dollar-military- budget/](https://warisboring.com/the-trillion-dollar-military-budget/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So what is his net worth made up of if he's donated all but 1.5% of his MSFT stock? His remaining MSFT stock is worth about $8B. What's the rest of his $82B made up of?

\- Edit- Nevermind, found it on here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Investment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Investment)

<comment><AUTHOR> Cascade's investments are roughly 1/2 of his wealth. Bloomberg is currently estimating he's sitting on $43 billion in cash.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/william-h- ga...](https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/william-h-gates/)

<comment><USER18> Honest question: can half of it for example $20B in cash, cure cancer? or HIV/AIDS?

<comment><USER19> Its important to understand, when anyone says "cure cancer", they are saying cure 100+ (mostly) unique diseases. $20Bn is not even close, try around 200Bn and 50+ years of research.

Maybe we will get lucky and find an amazing immuno-oncology drug that takes out half of them in the next 20 years, but I wouldn't bet on it.

<comment><USER20> I see it a bit differently, if you can figure out both all of the functional relationships in our bodies and devise a mechanism to precisely drive any and all of them, not only will you 'cure cancer' but you will be able to cure any other disease or ailment that is expressed as an undesirable functioning of that system.

I don't know if you can do that with $20B but I feel these days that its more likely to occur rather than the opposite (which is to discover some underlying uncertainty principle that would prevent directing cellular action in a predefined way.)

<comment><USER21> We are barely able to simulate a simple reptile brain and you are asking for complete understanding and simulation of any human body. I think you are vastly underestimating the complexity of biological system.

<comment><USER22> What's the project for simulating a reptile brain? I know we've not fully nailed the ~1000 cells required for simulating a whole worm, though we're getting there: [http://www.openworm.org/](http://www.openworm.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hooray for Bill. When I was young the joke was how he was a crazy man trying to monopolize/take over the world. Seems ironically he may be the single man who has given the most to the world.

Hopefully other billionaires can take inspiration from him and recognize that helping the species is a more fulfilling game than "How many 0s in my net worth."

</comment><comment><USER23> No mention of what project s the funds are going towards.

There have been some good words from the foundation regarding the (health, primarily I believe) programs in Tanzania. I wonder if this is towards scaling those projects.

Anyone have the scoop?

<comment><USER24> [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/giving-pledge-new- billionaires-c...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/giving-pledge-new-billionaires- club/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> > Gates remains the richest person on earth after the donation with a fortune > the Bloomberg Billionaires Index valued at $86 billion as of 10:40 a.m. > Tuesday in New York. His donation once again puts Amazon.com Inc. founder > Jeff Bezos close to the top spot, with a net worth of $84.5 billion.

Keeping a bit of wiggle room.

<comment><USER26> It's probably coincidental. I don't think he decided to give 4.6B overnight and I don't think he could have estimated what AMZN would be at on the day of the announcement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I am not sure if I recall correctly but wasn't there a reason where gates wouldn't donate all of his wealth at once and needed to do it in stages ?

Also, maybe they can't utilize all that cash at once. Therefore it would be best to be illiquid until you need the liquidity.

<comment><USER28> I don't know why, but I always worry when I see huge donations that poor management will see most of the money end up devious hands. But I imagine with that much money, there's a ridiculous amount of attention as to where it's going, and plenty of good people willing to manage it. But I assume everything is The Big Short and House of Cards out there.

<comment><USER29> Zuckerbergs hundred million to Camden NJ was squandered. Too much money too soon. Plus a corrupt organization. Plus no one really knows how to make minority schools better. Its not from lack of trying.

<comment><USER28> I think this is exactly what I fear. No matter how much money we raise for curing cancer, it's not necessarily going to give us the cure for cancer. And now we have "charities" like Komen that exist purely to virtue signal while everyone's driving Bentley's. There's so much corruption out there, especially places like Africa where I know Gates has given a lot of love.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> He is donating it to The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is controlled by himself. Isn't it just a different form of ownership?

<comment><USER31> It's a non profit so no one owns it. He is still in control of it though,

<comment><USER32> That's a common misconception. Nonprofits _do_ have owners. And also, while they can't make money directly, they can spin off for-profit companies if e.g. they invent a cure for cancer or something.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's incorrect. Nonprofits can't have owners.

[https://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-law-basics-who-owns-a- non...](https://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-law-basics-who-owns-a-nonprofit/)

[https://www.501c3.org/who-really-owns-a- nonprofit/](https://www.501c3.org/who-really-owns-a-nonprofit/)

<comment><USER32> They do have "stakeholders" which, naturally, can't profit from either operation or sale of the nonprofit, but, crucially, _can_ control creation of commercial spin-offs and spending. I.e. While de jure they can't be called owners, they still can (and often do) profit indirectly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have a lot more respect for someone like Elon Musk who invests his money back into new ideas than someone who simply gives most of it away to charity.

Malaria, low literacy rates, etc., are the byproducts of failed political systems and corruption.

Musk's impact on electric vehicle technology will drain a great deal of despotism from the middle east as dependence on oil wanes, far more effectively than any philanthropic contribution he might have made would have.

There are a number of technologies that can drastically change the dynamic between the elites (officials) and everyone else worldwide. Our most gifted thinkers and entrepreneurs should be inventing the next printing press or cotton gin, not attending charity functions.

<comment><USER34> Bill Gates is also applying his money where he thinks it will have the most impact - their foundation often invests in new technologies and startups whose products will have the greatest impact per dollar. If Gates and Musk are both working to maximize impact their difference is who they focus on. Gates primarily focuses on the most impoverished on the planet, while Musk focuses on the first world (and indirectly the most impoverished due to the effects on climate change).

Saying that the Gates Foundation does not reinvest into new ideas that maximize impact does a great disservice to what is one of most effective and effectiveness-oriented philanthropic organizations on the planet.

<comment><USER33> Impact in terms of what? Alleviating suffering or helping to fix the institutions whose brokenness has let the problems fester?

<comment><USER34> Alleviating suffering over the long term, which includes fixing institutions when it's appropriate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Can anyone explain how he only owns 1.3% of Microsoft now, and yet is worth $86 billion? Almost all of his net worth came from Microsoft shares. Based upon the MSFT market cap of $561 billion, he is only worth about $7.3 billion.

What accounts for this monstrous difference? He has cashed some out over the years, but not ~$80 billion worth.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bill Gates owned ~24% of Microsoft in 1996 for example.

At the peak of the dotcom bubble, his holdings in Microsoft were worth between $85 and $95 billion (with a very limited diversification at that point). He briefly hit or nearly eclipsed $100 billion when Microsoft hit its highest point back then (in December 1999). The difference you're looking for, is represented in his program of routinely - and persistently - <USER2> Microsoft shares over the last 20 years and diversifying into other investments.

The reason for the dramatic diversification out of Microsoft, should of course be obvious though: eliminate a single point of failure, particularly important given what he is attempting to achieve with his wealth (it's all going to the public good (his opinion of what that is of course)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> When you've hoarded so much cash and denied others a better life, it's easy to 'donate' like this.

<comment><USER37> Just to give the counter-argument, he has also created a lot of (technical, well paid) jobs for a lot of people all over the world over the years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'd love to see the creation of more trusts, such as the one that funds The Guardian, the one that funds The Economist, etc.

</comment><comment><USER39> I hope it won't make the news like the money raised for Grenfell Tower Fire survivors

</comment><comment><USER40> Is there any data on what he has given in actual dollars from his pledge to this one?

</comment><comment><USER41> Don't forget that Zuck has also pledged 99% of his wealth.

</comment><comment><USER42> Likely didn't cost him much (no disrespect to his huge donation meant) since MSFT shares rose something like 50% in the last few years.

</comment><comment><USER43> _eradication of Malaria (1000 deaths daily, much more suffering and cost to society)._

If great efforts are made to eradicate diseases in an area that has historically been subjected to various diseases such that the local population has adopted the reproduction strategy of having large amounts of offspring to counter premature deaths, but upon eradication/reduction of said diseases there is significant delay in the abatement of the overproduction strategy if it abates at all [http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-worlds-most-important- graph/](http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-worlds-most-important-graph/)

if this population surge then expands beyond it's historical borders and causes mass societal disruption on a neighboring continent whose civilization has historically contributed great innovation and wealth to the world at large, and subsequently, said wealth and innovation contribution declines because of said societal disruption, do those who sought to eradicate the various diseases harbor some responsibility for the diminished prospects of the world at large?

Granted these are delicate questions but I believe their being asked has not just validity, but importance.

Certainly, simply ignoring pain, disease, and suffering is almost universally unpalatable.

But modifying one aspect of a complex system for what appears to be perfectly benevolent reasons, it is not at all surprising to find there could be downstream negative effects, negative enough to far outweigh whatever beneficent contribution you thought you were initially making. How do you make value judgments in such cases?

Gates himself has said it is far better to help people where they are regarding the recent unauthorized population influx events in Europe.

So I don't believe he is entirely blind to these potential downstream catastrophic effects.

<comment><USER44> You are talking about children dying...

And you are also making the assumption that only Europe can contribute to innovation, and Africans can only be a burden on their neighbors and will never become contributors.

I would agree that if the solving of a crisis like Malaria results in population growth, we need to plan on success and also focus on supporting infrastructure for those people.

But I think you are saying something much more horrific. Maybe work with your therapist on empathy.

We need someone as smart as you to focus on making the world a better place for everyone, not using your intellect to make scientific justifications for genocide.

<comment><USER43> I don't know if that was an intentional flattery tactic to get me to read your most more closely, but it worked, thanks, regardless.

I'm surprised if the post read as "more children dying is the obvious optimal path," that wasn't my intent.

I'm meaning to draw attention to the fact that if we are going to have outside interventions into societies that have drastic effects on those societies, then the outside interventions should include plans for all foreseeable(and vigilance in watching for unforeseeable) drastic effects they incur, be they in population structure, political structure, etc.

In this case birth control education seems a prudent corollary plan to disease eradication. But it's more of a thorny problem than just saying here read this book, take this class, take this pill, if these reproduction strategies are expressions of deeply ingrained genetic tendencies.

Certainly birth rate in the western world has declined, but there are lots of differences in the western world and Africa. Not least of which westerners never had outside interventions into their culture and environment of this nature.

<comment><USER45> You didn't address it and I think there is merit to the point being made about your "bedside manner". I agree with your viewpoint, but it is important to tread carefully when it comes to the lives of others. Your point can be lost not by lack of merit but by lack of semantics.

<comment><USER43> Thank you for the feedback! Being hyper aware(at least I think so) of this issue you mention I tried mightily to tread carefully.

I think for the most part, the nature of the issue just makes it inherently open to objections of "bedside manner" when discussed in "polite society."

What do you think I could have done better in terms of phrasing or what have you?

<comment><USER45> I think the easiest way is to explicitly call out possible arguments and get your opinion out in front. E.g "Some might say this gives me a lackadaisical attitude towards the lives of others. Conversely I have nothing but the utmost respect for the lives of others and am concerned with the well being of others"

It's not a perfect example but it's an easy way to show that you are thinking about other people and what they might be thinking. You can combine this with an invitation for people to voice their opinions. People like knowing that their opinion is valuable especially when your assertions put the reader at odds with their own opinions.

Just a few things I've found help internet discussions. People read things with different voices and diffferent inflections so it's important to be explicit when possible, especially on a subject that is truly difficult to discuss in polite company.

<comment><USER43> Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> So he donated a small percentage of the stock he holds to a charity that he and his wife control to avoid taxes on dividends. Big deal.

</comment><comment><USER47> Even Gates doesn't trust the government with his money. If he did he would render unto Caesar and have him build roads and fund foreign despots. Like the the rest of us.

</comment><comment><USER48> Bezos reacted! That was fast!! :D

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_DyimkS54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_DyimkS54)

</comment><comment><USER49> Instead of using the money to research renewable or more efficient energy production, reduce pollution etc his foundation uses the money for vaccines and health services which surprisingly has as target, as he says in a ted video (link below), to decrease human population which he sees it as the major problem of today.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF- fq2Zn7I&t=278&cc_load_po...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF- fq2Zn7I&t=278&cc_load_policy=1)

"The world today has about 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15%"

<comment><AUTHOR> > Instead of using the money to research renewable or more efficient energy > production

That's incorrect. Gates has dedicated vast sums of money, over more than a decade, to energy research and has openly and frequently stated that dramatic energy breakthroughs are among the most important goals he or anyone can have to further humanity.

[http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/bill- ga...](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/bill-gates-lays- out-vision-for-clean-energy/)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-talks-private- nucl...](http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-talks-private-nuclear- fission-plant-terrapower-2016-4)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-interview- energy-m...](http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-interview-energy- miracle-coming-2016-2)

[http://fortune.com/2016/09/15/bill-gates-backs- renmatix/](http://fortune.com/2016/09/15/bill-gates-backs-renmatix/)

[https://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-invests-in-algae- fuel/](https://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-invests-in-algae-fuel/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Read: has donated shares of Microsoft to his own foundation.

Maybe we can give Gates the benefit of the doubt but for everyone else, this is just a tax scheme.

<comment><USER51> You do realize his foundation helped eradicate polio worldwide. Some of you HNers can't give people a break.

<comment><USER52> We do realize their PR tell you that.

What I know, however, is that I've been missioned in Africa by the gate foundation and that most money is wasted. Most stats are bullshitted.

What I know is that Gates have been misbehaving most of his life and that suddenly he is giving so much money he won from this time.

What I see is that a lot of people like you are very eager to forgive everything he has done, all the benefits he got from it, just because he is giving back what he took.

It's because of this that we can't improve our systems. A bit of PR and voila, all misdeeds are forgiven. Bad guys become saints. And people like you will spend their energy defend the story.

<comment><USER53> I didn't like the way Microsoft acted as a monopoly, but the tech industry managed to survive and escape Microsoft hegemony. Microsoft made some terrible software, but Office is actually very good overall and can argue has led to real productivity gains for many businesses. (I realize this can be debated endlessly.)

Everything I've read indicates Gates takes his philanthropy very, very seriously and is having a real impact on improving people's lives. I'm sure his foundations are not perfect and have problems, but I also believe they are a net benefit to the world.

Interesting to contrast with someone like Steve Jobs. His company arguably produced much better products impacting (shockingly) many more people, but he didn't give a dime to charity (as far as I know). Could have long philosophical arguments about who had the more positive impact on humanity overall.

<comment><USER52> You don't remember MS lying, cheating, doing illegal things and corrupting governments ?

See, that's the problem here.

You have completely forgotten how bad it was.

The fact the industry and society did well despite that is not relevant.

<comment><USER53> I do remember, and felt pretty much the same way you do now at the time.

Over the years, my views towards Microsoft have softened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Hypothesis: From an analytical perspective, he must believe that the upside of Microsoft is limited enough, at least over the time horizon he's concerned about, to start cashing in Microsoft stock. He's a smart guy. He'd be trying to convert his holdings at the top of a value curve, right?

<comment><USER55> > He'd be trying to convert his holdings at the top of a value curve, right?

Not necessarily. He just has to believe that the return on his investment will be greater (financially, in good will, in results) than the same money would be in Microsoft.

<comment><USER56> > he must believe that the upside of Microsoft is limited enough, at least > over the time horizon he's concerned about, to start cashing in Microsoft > stock.

How is that different?

If he expects to get a greater return elsewhere, that's because the upside of Microsoft is limited enough, over the time horizon he's concerned about.

<comment><USER55> "at the top of a value curve" indicates to me that OP is expressing that he is imagining Gates seeing Microsoft's value as a line that will curve downward after this, or at least flatten out. I could be completely wrong.

So what I was trying to express to OP is that while Microsoft's value may not sink (that is, now is not at the top of any curve), the value of the investment may be rising faster in various measures than the same money in Microsoft would be.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple is repeating Microsoft's Mistakes - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@graiz/apple-is-repeating-microsoft-s-mistakes-201039e33e5a#.vivom3nz2 <comment><USER2> This guy is completely wrong. Why is he being upvoted? First he claims Microsoft spread itself too thin. Then he claims it's important for Apple to be cross-platform with its apps.

Microsoft's desktop market share was around 95% in the late 90s. It about 90% today. The owned the business app suite with Office then and they own it today. They did get arrogant with IE and stopped innovating once they destroyed the competition but, depending on whose numbers you use, they still have half the market.

The consumer world changed with mobile and Microsoft didn't innovate quickly enough. Google is the one who took their place with 80% global market share.

Apple still has relatively few products for being the world's biggest company. They do need a few more products.

</comment><comment><USER3> Microsoft's "mistakes" are part of what made it the unstoppable juggernaut it was through the 90s and into the 2000s. They are the same "mistakes" that have helped Apple to acquire the largest single stockpile of cash since Crassus.

People keep writing obituaries for Microsoft. Would that I could die in such a fashion. I would _love_ to be the kind of failure that's netted tens of billions of dollars of profits per year for _decades_.

<comment><USER4> 'Microsoft's "mistakes" are part of what made it the unstoppable juggernaut'

Microsoft's first mistake was when IBM signed a non-exclusive contract to supply the Operating System for the first IBM Personal computer. should have read the small print :)

"Microsoft Litigation"

[http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107...](http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm pretty offended that my 2 year-old IPad Air is gradually being effectively bricked by Apple. I'm staying with IOS 7.0.3 on the thing because first I heard that IOS 8.x.x more or less bricked performance, and now one can't even install 8.x.x. As a result, no more app updates, and both Safari and Chrome crash left and right when confronted with the latest script kiddy HTML because no more app updates without an OS update.

In contrast, one of my PCs from 2011 still runs Windows 7 just fine modulo the occasional kvetching to embrace the wonders of Windows 10. By all means be like Microsoft here.

Ditto for my other PCs running Ubuntu 12.x

And I'd be less risk averse if I could go back to 7.0.3 if indeed the thing got bricked, much like installing a late build of Android 4.x cyanogenmod rescued my Nexus 5 phone from bricking, but there's no way back if I go forward so the real answer for me is to extract all the data and switch to a Cyanogenmod friendly tablet minus the mostly useless Google services (increasingly by design i.e. since when did Google Maps need social push notifications? Yesterday, apparently when I got one).

Apple? Never again. The IPad Air is the first and last IOS device I ever own.

</comment><comment><USER6> Apple music is on Android FWIW.

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.andr...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.android.music&hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER7> At extreme risk of getting modded, how is this cute analysis (with a click bait headline) front page material?

<comment><USER8> I felt it was reductive and silly, and flagged it. So I agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> You're missing the point that people primarily buy Apple's products because their great looks, performance, and the status they bring them. Even if Apple's apps are all crap, people are not going to switch to Samsung or Nexus.

<comment><USER10> One source gave Apple phones 41% vs Samsung 27%. So its not a sure thing. Samsung could cross that gap with good marketing.

<comment><USER11> Samsung is already hammering the marketing, thats why they are as high as they are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >You won't find Apple Music on Windows.

Must be dreaming then, just last week I was using my Apple Music subscription on iTunes for Windows!

</comment><comment><USER13> This doesn't work.

If all apps (except Apple apps that no one likes apparently) are available everywhere then why switch ever?

Also learning new apps is part of the switching cost. Rebuying paid apps and in app purchases is another.

This is an argument people have made since the T-Mobile droid and it hasn't worked so far.

<comment><USER14> If for example you use all Google apps, then it's better integrated in a different platform. So it's a slight advantage to then switch so things like OK Google will update Google Calendar instead of Siri updating Apple Calendar even though you mainly use Google Calendar on your iPhone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > The problem was that each attack was fought on the Microsoft playing field. > Each product kept users within the Microsoft hardware ecosystem. The > competition didn't have that limitation. Firefox, Facebook, Chrome and the > iPod emerged as dominant solutions because they served users across devices: > Mac's, PC's, and sometimes Linux systems.

That's just not true. Firefox stole IE users because it was actually _innovative_. (IE never had tabs, Firefox 2 brought that to us.) Then Chrome stole Firefox 3 and IE users, because it had all the same innovations, but it _wasn 't bloated_, it felt faster and smoother. It had practically _nothing_ to do with Linux or Mac.

<comment><USER16> Actually, Opera was the one to invent tabs. Does someone remember why Firefox took off while Opera never managed to come out of its niches?

<comment><USER17> Have a look at the main UI, should be self explanatory: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Opera_7.02.pn...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Opera_7.02.png)

<comment><USER18> Except it looked like this when it came out with tabs: [http://i.imgur.com/ms0RsfB.png](http://i.imgur.com/ms0RsfB.png)

And on top of that it was skinnable and customizable to a degree no other browser has matched since.

<comment><USER11> Until they dropped it with the transition to a Chromium base, the "tabs" in Opera was full blown MDI.

<comment><USER18> Yep, and it is awesome.

Need to research and compare a bunch of sites at once? Throw the tabs into a window of their own and tell the window to tile the tabs.

One of the reasons i still stick with Opera 12.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> When I saw the title, I think it was going to be about how they deal with security.

</comment><comment><USER19> Says someone who clearly doesn't have much money invested in iOS apps</comment>


Startup idea checklist - <AUTHOR> https://www.defmacro.org/2019/03/26/startup-checklist.html <comment><USER3> The ordering of points can be very important:

      Product
      1. What are you building?
         <= 70 chars

From the post I can tell the author is just organizing deeply considered thoughts. For a consumer of this checklist beware about thinking of the product first. By putting this as the first item, one can fall into the trap of shoehorning this answer into all the following points.

As I'm sure others here have mentioned, fall in love with a problem not a solution or product. Usually it's best to find a narrow set of users who have this problem and explore around the problem to get a better picture of it. This can often lead to a different product solving a more key problem.

<comment><USER4> Author here. After rereading this (I haven't looked at the list for months), I agree. It should be "who are the users? -> what is the essence of their dissatisfaction? -> what are you building for them?"

<comment><USER4> Fixed now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's amazing to me how effective it is just to write down these things.

I'm planning to rebuild my deck and I've been thinking and brainstorming for days. But just the act of writing down the step by step order of what is already in my head made me discover all kinds of holes in my plan.

There's a magic there. You can be convinced you know something intimately but if you write it all down I almost guarantee you'll find holes.

<comment><USER6> You (and others) may enjoy Adam Savage's new book. He was one of the Mythbusters guys. In one of the first chapters he writes about his love of lists and checklists, and the impact it makes on the process of "making." I'm only a few chapters in so far but it's been a fun read so far.

It looks like there is an article talking about this specifically here on Wired if you want to dip your toes in: [https://www.wired.com/story/adam- savage-lists-more-lists-pow...](https://www.wired.com/story/adam-savage-lists- more-lists-power-checkboxes/)

<comment><USER7> Also there is Dr. Atul Gawande's "The Checklist Manifesto".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Maybe it's because I'm too negative, maybe it's the cynical engineer in me, or maybe my ideas aren't so good to start with, but every time I think I have a 'good' business idea, I tend to slaughter it through in a couple of days.

Not one of them has passed my test..

<comment><USER9> One trait most successful founders have is not being overly analytical. This correlate with higher education as well, the higher, the more analytical. Creating a successful startup is basically a lottery and it almost does not matter what idea you come up with. In this metaphor, smart and analytical people will not buy a lottery ticket because the cost vs the chance to win is just too small. But if you don't buy a lottery ticket you most certainly cannot win the lottery.

<comment><USER10> I disagree. The trait needed is being intensely analytical but only with the right data. Its physically impossible to sit in a room, look at an idea or a lottery ticket, and analytically reason your way to knowing it is good or not. The only way to know is to get data on it from the real world, something you can't do with lottery tickets, and unlike lottery tickets, startups are not negative sum and there aren't rules to win and odds that you can't shift - <USER2> whole point is shifting odds of success.

<comment><USER9> I don't disagree, _once_ you have crossed the rubicon. When Julius Caesar _actually_ crossed the Rubicon, the risk was immense and there was no guarantee of a successful outcome. That's what I mean, going all in on a risky adventure is not for everyone and if you analyse and think too much about it, few will want to take the jump. However, once you have crossed and are in the "battle" then of course you will use all the tactical advantages you can and try "shifting odds of success".

<comment><USER11> Julius Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon because he wanted to gain new power or wealth; he wanted to defend his own personal liberty and a sense of wounded pride.

That he destroyed the Republic was something of a side-effect. If anyone was the entrepreneur in this analogy, it was Augustus, who both founded the Empire, having a brilliant command of public relations, denied having done so.

<comment><USER9> By crossing the Rubicon with his one legion, Caesar put himself on a path of no return and in open conflict with the Senate and Pompey who vastly outnumbered him military. There was no guarantee that he would succeed. Upon crossing he declared "alea iacta est", knowing full well what he set in motion. Edit: My point here, is simply that not everyone would cross the Rubicon. Most would turn around, deeming the risk too high. Related to a startup, the risk for failure is high if you look at the statistics. If it is a "sure thing" you are not really doing a startup or you are conned. A startup kind of by definition has to be a high risk venture. Like PG's example of a merchant ship going to the East Indias in the 17th century.

<comment><USER11> I don't think he intended or expected that the Boni would essentially force him to wage a war of total victory against them.

Bringing legions to Rome as part of political struggle had already been common practice for centuries, but it had never fully destroyed the Republic. Caesar himself witnessed several such occasions by Sulla and Marius.

Edit: responding to edit, my point is that Caesar was not fighting to _gain_. "Crossing the Rubicon" means taking a risk, but I don't think using it to describe creating a startup really fits.

He was fighting (illegally, it might be added) to defend himself against the political tactics of his Senatorial opponents. While he held an Imperium he could not be brought into court for his actions in holding it, but the Senate had voted to make him lay it down. Their intention was to bring him to the courts and ruin him politically and financially. Caesar was simply too proud and too arrogant to allow that ruin; that he was the foremost general of his age meant that he was in a position to pull it off.

<comment><USER9> > Caesar was not fighting to gain

Who knows? I believe you are right that he was forced into action when the Senate pulled him back from Gaul [1] with the intention of bringing him to court. If he did not have a plan to set himself up as a dictator, at least he _pivoted_ beautifully once he saw the opportunity and Pompey folded. That at least was a true startup move. 1. edit: Gaul not Germany

<comment><USER11> Well you have me on the second part.

This has been a fun side conversation, thankyou.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Which subset of your target customers are so constrained by the status quo, > they'll welcome a buggy product?

I understand this is just a mental test, but really... don't release buggy products. Don't create buggy products. Firstly, the line between forgivable bugs and unforgivable ones is too thin. Or sometimes N forgivable bugs become one big unforgivable show stopper.

Second, you will always have a competitor with more experienced engineers and a better choice of tools that they'll beat you at least at quality if nothing else.

<comment><USER13> > Second, you will always have a competitor with more experienced engineers > and a better choice of tools that they'll beat you at least at quality if > nothing else.

Software development is always about trade-offs. You can churn out way more features if you don't need to take quality into account. I would welcome any competitor in my field who is super focused on quality, since they will waste a lot of time and money that could better be spent elsewhere.

For example, I'm not going to make some code bug-free, when there is a 50% chance that that feature will end up in the wastebasket 2 months later.

Besides, you talk about unforgivable bugs, but what are they to your early adopters anyway? I had users lose half a day of work because the save crashed right in the middle of it. They weren't even angry. They said is was inconvenient and just remade the whole thing. When I fixed it they were happy. They are still users now. That's how "unforgivable" these are to early adopters.

So yeah, don't forget one of the bigger companies had a "Move fast and break things" policy. In the end it's the market that decides. And according to my experience, early adopters are super forgiving.

<comment><USER12> >You can churn out way more features if you don't need to take quality into account.

Creating quality code should not be at the expense of extra features. Just hire more competent, experienced engineers and there will be no need to sacrifice one for the other.

Quality is a function of experience and skill, it is not (or should not be) a function of development time.

<comment><USER13> I was talking about bug quality, not code quality. Sorry if that was not clear.

And as any competent, experienced engineer knows, those two are less related than a junior would think.

I agree you have to keep your code clean. But the absence of bugs is an entirely different thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Almost every developer at some point will be approached by someone to work for free for some killer idea that that person had. In those cases, I found it useful to have them fill out a checklist list this, or put together a multi- page Executive Summary and a Business Plan. You'd be surprised how quickly you can get someone off your back and them off their idea, if they now have to go and do some actual work. And you never have to say 'no' and get that person offended.

<comment><USER15> That's a great idea. Do you have a specific link you send them to?

<comment><USER14> This checklist is actually pretty good. But I usually ask them to put together 30-50 page Business Plan with an Executive Summary. If they don't know how I tell them to look online for examples. In one case I pointed them at a local startup incubator that runs workshops for things like this. All this does is add up to a non-trivial (but not onerous and with little cash outlay) investment of THEIR time. And if this small investment of their time is too much work for them ... well, I guess they weren't that serious to begin with.

So far I'm 5 for 5 when asked for a 50/50 partnership (where I do all the dev work and my partner is the 'idea man') and then never hearing again about the idea after I asked they put together this document - all without having to say 'no'. There has not been bitterness on their part, because next steps are on them.

In the off-chance they will actually do this (and it hasn't happened yet), I will take it seriously and really consider it. But even if I decide not to pursue it, I feel like the exercise isn't a waste of their time as they will be able to use it when looking for funding or other partners.

<comment><USER16> As someone in your spot (solicited by ~10 or so people in the past couple years), this is an interesting response.

On first blush, it seems to set an adversarial tone rather than a collaborative one. On the other hand, it's good due diligence and probably filters out the serious from the not so serious.

I mostly agree with your response. I think the only place where it may not work is when the person wants a thought partner to help think through these things. There isn't always a strict dichotomy of duties in the framing of a venture - I think all partners should be involved in that. Different story when it comes to execution, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In many cases, customer ≠ user. The customer that buys the product may not be the one that uses it. The OP makes no distinction.

For example, hardware and software that help teaching are usually chosen by the school or the university. Teachers may have a word on this, but in my experience they rarely decide.

Another example is products for children: some of them (e.g. educational games) clearly target the parents or relatives. Others (e.g. food) focus on the children, hoping they will persuade their parents.

<comment><USER18> Yes, and likewise all ad-supported business models like Google or Facebook, where the paying customer is the advertiser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> There's a school of thought that you must only build things that solve a problem or ease a pain or fix someone's dissatisfaction.

This list seems very focused on that and seems to entirely miss asking questions like "is this cool or fun or entertaining"?

<comment><USER20> Yes, it's one of the Silicon Valley, clichés: "what problem does it solve"?

A common answer is that an existing product is great but it can be made even better or cheaper. It's weird to frame it as solving a "problem".

<comment><USER21> I'm not sure how it's weird.

Lowering costs is solving a massive problem - for consumers and businesses alike. There are few greater problems to be solved for the majority of people, than lowering their cost of living - or cost of operations for a business - while providing the same or better quality of a thing.

That process has been a fundamental requirement for all of human civilization as we've known it the last ~5,000+ years. Without it, most of us are not here. It generates an incredible incremental gain spiral, a compounding of small surpluses that build and unleash bigger things over time.

For a business it frees up capital which can then be put into productivity, R&D, salaries and countless other things. For consumers it can boost savings or enable other purchases and investments that improve life. It enables new demand which will unleash new goods that were not feasible or viable previously.

It's all about generating a surplus that can then be directed toward some additional goal. Better and cheaper is one of the required tenets of mass standard of living progress.

<comment><USER22> That's an idealistic way to look at it, considering the backdrop of human behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> All those future looking goals, who is going to benefit, how great will it be for them... what's your ticket symbol? I've been sitting on a possibly world changing idea that would be ruined by money. How do we foster those types of things?

<comment><USER24> Build it as a co-operative where all the workers (and maybe even consumers) are also owners of the organisation, and have equal say in how it is run. Combine this with a clear mission and set of principles that all new members are taught so the organisation will stay on track for its initial purpose and keep democratic and equitable control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> >>> Why now? What's true about the world that nobody else figured out yet?

I have three ideas I am working on and the one i like best is ... not passing that test :-(

<comment><USER26> Lists like this are models to help frame your thinking, not immutable laws set in stone. Maybe your idea can still work. If you want to do it, do it. Just proceed with caution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > Who is it for?

I hate this question. I think it's from the marketing from the past. Now you have one to one relationship with your customers. Who cares what marketing group they belongs to?

At SerpApi.com, we have this issue constantly from industry outsiders. If you have the need, you'll use us. If not, you don't and that's fine.

<comment><USER28> "Who is it for" can be answered through needs-based segmentation, i.e. exactly what you said. Who is it for? It's for people who need x,y,z. You still need to have a clear definition of that if you want to e.g. evaluate market size, or do any sort of marketing/sales afterwards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Your questions are interesting, but I think are for MUCH later than an idea. My new idea list starts something like this:

1\. Does this product/service exist and pretty much solve my problem? Then use that.

2\. If not... I am the first customer... I am building it for myself because I want to use it. (If it's a network product, then find a partner for the idea.)

3\. _Evaluate MVP_ do I find it useful, am I using it regularly? Does it solve the problem for me?

4\. Introduce someone else to your product/service maybe a friend or family and get them hooked.

5\. _Evaluate engagement_ is my friend still using it ... am I still using it?

6\. Build features for you and them.

7\. _Evaluate_ ... do you guys both love it?

8\. Get some more friends using it... if it's great maybe you even start to get strangers.

Now get to your questions... how can I grow... how can I make money.

</comment><comment><USER30> The top section of the document is similar to amazon's PR/FAQ process, which having been forced to use to speak to amazon folks, I've found to be pretty good for getting your thoughts and end customer defined. It's actually pretty good for junior to mid level engineers as well: it keeps them from focusing on the pure tech they want to deliver and focus more on the why. I find a lot of people get stuck on what/how they want to deliver, thus delivering the wrong solution. I know it helped me out personally.

</comment><comment><USER31> These are questions Michael Seibel mentioned that he likes to ask startups as part of his 2018 "Building Product" Startup School presentation:

Problem

What problem are you solving? What problem will be solved at the end of what you are doing? What do we expect the result to be? Can you state the problem clearly in two sentences? Have you experienced the problem yourself? Can you define this problem narrowly? Who can you help first? What can we address immediately? How do we get the first indication this thing is working? Is the problem solveable?

Customer

Who is your customer? Who is the ideal first customer? How will they know if your product has solved the problem? How often (frequency) does your user have the problem? Who is getting the most value out of your product? How intense is the problem? Are they willing to pay? How easy is it for your customer to find your product? Which customers should you run away from?

Product

Does your product actually solve the problem? Be truthful. How and why not? Which customers should you go after first?

How do you find people who are willing to use your "bad" first versions of your product? Who are the most desperate customers as how do you talk to them first? Whose business is going to go out of business without using you?

Are you discounting or starting with a super low price? Are you consider this approach? If so, why?

Performance

What are you using to measure how users are interacting with your product? What 5-10 metrics are you measuring to understand how your product functions? Why those metrics? When you build a new product or feature, what is the metric that will improve because of that feature/product? What number do you track to show how well your company is doing? What is your top level KPI (revenue, usage)? What are the underlying metrics that contribute to achieving your top level KPI (new users, retention of users, content created => DAUs at Social Cam)? Which of these metrics are you trying to move this development cycle?

Product Development

How long is your product dev cycle? What is causing it to be that long? Who is writing down notes at your product dev meeting? Which category does each of your brainstormed ideas fit: New features/interactions on existing ones; bug fixes/other maintenance; A/B tests? How easy/medium/hard are they to do? How can you restate the hard ideas (disaggregate idea into smaller ideas)? What parts of hard ideas are useless or hard? Are there other options? Which hard idea will improve act the KPI the most? Which medium? Which easy? What is the spec for the product/feature we want to build?

Problem

What problem are you solving? What problem will be solved at the end of what you are doing? What do we expect the result to be? Can you state the problem clearly in two sentences? Have you experienced the problem yourself? Can you define this problem narrowly? Who can you help first? What can we address immediately? How do we get the first indication this thing is working? Is the problem solveable?

Customer

Who is your customer? Who is the ideal first customer? How will they know if your product has solved the problem? How often (frequency) does your user have the problem? Who is getting the most value out of your product? How intense is the problem? Are they willing to pay? How easy is it for your customer to find your product? Which customers should you run away from?

Product

Does your product actually solve the problem? Be truthful. How and why not? Which customers should you go after first?

How do you find people who are willing to use your "bad" first versions of your product? Who are the most desperate customers as how do you talk to them first? Whose business is going to go out of business without using you?

Are you discounting or starting with a super low price? Are you consider this approach? If so, why?

Performance

What are you using to measure how users are interacting with your product? What 5-10 metrics are you measuring to understand how your product functions? Why those metrics? When you build a new product or feature, what is the metric that will improve because of that feature/product? What number do you track to show how well your company is doing? What is your top level KPI (revenue, usage)? What are the underlying metrics that contribute to achieving your top level KPI (new users, retention of users, content created => DAUs at Social Cam)? Which of these metrics are you trying to move this development cycle?

Product Development

How long is your product dev cycle? What is causing it to be that long? Who is writing down notes at your product dev meeting? Which category does each of your brainstormed ideas fit: New features/interactions on existing ones; bug fixes/other maintenance; A/B tests? How easy/medium/hard are they to do? How can you restate the hard ideas (disaggregate idea into smaller ideas)? What parts of hard ideas are useless or hard? Are there other options? Which hard idea will improve act the KPI the most? Which medium? Which easy? What is the spec for the product/feature we want to build?

Doc link: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ungItAgriaQk_lDI4aEJNigm...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ungItAgriaQk_lDI4aEJNigmmn0cSy93NW6rCZvujYM/edit?usp=sharing)

</comment><comment><USER32> Really good stuff, even for small and/or personal side projects.

Under Bonus I'd like to add:

Exit - What might that look like?

If nothing else, I think it helps vet the previous assumptions.

</comment><comment><USER33> Ask yourself _what do I need to do right now_. If you can foresee the future start trading instead.

</comment><comment><USER34> Could it be narrowed to a single question "what's your marketing channel?"

</comment><comment><USER35> > What would need to be true in 18 months for you to get essentially unlimited > cheap capital?

I'd first ask, what would need to be true in 18 months to never have needed capital, and to be self-sustaining as a bootstrapped organization. Raising funds should be an option, but not the assumed path of all products.

<comment><USER36> Easier and cheaper to raise some capital when you don't need it (as backup and for scaling) than later.

<comment><USER35> I've heard that, too. But I've never bought into it. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that giving up any equity when you don't need to is unwise. As far as easier and cheaper, I have not seen costlier terms sheets due to need. Easier... maybe, if you are doing so well that it is a no-brainer to want to be part of it. But then it gets back to the point of giving up equity when there is no need.

<comment><USER37> Pay attention to the messenger too. If a VC tells you to raise money "just in case", they might mean "I want in on your explosive growth". Nothing wrong with that, just be mindful of people's motives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> These kinds of checklists may work for a product like Airbnb but will hardly work for something like Twitter or Instagram where the entrepreneur is rewarded for fulfilling a need that never existed before.

<comment><USER39> >> fulfilling a need that never existed before.

Phone text messages existed before, Messenger in desktop, even forums that work very similar to twitter.

I might be wrong but I think the need was there, they improve a similar product with more features and Voila!

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I would like to suggest a section called constraints. And to me that is the most important section to answer:

Are you going to go at it full time or part time?

How many hours in a week can you dedicate to it without wrecking relationships (kids, partner, friends etc.)?

Do you see a path to raising funds or are you thinking of bootstrapping?

If going all in, how much runway do you have if no funding came through?

Did you know that the path to startup hell is paved with "but everyone told me it was a great idea"?

</comment><comment><USER41> Id keep your ideas to yourself!

Especially if they are novel!

</comment><comment><USER42> I dislike the idea of the startup for "solving a problem". Problems are very specific, personal and not so broad as other options.

In fact:

1\. Not everyone has a problem.

2\. Not everyone is aware is having a problem.

3\. People bear problems. Even the worst ones (ex. health).

So, why build your startup around a problem. Why don't you better build it around a "need". A need would be much stronger usage driver than problems.

<comment><USER15> One of the biggest mistakes nerds make is to build a project, not a business. Business have to create value. Most businesses do that by solving problems.

The difficulty with going for a "need" that is not "I need to solve this problem" is that you have to convince people that they have the need, and that your product best satisfies it. General needs (Maslow hierarchy etc.) tend to be vague and served by many different product types. Sure, there are exceptions, but most businesses solve problems and if you're not explicitly doing that then you're either taking a more difficult road, or you're not building a business.

<comment><USER42> Exactly. Slack people created a new communicational need. There were email, forums, etc. Even chats, but they created a good product that enhanced the need to have better chat system to work better. They weren't solving any major problem. That is my point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> .

</comment><comment><USER44> Is the only reason to create a startup to experience exponential growth and get really rich and have your own stock symbol?

Or, could someone create a lifestyle business and call that a startup? Where the goals might be simply to make a living doing what you love without working for some big company somewhere?

Or maybe could someone create a startup that makes the world a better place without concern for getting oneself crazy rich?

I am not a fan of the idea that the only driving motivation for establishing a small tech company is to make the VC's happy.

<comment><USER45> It's the silicon valley mantra. Grow for multiple years at a loss so you can be the first and biggest player in your business segment and instigate a monopoly, giving nobody else a chance to establish themselves. They all want to be the next Google, Amazon or Facebook.

I remember seeing a silicon valley VC, in an interview, saying that he wouldn't invest in a startup if he couldn't see a path to a billion dollar valuation. Of course, this guy has the right to his own investment strategy, but it also seems kind of idiotic to suggest that every business that can't have a billion dollar valuation is worthless. There are plenty of niche business out theres that occupy smaller market segments that the tech giants will likely never come into. Personally, I wouldn't say no to owning a significant share of a 600 million dollar business.

<comment><USER46> The economics of venture capital don't work out if you invest in companies that you think will be worth less than a billion dollars. There's a really enlightening blog post that goes through all the numbers (maybe someone can find it again for me), but it basically comes down to this:

90% of all companies funded by this VC will fail. Of the remaining 10%, some will be middling successes. One or two companies will be really great. But the VC has a problem: his LPs expect a return over 10 years (or whatever the lifetime is) that is as good as the market (simplifying, but this is basically true). If the one or two companies that succeed only become worth a few hundred million, he's actually delivered a sub-par return for his LPs. So the one or two companies that succeed must _really_ succeed, or else the VC is going to have trouble with their next fund. Someone did the math and showed that a 10x return on those successful investments is the minimum for the fund as a whole to provide a good return for its LPs.

All this means that when a VC looks for deals, he can't waste time on lifestyle businesses and the like. Billion dollar companies or bust. Keep in mind that this is not true for people who write smaller checks (like angels).

<comment><USER47> That math makes sense if "90% of investments fail", which is a reasonable number if you only invest in companies that need to grow to $1B to succeed. But if you were willing to invest in companies that top out much smaller, theoretically you could chose companies based on likelihood of profit instead of growth, and get a much lower failure rate. The other thing you'd need to be careful of is drain on your time. You'd need to be much less available to companies over time, or you'd get spread too thin by too big a portfolio.

<comment><USER48> > But if you were willing to invest in companies that top out much smaller

Then that person would literally not be practicing Venture Capital.

Venture Capital is a very specific type of funding with a specific type of risk profile. If you don't like the implications, then don't seek Venture Capital.

This is what people don't understand. No one is forcing you to be a venture backed company.

<comment><USER47> Is that a semantic argument - that low risk investments should be called something other than "venture capital"? What term would be best for that? Note that VC does have a wide variety of risk profiles - with later stage usually being lower risk and earlier stage being higher. Who serves the market of early, low-medium risk (and therefore lower returns)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I see a lot of businesses that don't create value, like Uber, or even destroy value in multiple senses, like Uber, that go relatively unpunished by markets and create huge financial windfalls for executives, investors and some employees. Similar things have happened with some cryptocurrencies.

Often a business is run solely to generate enough hype to externalize losses onto an acquirer or public retail traders or unwitting retirement plan holders, while creating space for personal profit for a small set of people.

<comment><USER3> When we're talking 'value' here for startups, we mean value to the user. If Uber didn't produce any value for the user people wouldn't be taking them. Or if there was no value for the drivers they wouldn't drive. Whether or not people get windfalls from the process doesn't change what the end-user gets in the transaction.

<comment><USER49> > "If Uber didn't produce any value for the user people wouldn't be taking > them"

At current prices, which are unsustainbly low due to VC subsidy, people find value in the trade of money for the service. At a price that fairly reflects the cost of delivering the service unsubsidized and maintaining driver quality of life at a socially acceptable level, nobody would pay for it.

So the game was to lever perceived market value up very high with VC subsidy and hype, all the while knowing that they are selling a dollar for fifty cents, just long enough to be acquired or go public at prices that pay back the original VC subsidizers at a multiple allowing them to profit, while whomever bought in is left holding the bag when the company is left in an unsustainable operating position and there's no more hype-profit carrot to attract new subsidy investors.

<comment><USER3> This is a very possible outcome, but not the only realistic one. Depending on the rate of development/adoption of autonomous vehicles there may still be a future without deprived drivers and selling at a loss.

In any case, I am glad for the more efficient use of space and energy that Uber has provided over the congestion of roaming and standing taxicabs in the downtown core with service virtually nowhere else.

<comment><USER49> Uber and similar ride-hailing services have not led to more efficient space or energy use. On the contrary, these services have led to serious and alarming increases in congestion and pollution and diverted funds away from public transit.

The real economics of taxi services, for example round trip costs for servicing lower density out-lying regions, implies much higher prices and lower ride inventory.

Uber and others providing an inflated amount of inventory at unsustainably low prices is not some sort of shift in transit patterns. It's nothing but temporarily selling a dollar for fifty cents in order to compel all competitors out of the market, at which point it instantly goes right back to being just as hard to get an Uber in the suburbs as it was to get a taxi there in the 90s, because that's precisely how the price equilibrium of that supply and demand always worked.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best way to develop front end dev skills? - <AUTHOR> I am thirty one years old.I don't have any frontend dev skills. Where should I start? <comment><USER2> This would be a small supplement to actually building some basic projects out, but one thing that I've found helpful in the past and continue to find helpful is to play around with modifying the CSS and html within chrome's devtools. It's a great way to see how certain properties in CSS affect their respective elements in real time without wiring up project files and development environment. This little guide is a good start: [https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome- devtools/css/](https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/css/)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you see a nicely designed website, try to replicate it. You can learn by checking the CSS/JS and learning from it. This assuming you have bare html/js/css skills. If not, then try some online tutorials/classes/books.

</comment><comment><USER4> The same way you develop any skill. Set a goal, put in a lot of repetitions and constantly refine your approach.

In this context. Have an idea of what you want to make. Start building something and get stuck. Find a package that solves your problem and bloat your codebase.

</comment><comment><USER5> I always recommend www.freecodecamp.org

Go for it! Finish the certificates you judge relevant (it is easy to quit before, don't do it)</comment>


What does Climate Model output look like?  - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/07/what_does_climate_model_output.php <comment><USER2> A good friend of mine is working on his masters in GIS right now.

I was talking to him about climate models the other day (he works with climatologists) and he said something along the lines of "fucking climatologists, dude. Tell me what the temperature is going to be tomorrow, or in a week, THEN we'll work on what it is going to be is 40 years".

I'm not saying that he is right or wrong, but I do really feel (feelings != science, I know) that if they (the climatologists) could give us some more accurate predictions of what they weather is going to be next month, I would have less trouble listening to them when they try to tell me what it is going to be in 30 years.

<comment><USER3> Some things are easier to predict on the long term, others on the short term. Some on the local level, others on the global level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Did I just get told to _look at the pretty pictures_? And then boggle at the idea that they might be meaningless?

This site calls itself "scienceblogs.com"?

I'll admit to generally being a skeptic on the topic of global warming... but there are _far_ better arguments for the standard model than "look at the pretty pictures"! I'll do the advocates of the standard model of warming the favor of pretending this was never posted.

</comment><comment><USER5> The lack of evidence supporting Global Climate Conspiracy merely confirms the vast extent and incredible sophistication of the conspiracy.

</comment><comment><USER6> You'll never convince anyone that catastrophic climate change is likely, as too many people have their self-image and their perceived financial stability tied up in believing that it will not occur.

</comment><comment><USER7> What does Climate Model output look like? It looks like the same stuff that phd assembled equity market models spit out. A bunch of fancy math with no useful track record of success. When are these people going to have their LTCM public depantsing moment?</comment>