What's the Longest Humans Can Live? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/science/maximum-life-span-study.html <comment><USER2> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this result doesn't seem particularly controversial or astounding.

We've assumed for some time now that while we can increase the average life expectancy by getting better at treating diseases, there is still this thing called "aging" that is going to kill us at some relatively fixed point.

These results don't suggest to me that we are "never" going to live longer than 115 or so, but rather that we aren't going to get there just by taking away disease roadblocks. We would need to master the natural process of aging that serves to kill us once we have outlived our evolutionary purpose of reprodution.

<comment><USER3> > We would need to master the natural process of aging that serves to kill us > once we have outlived our evolutionary purpose

Related to aging is the length of our telomeres. Doing a search through recent news brings up some interesting related topics like:

Childhood trauma causes shortened telomeres (and shortens life): [http://www.medicaldaily.com/childhood-trauma-may-shorten- tel...](http://www.medicaldaily.com/childhood-trauma-may-shorten-telomeres- cause-early-aging-adults-399966)

Acne-sufferers may have longer telomeres (and live longer): [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161003133005.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161003133005.htm)

There's now a genetic test that provides more information about your telomeres: [http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161005005364/en/TELO...](http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161005005364/en/TELOYEARS%E2%84%A2%E2%80%94A-Genetic- Test-Reveals-Cellular-Age-Encoded)

Gene therapy may add years of life to leukocytes (and follistatin may help those with MS and spinal muscular atrophy): [http://www.the- scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45947/...](http://www.the- scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45947/title/First-Data-from-Anti-Aging- Gene-Therapy/)

Some anti-cancer drugs inhibit telomerase (which keeps telomers long making cancer cells live longer than they should): [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160818111454.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160818111454.htm)

Loss of (T)P53 genes cause increased cancer rate (and elephants that have more P53 genes rarely get cancer)- surprise, surprise- because loss of p53 function accelerates acquisition of telomerase activity: [http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v22/n34/full/1206667a.html](http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v22/n34/full/1206667a.html)

It seems that, if we don't kill ourselves or die of natural disasters/famines/diseases, we will have a better handle on disease and aging with more study. I don't understand why people would study statistics on aging and conclude that we can't age more than we already do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Medical research is generally aimed at the most pressing problems facing a society. Infectious disease was a focus for a long time, cancer is one of the biggest targets now. Aging has not been a priority yet, because the vast majority of people die of something else (infections, heart attacks, cancer, etc) before they die of the problems specific to extreme old age.

When we develop treatments capable of reducing the incidence of more common diseases, then focus will shift towards aging and the curve may very well start to bend towards longer lifespans.

If you want this to occur sooner, support more overall scientific funding through your donations, your votes, and your advocacy.

<comment> D-Coder "Aging has not been a priority yet, because the vast majority of people die of something else..."

Also aging is a _very difficult_ problem. We are only now collecting the tools to understand it, much less fix it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Note that this is a purely statistical analysis of the situation:

> "You'd need 10,000 worlds like ours to have the chance that there would be > one human who would become 125 years," said Dr. Vijg.

It says nothing about medical breakthroughs, which could have nonlinear, bell- curve-defying effects.

<comment><USER6> It does say something about medical breakthroughs -- since they're happening all the time and not shifting this upper bound very much.

This is not to say that a medical breakthrough which changes the limit is impossible, but it has to compete against an exponential mortality curve.

See also: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz%E2%80%93Makeham_law_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz%E2%80%93Makeham_law_of_mortality)

<comment><USER7> > It does say something about medical breakthroughs -- since they're happening > all the time and not shifting this upper bound very much.

Given that those who are 115 today were 85 when breakthroughs were made three decades ago, I'd say that we simply don't have the data yet to make that assessment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Despite this happening over and over again, I can never understand the attitude underlying statements like the one this article is making.

"A computer will never be small enough to fit in a house" "Man will never reach the moon" "The atomic bomb will never work" "The telephone will never catch on" "Heavier than air flight is impossible" "Everything that can be invented has been invented"

The list of things declared impossible is as long as it is laughable. I hope I'm around long enough to see this article added to the list.

<comment><USER9> _The list of things declared impossible is as long as it is laughable. I hope I 'm around long enough to see this article added to the list. _

There are things that are certainly impossible according to the law of physics as we know it, such as FTL travel or time travel.

There is nothing according to the laws of physics that prevent us, say, from colonizing Mars.

<comment><USER10> The laws of physics say we can't accelerate through the speed of light, but it doesn't say we can't travel faster than light, nor does it say time travel is impossible. Particles traveling faster than light can travel back in time. Communicating with those particles has proven to be difficult. Also, traveling faster than light is pretty difficult. But, the main law is that you can't accelerate through the speed of light. Another possibility is compressing space so that you're not traveling faster than light, but you're covering more space.

It's probably more likely that we could colonize Mars before we will have a vessel capable of compressing space and traveling through it in an efficient manner.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Do they mean that the average life expectancy at birth will not exceed 115? Because the article opens by noting that the current record is 122, so obviously some individuals will exceed 115, seeing as several already have.

<comment><USER12> That article was incredibly hard to read and poorly written. The message was so confusing, i didn't know what to make of it - i came away with the same conclusion as you did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's too bad that the cost to sequence a human genome was above $100 million dollars in 1997. Of course, by the time Jeanne Calment was 122 years old her genome would have accumulated thousands of mutations, so what we would have needed is to sequence her in 1875, the year that she was born (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Now that the price of sequencing the human genome is ~$1000, is it worthwhile to sequence all newborns, so that on the off chance that a person is a long lived anomaly we can study what made them so?

<comment><USER14> To start sequencing everyone's genome as they're born seems a little Gattaca. We might as well fingerprint everyone and submit them to a national database while we're at it.

<comment><USER15> Seems pretty likely to me that if we stick around long enough we will definitely sequence everyone's DNA as a matter of course. What we'll want is to have a decent ethical and legal framework around that by the time it happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've always found Genesis 6:3 interesting, when talking about human longevity.

        And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

<comment><USER17> Am not religious, but that's nuts!

Also interesting that Noah and co. all lived to be hundreds of years old, in the book.

<comment><USER16> Indeed. However, Noah and co. were born before Genesis 6:3. Also interesting to note.

<comment><USER18> Genesis 6 is the beginning of the "Noah's flood" narrative. Noah doesn't die until Genesis 9. Reference: [http://biblehub.com/genesis/9-29.htm](http://biblehub.com/genesis/9-29.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The statistics in this article are questionable.

For one thing, they don't actually analyse what people are dying from.

What we consider "natural causes" now, we may discover all sorts of physiological explanations for in the upcoming decades, as we reach new limits of human age.

As diseases, disorders, and illnesses are eliminated, we will have less and less "natural" ways to die.

This article would have made more sense if they found an actual limit to human age, as the headline implies.

<comment><USER20> The point of the article (and the paper on which it is based) is to infer the existence of a limit. The method of inference is not by pure logic, rather it is partly probabilistic. That is what you have to be comfortable with because all probabilistic/statistical arguments have a similar form.

Also worth noting is that what the scientists publish is less than the opinions and convictions they hold. On the age limit question the most popular opinion is that the DNA (specifically the chromosomes) runs out of telomeres, without which the replication process is almost guaranteed to be error prone. With that, it does not matter much what the old people are dying from because anything and everything is going to kill them.

Another anecdotal opinion (not sure if there is a paper or not) I have heard is that the blood and marrows of the people in the 110+ age range show that the active stem cells from the systems are nearly depleted. That may or may not be related to the telomores but the consequences are similar, the body will not be able to produce workers for any of the vital/non-vital functions. So anything and everything is going to kill you.

When the published papers hint at a limit[1], although may be justified by the content of the paper alone, the authors also do so under the influence extra knowledge and opinions[2].

[1] It can be anything.

[2] If you know this sort of thing is happening -- and it is relatively common in scientific papers, you can easily see it. For example, the last sentence of the abstract "... subject to natural constraints." Also last paragraph of the paper hand waves the causes to genetic and cellular systems, but just vague enough so that the paper can stand on its own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Gravity and Levity presented in 2009 a much better intuitive model and mathematical principle that explains this bold pronouncement:

[https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your- body-...](https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-wasnt- built-to-last-a-lesson-from-human-mortality-rates/)

</comment><comment><USER22> The article is poorly written, but the actual abstract is pretty clear:

"Here, by analysing global demographic data, we show that improvements in survival with age tend to decline after age 100, and that the age at death of the world's oldest person has not increased since the 1990s. Our results strongly suggest that the maximum lifespan of humans is fixed and subject to natural constraints."

I don't think this isn't a real surprise, but it shows that you can't link the rise in life expectancy to maximum life spans.

For example, fewer infants dying doesn't mean that humans can live longer, but the overall average goes up.

<comment><USER23> Without considering it much, this feels like an abuse of data and statistical methods. It's like they've got 20 years of data and are extrapolating out to infinity. It's like modeling real estate prices on 20 years of data and saying whatever happened in those 20 years is all that can happen in all time frames. Forecasting 101 tells you the folly of that idea. If you have 20 years of data then you have 20 years of data. Maybe what they've uncovered is something like "max human age without treatment". Surely they can't rule out the effects of future medical advancements.

<comment><USER22> I think it's just sensationalist science journalism like usual. The research is well done, the reporting stinks.

Obligatory: [https://xkcd.com/882/](https://xkcd.com/882/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I doubt such a study can be valid. We still don't know much about the microorganisms that we exist symbiotically with. Case in point: Cytomegalovirus. Most of us carry this virus. It basically takes up the memory of our immune system, but only slowly over time. As it is now, it's not a concern, but if we had lifespans that were into the mid to upper 100's of years, this thing would probably be a leading cause of death.

There's probably a number of things like this we don't know yet.

EDIT: It is a concern for AIDS patients and other immune compromised individuals, however.

<comment><USER25> In the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, the characters live in a fictional world where they have to deal with such issues. Longevity treatments have moved people into very old ages (190 ~ 250 IIRC), but as they age, memories become a huge issue. When they start dying again at very old ages, despite the treatments, it's quite unsettling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The sort of question for yourself to take away from this is "what does 'natural lifespan' mean?"

Obviously it has been a long time since humans have experienced a natural lifespan in the one rigorous no-technology definition of the term. Is maximum lifespan moving much? Hard to say. The data gets really sparse out beyond 110, where estimated mortality rates are 50%+/yr, and really sparse the further back in time you look.

So it isn't unreasonable to hold the position that maximum life span is increasing, but slowly. Adult life expectancy at 60 is going up a year every decade, but there are so few people living to > 115 that you can't really say much about their statistics. Maybe that is going up too.

Equally it isn't unreasonable to hold the position that transthyretin amyloid aggregation is a fairly equitable process that will absolutely kill everyone prior to 130. That it acts as a hard full stop on how far you can get with, even if you avoid everything else. (That this form of amyloid is what kills the majority of supercentenarians is the conclusion drawn from the limited autopsy data for people that old).

This of course is because no currently available medical technology greatly impacts transthyretin amyloid (though Pentraxin Therapeutics completed initial human trials of a clearance therapy in 2015 - stuck in regulatory/Big Pharma hell, but it works). You can be as heavily treated with the best of medicine as you like, but that amyloid is still accumulating, and eventually it clogs your cardiovascular system and you die.

If there was no transthyretin amyloid in the picture, I'd wager we'd have 120yr-olds in the same way that we have 110yr-olds today - a larger number of them, but still small. We'd also have 10-20% less heart disease at all ages, and a range of other conditions that are caused in old people by this form of amyloid. Amyloid clearance is a good thing, there should be more support for it.

</comment><comment><USER27> Any discussion of aging and systematic lifespan extension is incomplete without mentioning the work of the SENS Research Foundation, a research & outreach organization whose goal is to help build the industry that will cure the diseases of aging.

They identify seven major classes of cellular and molecular damage that must be remediated in order to defeat aging:

[http://www.sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens- research](http://www.sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research)

</comment><comment><USER28> Shouldn't the question be "What's the Longest Humans Can Live _Well_ "?

</comment><comment><USER29> my grandpa is 102. Russian genes! To think he was born during the Russian Revolution is mind blowing. i think his gen more than ours underwent more positive Quantum leaps than mine ever will.

</comment><comment><USER30> No one tell Ray Kurzweil.

<comment><USER31> Don't worry, his bubble of denial is inviolable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> There have been 40 people who have lived past 115 years:

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

4 of them are still alive.

<comment><USER33> So, 40 in 7 billion. I don't think this refutes the article's analysis of the averages.

<comment><USER32> I just thought it would be an interesting additional piece of information for this discussion.

<comment><USER33> And it is. Just making a point of outliers vs averages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> From the article: ""You'd need 10,000 worlds like ours to have the chance that there would be one human who would become 125 years," said Dr. Vijg." Apparently, there's a man living who's 145 years old from a reasonably believable source. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/worlds- oldest-p...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/worlds-oldest- person-man-mbah-gotho-indonesia-145-years-old-a7213191.html)

</comment><comment><USER35> What this article is saying in a muddled kind of way is that improvements in "healthspan" can take humans to about 125 years. Beyond that, more radical interventions are required, probably requiring genetic modification.

Space travel might drive this as well. Humans who want to travel to and live on Mars will want to be resilient to changes in gravity and to radiation. And once we open the door to genetic modification, longevity becomes one goal among many.

</comment><comment><USER36> Seems like they just made a quote to get attention.

"It seems highly likely we have reached our ceiling," said Dr. Vijg, an expert on aging at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. "From now on, this is it. Humans will never get older than 115."

I am guessing someone will live past 115. There has already been 1. Probability is very small, but I don't think its 0.

<comment><USER37> I'm assuming they mean average.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Nobody is mentioning telomeres? That's the key to longevity, the only key. If telomeres can be changed to have their counters not expire that will mean an infinite life.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm not sure if they'll live longer but I'd be interested to see how much longer and fuller lives that today's 50 year old men on TRT live

</comment><comment><USER40> Such bad science. Since we couldn't make it until now, apparently there is a hard limit. Such a logical flaw

</comment><comment><USER41> With all the work on longevity going on right now, and the near-infinite demand for it should it ever come to market, it's almost inevitable that someone will eventually have drugs/procedures that buy you more years.

The only real question in my mind is whether we are the first generation to live forever, or the last generation to die?

<comment><USER42> If you don't die of aging, you'll die of something else, be it cancer, heart disease, an accident, etc. And anyway, entropy has the final say no matter what you do to upload or back yourself up.

<comment><USER43> > If you don't die of aging, you'll die of something else, be it cancer, heart > disease, an accident, etc.

All of those things are fixable too, and the medical ones are heavily correlated with aging. Cancer, in particular, is becoming more prevalent because it's almost a "default": if you don't die of anything else, and you continue to experience aging-related degeneration, you have a high likelihood of getting cancer.

> And anyway, entropy has the final say no matter what you do to upload or > back yourself up.

Give us a few billion years to work on that one.

<comment><USER37> Great, so you can live for the Alzheimer's.

<comment><USER44> If you stop aging itself, the probability of acquiring Alzheimer's is very low.

<comment><USER37> You talk about aging as if it's a single thing. You'd have to solve every symptom of again to solve it. This is absurd.

<comment><USER43> I don't (just) want to solve the symptoms; I want to address the _cause_. Many degenerative conditions are symptoms (directly or indirectly) of aging, and are heavily correlated with age, but the current approach to treating them is little better than palliative care of the symptoms. Curing those conditions would be good, but stopping the degeneration that causes them in the first place would be better.

Yes, there are multiple components of aging and degeneration, and all of them will need a solution. What's absurd, though, is saying "oh, it's multiple things, so it must be impossible to fix".

<comment><USER37> Thank god nobody around here is saying that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Variations on this article are popping up all over today. As far as aging is concerned, I'm just an interested layperson, but there are two things that strike me about the ideas in this article.

First, the trope of 115 years, or 120 years or 122 or 125 years, or whatever, as some kind of limit probably survives for a constellation of reasons. It's fun to be able to tell optimists that they're fundamentally wrong. And it's cheap and easy to do so. It's also comforting to not have to wonder if you're missing out on extreme longevity by--I don't know--not exercising enough or not eating your vegetables, or whatever. It also sounds like "a discovery" or a new way of understanding things. So, mimetically, this thing has power. You want to tell people about it, and they want to tell others. They cycle of news continues. But this has no bearing on the claim's predictive value or theoretical foundation.

Second, what kind of "natural limit" could this be? We're describing, essentially, a statistical phenomenon, by the author's own admission. Things break over time, and the accumulated damage accelerates further breakage, and then everything gets too broke to continue. That seems to be the idea, to me. But, there isn't anything fundamental about that, to me. It seems like we don't know how to repair things, yet. (This makes the mention of Aubrey de Grey in another one of the articles I saw today especially appalling; de Grey is spurring and funding research in figuring out how to repair the _damage_ of aging.) Every time it is explained that the authors "did research" or "analyzed a database," their sample was drawn from a time when aging was poorly understood, and therapies to target aging were nonexistent. (For example: history up until at least 2016.) This is like pointing to a graph of falling temperature as nightfall approaches and concluding that it is impossible to build a campfire!

It's just maddening. <takes deep breath> I have a couple of related observations. 3 scientists just won the Nobel prize for demonstrating synthetic molecular machines. I'm not claiming that this is obviously the answer to aging or will bring it about Real Soon Now, but aren't we, at long last, at least operating at the scale at which the damage from aging occurs? Can't we even _imagine_ new techniques arising from that? Another observation is the work that Aubrey de Grey has been up to, and has been sponsoring and advocating. I would recommend to anyone that they at least look into that. He's at least addressing aging directly, and talking about its biochemical machinery in a focused way. And what about CRISPR/CAS9? Or the more recent CRISPR/Cpf1?

Finally, I can't believe that I feel like I need to say this, but "aging" isn't magic. It gets talked about in a very folk-wisdom kind of way, as a bunch of received wisdom about some mystical process. But, some aspects of it have to succumb to some kind of analysis or observation, and the--not entirely unreasonable, I think--hope is that restoring a cell, or an organ, or a person to some approximation of a less time-ravaged state might eventually be within our grasp. To just declare otherwise seems to me to be just rank superstition, an unjustified hypothesis about a field that is beyond one's ken, even if it is not beyond the ken of researchers, present or future, in the field.

</comment><comment><USER46> This article kinda sucks, and it all should have a big asterisk; on average the longest lived humans will be ~115 unless there is a breakthrough in repairing damaged DNA/RNA.

Eventually there will be technology that allows us to repair that damage. It just might not be for a hundred years. But to say that it will never happen is pretty ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER47> Rather than proving an implicit limit in human lifespan via statistics, these "experts on aging" seem to have instead suggested that increasing cultural diversity has coincided with a decreasing rate of lifespan extension throughout the West.</comment>


Investor Funnels for Series As - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ycombinator.com/investor-funnels-for-series-as/ <comment><USER2> Not super surprising if you pay attention to the Soft Bank effect. Recent analyses of ~1,000-2,000 Series A say similar things: [https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/25/a-quick-look-at-how- fast-s...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/25/a-quick-look-at-how-fast-series- a-and-seed-rounds-have-ballooned-in-recent-years-fueled-by-top-investors/)

Average Series A:

* $5.3M raised pre-A

* $33M average pre-money valuation

* $10-15M average raises

* 80% have revenue, with ~$1M revenue to ~talk, and ideally $2M

So Series B is the new Series A, Series A is the new Seed II, and Seed.. oh whatever. Even more interesting when talking to investors who are unaware of the new reality. Fun times for fellow CEOs out there :)

</comment><comment><USER3> "On average, the companies that raised As had 30 coffee meetings with individual investors. 50% of these meetings led to pitches to individual partners. About 30% of partner pitches led to full partnership pitches. On average, 1 of every 5 partnership meetings produced a term sheet."

Based on the above, it seems the average number of term sheets received by a company that successfully raised a Series A was 1.

This surprises me because (i) it's often suggested you need more than one term sheet to have a decent negotiating position, and (ii) a YC-backed company should be better placed than most to get multiple, so if they're not getting them, then who is?

<comment><USER4> > This surprises me because (i) it's often suggested you need more than one > term sheet to have a decent negotiating position, and (ii) a YC-backed > company should be better placed than most to get multiple, so if they're not > getting them, then who is?

It's pretty hard to get more than one because every deal is on its own timeline (you didn't meet all the prospective investors on the same day, and each has its own internal timeline modulated by people being around and internal process). If you're really hot (and this is easier in later rounds where your A investor(s) can whip up interest) perhaps you'll get lucky, but most deals aren't, even really good ones. In fact being "hot" in your A round might be a negative predictor (I don't know) just as most child prodigies flame out. FWIW, most of my financing have been multi-TS deals and none of them have been round A.

Also when someone issues a TS (see below) you can try to run around and use it to speed someone else up. That's hard, because the person who gave it to you will pressure you to sign immediately lest the deal explode.

However you do have useful negotiating strengths even when you have only one TS. It's _hard_ to issue one: every firm is unique but often you have to get all or most of your partners to agree; typically you only do one or two companies a year and the firm as a whole few, so nobody wants to write a TS and then not get the deal: they persuaded their partners that _this is the one!_. So you can push back on egregious terms, and propose alternatives to things you'd prefer were too different. If you push too much they can walk away (and then the partner will tell their partners "wow, we dodged a bullet; that CEO would have been an asshole to deal with". But don't let it get to that point.

Another way that I've done for my last two projects was write the terms ourselves and issue our own term sheet. You're already implicitly doing this as you discuss what you're looking for before getting terms from an investor so why not simply propose a deal up front? Later stages are practically that way already as the earlier rounds will have constrained various things. This works if your team already have track records of investors making money.

<comment><USER5> "It's pretty hard to get more than one [term sheet] because every deal is on its own timeline" \- yes, but that's a symptom of a loose/poor/disorganized fundraise (IMO), not a hard and fast constraint.

To me, the _whole point_ of running a tight and structured Series A process is that you have the various horses crossing the finish line at the same time so that you have multiple interested parties capable of issuing term sheets concurrently.

To do that, you need to operate essentially a cohort-based funnel. Which is my understanding of YC's Series A program - it provides the structure, batch- processing, and funnel clarity to help make this happen inorganically in case it doesn't organically.

The other big advantage of batch-processing is obviously more efficient use of time.

<comment><USER6> In the very best of circumstances your approach would be optimal. And in fairness at later rounds or M&A this is what you hire an I banker for — To create an auction.

But the great majority of firms raising a Series A aren't so obviously "Fundable" that they can reliably gin up a parallel set of term sheets. Consider that if it takes 30 VC outreaches to average one TS, what would it take to average two within an overlapping two week window (realistically these things expire)? A lot more than 60 I'd bet.

Another thing about this is that these aren't bandits or oracles or black boxes you're doing some kind of algorithmic search on. Ideally each pitch you do will give you feedback and practice to hone the pitch, market feedback on the actual underlying business, and possibly even introductions to helpful others (customers or rarely investors; VCs tend not to pass along deals they rent investing in because of signaling effects but intros / sharing does happen).

So a Series A raise is a path dependent process.

<comment><USER5> Good points, but I'm curious if getting multiple TSs is only true in "the very best of circumstances".

For instance - is 30 VC outreaches a stretch? Sounds like a day or two of focused efforts - cold outreach, working your network, etc. Heck, a BDR at any startup company is doing more than that outreaches PER DAY to clients - so is it unrealistic to expect CEOs to do that for something that's existentially important?

But even then, if 30 gets you 1 TS, why not optimize your effort to get to 60 or 90 instead? Surely it's not perfectly linear... but at least you know the order of magnitude of effort, right? And that still doesn't seem totally crazy to me.

BTW - I'm prepared to accept that "it's impossible"; perhaps I'm overly optimistic based on my own experience. Our Series A fundraise resulted in 4 TSs at the same time, not because we were "hot" like Facebook or because I was an amazing CEO/founder, but because I had experienced CEO/founder mentors guiding me in how to execute the process to achieve that exact outcome.

So net is I'm just not sure this isn't a "thing is hard and few people do it, therefore it's impossible" versus a "thing is hard, so you need to work backwards and do XYZ very well". And XYZ is just not widely known or even understood by those who do it, and is likely hard too.

Net of all of this is that this is why the YC Series A program is a great idea. It can provide best-practices and guidance to achieve "impossible" outcomes, and it is essentially systematizing a process that perhaps is more art than science.

That all said, to counter my own points - while there is probably some operational lift by running a perfect process, that effect is likely dwarfed by how compelling the startup is at that time. Is it growing 300%+ YoY with a huge vision? etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is sort of embarrassing for YC, so it's admirable they're sharing their surprise. Reads kind of like _Breaking: people actually doing something know more about its practicalities than supposed subject matter experts._ Points for honesty. I wonder if there's a VC model that could apply solutions to this category of issues from other domains (eg. traditional German trade schools) against the traditional founder/PE/VC structures to avoid such scenarios in future?

Also, the entire tier of coffee meetings don't really happen in Asia, we tend to do either meals or in-house presentations in my experience.

<comment><USER8> > _This is sort of embarrassing for YC_

Why?

<comment><USER9> Well they're shocked by the 30 number, despite having had investments in like 624 billion companies so far. You think they would have at least heard about something to this effect from their relationships with YC companies? Especially given the whole "YC is about the network"

How good is the network if it doesn't even give you the basic knowledge for a thing you are extremely likely to have to go through (Series A), right after YC itself?

<comment><USER8> > _they 're shocked by the 30 number, despite having had investments in like > 624 billion companies so far_

Handholding start-ups through their Series As isn't YC's core competence. If one could schedule two and a half meetings a day, on average, individual partner pitches could be had in 3 weeks. Give it 1 week for a partnership meeting and 1 week for a term sheet and you're talking zero to term sheet inside a month and a half. That's good. Unusually good.

YC's network serves to speed up the rate at which those 30 meetings get scheduled. Not change the fundamental dynamics of company-investor fit.

In any case, we have no baseline. It may be the case that 3% of YC coffee dates result in a term sheet while 0.3% of non-YC meetings do the same.

> _You think they would have at least heard about something to this effect > from their relationships with YC companies?_

There is a lot of information buried in relationships that never surfaces because nobody is incentivized to ask. No CEO worth her salt will start waxing lyrical about all their failed coffee meetings when a term sheet on the table needs to be closed. And after the capital is raised, there are more pertinent questions for both sides.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Despite all the rumours about a glut of capital, the stats indeed show that raising VC is not easy.

But to put things in perspective, it is common, even for great people, to go through job searches that are tougher than this. (despite all the rumours about a tech talent shortage)

</comment><comment><USER11> The idea of a conversion funnel for investment captures the real business model in play here. This is a marketplace in which the products being sold are business stories, and the audience is a very small group of wealthy consumers. Since the stories don't have to be tested against the real world, they can be perfectly tailored to the preferences of the buyers.

</comment><comment><USER12> Does YC also provide any tools or standard processes around due diligence? I haven't been through enough rounds to know if there is any standardization between investors or if there is the possibility of encouraging such.

<comment><USER13> Would love to know about that too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Has anyone created a commercially available CRM for this purpose?

<comment><USER7> Someone started one in Australia recently, but wound up pivoting. I think % of companies in fundraising state at any time is too tiny to present an easily addressable target market.

<comment><USER15> What was the Australian company?

<comment><USER7> Just checked. Can't find it. It was a sort of 'try this beta' -> feedback -> meh experience with someone who reached out via YCSUS2018. They definitely pivoted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Series A is defined as the first equity round (no matter the size)? So what is the funding mechanic of a "average sized" 5M seed round?

</comment><comment><USER17> > On average, the companies that raised As had 30 coffee meetings with > individual investors.

What does 'coffee meeting' specifically mean?

<comment><USER8> > _What does 'coffee meeting' specifically mean?_

Meeting at a coffee shop. Informal, short and stuffed in between the investor's scheduled work. Pitch deck may or may not come out.

One implication of a coffee meeting is there is a personal layer to the relationship. (Someone made an introduction, or you know each other from prior work. Website submissions don't tend to land coffee meetings.) It also signals a recognition, on both sides, that early-stage investing tends to require personal connections between founders and their investors.</comment></comment>


Google Books settlement site - authors get $60 + 63% per book - jim-greer http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/11/google-book-settlement-site-is-up-paying-authors-60-per-scanned-book/

<comment> jim-greer What I don't understand about this is how the hell they are going to verify that someone is the author (or heir) of any of millions of out-of-print books. It's not like they can tell you to put a file named google78027ff138ae4bd0.html up... Seems ripe for scammers.</comment>


Innovation Isn't Dead - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/money/3940273/innovation-isnt-dead/

<comment><USER2> There is plenty of innovation. Integration is the hard part.</comment>


A company called Bonsai joins a movement to democratize machine learning - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/you-too-can-become-a-machine-learning-rock-star-no-phd-necessary-107a1624d96b#.f83kiy9pi <comment><USER2> Oh god, it's happening to machine learning too. The call for "rockstars" and "ninjas". Web development was already eaten by this garbage, can we just not this time?

<comment><USER3> The barrier to entry is still fairly high. ML still lacks a "PHP". But not for a long time. Hardware and software will eventually catch up and offer easy ti use components (something im researching).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > If you are a strong-armed NFL quarterback who reads defenses like genre > fiction, a movie star whose name alone can open a film in China, or a stock > picker who beats Buffet every time, congratulations: you are almost as > valuable as a data scientist or machine learning engineer with a PhD from > Stanford, MIT, or Carnegie Mellon.

who reads this garbage?

<comment><USER5> It's more like Rock, Paper, Scissors, Data Scientist, except:

NFL quarterback crushes puny data scientist

Movie star steals data scientist's girlfriend

Stock picker acqui-hires data scientist's company on the downturn for pennies on the dollar

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Switch Democratize with Capitalize and you get the BS free version as a side effect.

</comment><comment><USER7> Extremely trivial pet peeve, but I hate the word "democratize". In what way does this introduce a democratic voting system to AI? Why do they use this word? Because it summons vague positive connotations people have with "democracy"?

<comment><USER8> "Democratize" word meanings from the Oxford dictionary:

1) introduce a democratic system or democratic principles to: public institutions need to be democratized.

2) make (something) accessible to everyone: mass production has not democratized fashion.

The second one seems to be exactly what they say about their system.

<comment><USER7> Yes I know they aren't the first person to use the word that way, it still bothers me. I didn't know this abuse had become widespread enough to warrant an addition to the dictionary.

<comment><USER9> I think you are mistaken as to the recency of this definiton.

According to wikitionary, the definition : "Exhibiting social equality, egalitarian" for the word "democratic" dates back to 1915.

<comment><USER7> I checked wiktionary before posting and did not see that. Where do you see that? [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratize](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratize)

EDIT: Ah, ok, it's under "[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratic"](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratic"). But I'm still not seeing 1915 there.

EDIT2: Ok it was hidden under an expandable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Too much bullshit</comment>


Ask YC: Would YC.Newsers try a web service that works only on IE? - <AUTHOR>

If currently a web site doesn't support Firefox/Safari/Opera would you still try it out? <comment><USER2> IE only isn't a web service ... it's crippled desktop software. My last company used an EXTREMELY expensive service called Windchill. It was used because CVS was free, worked cross platform, and relatively bug free. Fractal wrong, so to speak.

Windchill only comes available through IE. That meant that the 1/2 of the company on linux boxes needed dual boot machines to use it.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's not so much a question of would as could. I'd have to install IE first. And it would take a lot to make me do that.

<comment><USER4> Running IE precludes an operating system and hardware on which it runs. If you asked about developing for Firefox only then I'd strongly recommend it. This browser can be run on many operating systems. Most importantly, early adopters who are likely to use this browser are more likely to be an early adopter of your service. For the same reason, I'd recommend developing a Firefox plugin rather than an IE plugin.

<comment><USER5> >"If you asked about developing for Firefox only then I'd strongly recommend it."

I know that this is a tech site, and that I am probably get modded down for saying this: But that is absolutely ridicolous. Basically what you are doing if you are only developing for firefox is opening a shop where you only let 10% of your customeres through the door. The rest will have to go home, or go to you competition.

I mean, seriously... Business 101 guys ;-)

<comment><USER6> No, the other option is for your customers to install Firefox. Now this isn't always something you can demand/expect of your users. But for example for a free service or during a beta period it's perfectly reasonable. Most IE market share is not early adoption friendly. If they wouldn't fear new technology they would be on Firefox already. Either they never heard of Firefox or don't want to try it out. Neither one is a quality that indicates early adopter.

<comment><USER5> >"No, the other option is for your customers to install Firefox. Now this isn't always something you can demand/expect of your users. But for example for a free service or during a beta period it's perfectly reasonable"

So you think that users will go through the trouble of installing a new browser to see a free website or a product in beta? Good luck with that...

It seems to me that a lot of really good programmers (of which you seem to be one, judging from your comments) don't mingle a lot with "normal" people. These are the ones that have normal lives, use their computer only as a tool that is expected to just work, and use IE because it came with the computer.

And they are the ones that will pay for products. Early adopters are a really hard crowd to make money from, they expect everything to be free, and they will move on as soon as something more exciting comes along.

I would never launch a product, not even in a beta, that only works in firefox, Not only do you lose more than half of your potential customers, but it also sends a signal that either you are not very good at what you do since you only seem to be able to make it work in one browser, or else that you don't much care. Both are pretty bad.

<comment><USER6> Well it's certainly true that I probably mix with many regular users. But of the people I know my parents are the least likely to buy products from the web or sign up for a subscription website. But yes, they do run IE because it came with the computer.

On the other hand a lot of my friends run either Ubuntu or OSX and shop online often. They tend to try out new services while they're still in Beta and sign up for paid services.

So that's what I personally base my decision on when I take a first cut at building a webapp. YMMV

<comment><USER5> Well unless your friends are your core audience you should be wary of that approach. You tend to hang out with people that hold the same values that you do yourself. If you think that they are representative of the population as a whole you are headed for trouble.

Just saying... :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> No, I'm on a mac, don't have access to IE.

It's definitely ok to release an alpha that only works in a certain browser, but make sure you tell people, and be prepared to cut some people off.

<comment><USER2> what, you wouldn't use Parallels just to use windows to use IE to try the service?!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Probably not. The only time IE gets run is when I need to test a design.

Your service would really have to offer something amazing that I simply could not live without and that there were no competitors.

So far, I haven't found a single service like that.

</comment><comment><USER9> _"... If currently a web site doesn't support Firefox/Safari/Opera would you still try it out? ..."_

What no Lynx support? No way man. Wouldn't touch it with a pole.

</comment><comment><USER10> If it didn't support any browser than IE, I'd pass. Those guys are digging themselves a hole if it is dependant on IE centric code from day one.

<comment><AUTHOR> it's not much of being IE centric as to designing an api first and insteaad of losing time on stupid JS/DOM dependancies (things you can fix later for less cost), just get it maybe to most users for whom IE is the internet.

<comment><USER6> IIRC there are more IE related JS/DOM bugs than Firefox ones. In FF you also have Firebug which makes development less painful. So why would it help to make an IE version only first? The only reason I can think is if you're using ASP.NET and the funky HTML generation that it and Visual Studio do.

<comment><AUTHOR> of what i know of IE suffers from certain memory leakage issues and that alone makes you write more careful JS code, that is if you are aware of them. So, if you can avoid these and achieve satisfactory functionality between all recent versions of IE (especially when putting these on their limits) , you can later fix your code working for Mozzila. Of course you could do it simultaniously but would it worth to lose even more time in cotrast of going online. (not a .NET. fan)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I would not! Though I could use my IE for Wine, why would I go through the trouble just to visit a site? If they're not going to cater to me as an Ubuntu user, then they can count me out of their target population.

Its like what paul said, except for me, even though I technically "can," I won't go through the extra trouble.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't usually try anything out that doesn't work in Safari, unless I have a vested interest in doing so.

Of course, that often means that Google products aren't useable for a year or so after they launch...

</comment><comment><USER13> Sure... are you providing the Windows machine to test it? I'll send you my shipping address.

C'mon. What is it, ActiveX, or does the layout just break horribly in a proper web browser?

</comment><comment><USER14> Not a chance.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'd have to install Windows or buy a Mac. And it would take a lot to make me do that.

</comment><comment><USER16> Nope.

If it were _really_ compelling, I'd turn on the user-agent switcher plugin and _pretend_ to be running IE. ;-)

If you absolutely must target a proprietary platform, make it Flash.

</comment><comment><USER17> Will I try it out on IE, sure! Will I use it on IE on a regular basis, not so sure!

What's the big deal with making it cross-browser, unless you are thinking of a short-cut?

</comment><comment><USER18> no. i don't have IE and i never intend on installing it.

</comment><comment><USER19> Sure, why not? IE spits out a lot of warning messages in my gnome terminal, but aside from that WINE seems to be working just fine. What's the URL?

</comment><comment><USER20> Nope.

</comment><comment><USER21> Since I don't use IE...no.

</comment><comment><USER22> if i heard enough about it or it interested me i would try it. but i doubt i would use it, firefox and safari are my browsers of choice .

</comment><comment><USER23> Yeah, if it was cool enough, I'd try it out in IE.

</comment><comment><USER24> Would Y Combinator fund a company that makes a plugin to one kind of mail client?

<comment><USER25> xobni or inbox backwards

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> No.

</comment><comment><USER27> No.

</comment><comment><USER28> No.

</comment><comment><USER25> user pleeeease</comment>


Simplicity Is Highly Overrated - <AUTHOR> http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html <comment><USER2> Hmmm...When it comes to simplicity in design, I may be an outlier, but just a few of my daily struggles...

\- I have to subtract 23 minutes (or add 37 minutes depending on daylight savings time) from the clock in my car because I lost the manual. What ever happened to a dial with 2 hands?

\- I have to stand beside the microwave and open the door when the popcorn stops popping because I have no idea how to get good popcorn any other way.

\- I never put anything in the dishwasher because I have no idea whether it's clean or dirty. How hard would it be to put a large green/yellow/red light on the front panel? (I am not the main user.)

\- Why does almost every web page or Windows screen have buttons that do totally different functions right next to each other in the same color? (Yesterday, I meant to click on my only unread email and accidently sorted by Subject Name instead. It took me 5 minutes to realize what I had done.

\- I gave up on our 4 TV remotes (124 total buttons) long ago. If it's on Channel 6, I'll watch it without sound.

\- What do those other 2 buttons on the garage door opener do? I hit them so often, some days I wonder if I'll hear dogs barking.

\- Need ice or water from the refrigerator door? Make sure you're in the right "mode" first. Why not just have 2 openings?

\- Cell phone is ringing. Where is it?!?!? Why can't I just answer the land line? It's always in the same place.

\- Stereo in living room is unplugged until we need it. I don't know how to stop the constant light show on the front panel.

Just when was it that things got so complicated that they created more problems than they solved?

<comment><USER3> These are valid complaints, but they actually back up the author's point -

You still bought the complex-looking item. That it annoys you now is irrelevant (in the author's view). He posits that even though you know you only need 2 buttons for your garage door opener, you'd still buy one with 5 buttons before you bought one with 2.

<comment><USER2> No, I didn't buy any of these things because I wanted to. Consumers don't have much choice any more. I defy you to go out and find any of these things:

      - a microwave with a single dial
      - a cell phone that rings on your land line when you're home
      - a garage door opener with one button
      - a dishwasher with a status display
      - a car with an analog clock
      - a TV with an on/off switch and a channel dial

OP jumped to an unsubstantiated conclusion when we could have been writing about the elephant in the room: that functional design, like journalism and sensible politics, is a lost art.

<comment><USER4>
      - a microwave with a single dial

Avanti MO7082MB <http://www.google.com/search?q=Avanti+MO7082MB>

      - a cell phone that rings on your land line when you're home

Google Voice [https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=grandce...](https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=grandcentral&passive=1209600&continue=https://www.google.com/voice&followup=https://www.google.com/voice&ltmpl=open)

      - a garage door opener with one button

Liftmaster 371LM 315MHz Garage Door Remote Transmitter [http://www.amazon.com/Liftmaster-315MHz-Garage-Remote- Transm...](http://www.amazon.com/Liftmaster-315MHz-Garage-Remote- Transmitter/dp/B000CST0L0)

      - a dishwasher with a status display

[http://www.amazon.com/Cobble-Creek-Clean-Dishwasher- Magnet/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Cobble-Creek-Clean-Dishwasher- Magnet/dp/B0019APOJW) (Granted, it is an add-on, but you didn't specify it had to be built in.)

      - a car with an analog clock

Chrysler Town and Country [http://www.chrysler.com/shared/2010/town_country/gallery/ima...](http://www.chrysler.com/shared/2010/town_country/gallery/images/int/10_c_tc_photo_int_08.jpg) (Note that the clock not only is analog, it only has _one button_ to set it. No manuals needed.)

      - a TV with an on/off switch and a channel dial

All the TVs I own have an on/off switch, albeit typically hidden where you cannot see it (behind or on the side of the screen bezel).

You got me on the dial, however. On the other hand, my TVs also have up/down channel switches which are a practical solution to having a dial than needs 200 detents.

P.S. I _do_ agree with your summary, but I couldn't resist the challenge. :-)

<comment><USER5> I have a dishwasher magnet like that, the problem is people forget to change it often enough that you need to check anyway to be sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The author ignores a key component of the problem - "complex" interfaces make it easy to accomplish your goals.

From the Zen of Python:

        Simple is better than complex.
        Complex is better than complicated.
        Flat is better than nested.

Applying these three principles to user interfaces, the best user interfaces present lots of features at once, with each button (or small section) of the interface performing a specific, orthogonal task. Indeed, this is how consumer electronics are designed. My microwave allows me to select any mode I want, and manipulate the screen with a keypad in a separate rounded rectangle. The stereo, AC, wipers and headlight controls all manipulate unique parts of my car. My washing machine has a different rectangular selection pad for each "feature" of the wash - temperature? color? size? presoak?.

Flattening an interface helps the learning curve. If you need to set the time on your microwave, bet on the "time" button. On the other hand, I _still_ need to ask my girlfriend how to set her iPod to "shuffle," or shut it off, or reset it when it freezes.

<comment><USER7> Flat is better than nested only when you're dealing with limited space. You can put as many buttons on a washing machine as you want, but an iPod needs to maximize its real-estate. Therefore, nesting becomes the optimal choice, but it has to be intelligent nesting. Features need to present themselves when it makes the most sense based on the current context. On your GF's iPod, shuffle is very easy to access when you're currently listening to a song. Otherwise, it's hidden away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just disagree with this. I think complexity is laziness on the part of the designer, the marketing team and the management team that probably demands their products appear complex.

For instance, the washing machine that needs two buttons but has 20. Two buttons on a washing machine, if designed well, is a great marketing opportunity. BUT you would have to design it with a way to SHOW the user all of the things that the machine is actually doing, like how the prius shows you what it's doing. Give it a sleek, standout design, and you've got a high-end, high-dollar washing machine.

Thing is, that means someone has to step outside the box and do something different than their competitors. Slapping lots of 'features' on a machine is cheap and gives the sales guys lots of fodder for B.S., no extra training required.

Look at Apple's products, look at the Toyota Prius. Complex machines that simplify the tasks they do. And they're selling very well.

Ultimately, design and marketing have to make simple mean more, not less, to middle America. And someday, probably soon, when every washing machine has 20 knobs and I need to push 10 buttons to toast a piece of bread, simplicity will be the new selling point.

<comment><USER9> I love Apple as much as any other programmer, but we have to remember that they lost the Mac vs PC wars.

There is a still popular perception that Macs are for frivolous hippies and PCs is what real people use to do real work. Obviously it's different for programmers and many other people, but we're talking about mainstream marketing here.

They did great in the mobile segment because of extremely weak competition and revolutionary new products. If Blackberry had a non-ass touchscreen device out before the iPhone I doubt Apple's simplicity would've had been effective counter-marketing.

<comment><USER10> _There is a still popular perception that Macs are for frivolous hippies and PCs is what real people use to do real work._

I'd tend to disagree. That might have been the attitude a decade ago, but today I think it goes more like "Sure, Macs are nice, but I can't afford one". At least that's what I hear most frequently from people I know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I agree with the author, but there is one point he seems to have overlooked; brand. If you create a brand identity consisting of easy to use and, actually, useful products. Then this issue becomes _your_ selling point. It's all about perception and designing your products for something as fluid as human perception is like trying to wrestle with water. Instead, if you hire just the right PR then you can put that water into a nice, little container.

However, consumer products aside there are some cases where a complex, but not complicated, solution is better than the simple solution. For example, city planners have this eternal tendency to build flyovers whenever and wherever they can, but the flyovers themselves can't handle the increasing loads after a certain period of time. So, then what?

A more complex, but uncomplicated solution would be to make the traffic lights respond dynamically at a city wide scale with traffic. If you can figure out the volume of cars on a given stretch of road vs. other roads you can then use a routing algorithm to predict the best timing and path to guide the cars. It's more complex than the flyover, but it's cheaper and the leftover money can be then put into making better mass transportation in order to cut down car growth.

Further, you can figure out the volume of traffic by using accelerometers embedded in the road. Any vibration propagating through a solid medium has certain characteristics, which can be accurately predicted by studying solid acoustics. Hence, if you have an array of sensors (they are cheap) you can track the vibrations down to their respective sources. In this scenario accuracy is not an issue, a roundabout number should be good enough.

Powering the sensors isn't much of an issue either and we can put wire them to micro-controllers that crunch some of the data and sends it higher up the chain.

So, at the end we have an entire city that behaves and responds like an organism to the traffic flowing in its veins. It will be just beautiful.

The irony is that its inherent complexity ensures that people won't buy it. After all, who would want to trust solid math?

<comment><USER12> "I agree with the author, but there is one point he seems to have overlooked; brand."

That's exactly what I was thinking. Users have to learn, through repeated use, to trust automation. They might take a chance and buy an intelligent sensor- equipped washing machine, but only if they can control it manually if the intelligence turns out to suck. This is one reason why they appear to prefer complex products.

But there's a way around that: get a reputation for really good automation. (Yes, it's a chicken-and-egg problem, but I'm sure it's doable for consumer electronics.) Where users are confident that automation will work well, I predict we'll find that "users prefer complex products" is less true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think before the advent of personal computing, a bit of extra complexity was ok. Life was pretty simple. You had a car, a stereo, a tv with a button for each channel, a stove/oven, and a calculator. You actually had room in your mind and time in your weekend to read the manual and figure out your new VCR. It was fun!

Making complex things was actually expensive to do, so a microwave with lots of functions cost more than one with a single button that said "heat up my food". This made it a bit of a status symbol. It was also the start of everything becoming digital, so it was cool for everything to have lots of buttons and a fancy readout.

Now we have several TVs, all with several boxes, incorporating our audio system, and connected to several services. We have smartphones, computers, tablets, printers and routers. Then there's all the software on and off the web to figure out, configure, and get working together. And you have to deal with all that at work, too. It's tough just to stay afloat.

So, the last thing you want is a digital toaster. They can make it look as complex as they want, but it won't make it look any more expensive. Today something looks expensive if it is simple, heavy, and looks like it was handcrafted by a German man. People still lapse into 1980s thinking and make the association that complicated means better, but that will wear off.

I'm not saying that extra features aren't sometimes important, but features are so easy to add to things today. You just have to type a few lines of code. Making someting look complex is easy and inexpensive. Making something complex look simple takes much for time, effort, money, and talent. Increasingly, people will pay for that.

<comment><USER14> I see limited use for a digital toaster, there are some perks you /could/ see like having personalized settings which somehow just _know_ which person is using them ( RFID? ) and sets the appropriate toast setting for that person.

Possibly detection on _what_ it is toasting ( ie: hash-browns, muffin-splits ) and "smarter" toasting ( ie: using an optical sensor to measure surface browning, and using a laser thermometer to measure core temperature ( which is required for hash browns because they're often still cold in the middle :( ) ), but these are all purely practical features and I'd want the toaster still 100% practical with no knowledge of these features.

But I'm guessing these sorts of features are not the ones they implement, and probably add silly things like an LCD screen with a countdown timer, and a blingy screensaver, and a robotic toast loader ( ok, on the other side I can see how that would be useful, I do get annoyed every time the toaster is a little too eager and throws my toast in the air and into the sink ..... ) , and they probably add useless features like bread-decorating toasting with high powered lasers or something equally stupid.

<comment><USER15> Plain old mechanical toaster trivia: The thermostatic element is placed in such a way that it is receiving reflected energy from the toast. As the bread dries and the Maillard reaction browns the toast it reflects more energy from the elements to the thermostat.

Viola! Toast browning detection in one bent piece of metal!

<comment><USER16> Darker things absorbed heat, rather than reflecting it - ? But then raw black bread will behave differently to raw white. Sounds interesting but I'm unconvinced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is an old article.When reading this article i thought the author was right till i saw this article by zedshaw. zedshaw's is very fun to read yet highly informative.!

<http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/fortune_favors_big_turds.html>

<comment><USER18> My favorite quote in that article:

 _I found an interesting culture full of contradictions and struggling to combine its past with its future and desperately wanted to learn about them. Don saw an SUV and thought he knew some shit._

True, considering' Zed's experience (1.5 years as soldier stationed there, spending lots of time integrating and studying the culture.

<comment><USER19> OTOH, I have lived for more than 6 years in Japan, which also have a culture of having things which look complex, and I think the OP is closer to what I have seen than Zed Shaw on that particular aspect.

I still don't understand why, but Japanese in general _love_ that everything is written on magazines and advertisements, that UI are mind-blowing complex. In general, slides with as much stuff crammed into it are well regarded as well - academic conferences in Japan were scary in that aspect, compared to more internal ones. That's where Zed has a point I think, that is it is not that the culture value complexity as much as valuing a lot of data and information.

If you want to get scared, look into the big EC shops in Japan (e.g. rakuten: <http://www.rakuten.co.jp/>). I find it almost offensive. The main page also gives a good feeling of what it is like to be inside the subway in a big Japanese city during rush hours - you have advertisements in every location which is not occupied by human flesh.

On a side note, while the snarky comment of Zed Shaw is well, snarky, I would note than Don Norman used to teach 2 months/year in Korea, so he most likely did more than buy a SUV from there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think this may have something to do with conspicuous consumption:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption>

Your new toaster might have too many buttons and displays for you to use effectively, but it will surely impress the heck out of the next visitor. In fact, it's arguable that conspicuous consumption is the _only_ reason why you'd buy a $250 toaster with a dozen buttons instead of of a $20 toaster with a knob.

<comment><USER21> I wouldn't buy a $250 toaster either, but if it actually lasts more than 6 months, that'd be one reason.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure what the standard warranty is on toasters, but for this $17 model you can buy a 2-year warranty for an additional $6 (total: $23 for 2 years of guaranteed toasting):

[http://www.amazon.com/Proctor-Silex-22605-2-Slice- Toaster/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Proctor-Silex-22605-2-Slice- Toaster/dp/B00064W93G/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1283537162&sr=8-3)

Also, I would think that fewer parts = longer time between failures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I disagree to a point, I think you need to appreciate that the term simple is not at all simple in itself and is totally relative to the observer.

For example, my parents bought all the gadgets and gizmos a kid could ever want, and I though growing up with them and pressing and getting myself out of awkward situations (like trying to figure out what "change language" would be in mandarin after changing the languate on the DVD player just to see what would happen) I would consider something like a Sky box, a pre-amp or a DVD player simple no matter what the interface (tactile and digital) looked like a simple tool to use.

My parents, who bought all these things and used them a little are consistently lost whenever they have to replace their digital radio, or DVD player. All the functions are the same, but the experience is different, and for them that means everything is different and unknown. Their understanding of simple is from way before we even had our fist microwave.

Simplicity is not a myth, it's just not a constant. This is pretty much addressed, but not argued, explicitly in the article: the measure if simple you use for your product must be appropriate to your target demographic and not the definition of the engineering team or a think-tank.

It is possible for simple to not be simple.

</comment><comment><USER23> > Haven't you ever compared two products side by side, comparing the features > of each, preferring the one that did more? Why shame on you, you are > behaving, well, behaving like a normal person.

i'ma geek I like complex programmable stuff. But this is still BS. I buy the $19.99 toaster oven cause after a year or two they're all nasty inside and It's nice to chuck it an buy new one. $20/yr is worth it to have toasty things. $250 is not.

If I made $200k I'd proly buy the $250 toaster and never use it cause I ate out all the time.

I recently was absolutely shocked shopping for vacuums. they went from $60 to over $500. WTF! The $200+ ones were filled with retarded, do nothing "features". I went to thrift store and bought a $30 one.

My points are 2

1) purchasing decisions have many more factors than simplity or complex.

2) the biggest factor is manipulating the buyers psychology, simple/complex is a symptom of that. Apple has made it a cool/hip lifestyle choice to own "sealed", low-featured, slick and overpriced electronics. Complex == status for Koreans. Do nothing technical sounding features == I don't know what? but something to convince people to pay $500 for $200 vacuum. Monster Cables.

</comment><comment><USER24> Uggh. I have a microwave that must be designed by the Koreans in this article.

If I want to heat something up for thirty seconds, I have to wade through four menus and sub-menus:

Express cook (ha ha)-> 30 seconds-> OK-> Start

People who designed consumer microwaves have obviously never used one. I have NEVER cooked anything in the microwave that should have involved more than a single button press. If the cooking is going to take fewer than 30 seconds, I'm not going to need a timer; it's not like I'm going to go walk the dog with the rest of my time.

I never want to type in an amount of time and then have the microwave not begin cooking until I hit a Start button. I always want full power. I don't want to adjust the fan speed. Nobody has tried to cook actual meals in the microwave since 1985 so I don't need a chicken-pot-pie setting. I don't want the keys to beep loudly when I press them and I don't want the microwave to beep loudly when it's done because I don't want the kids to wake up.

I'd pay more for the lack of "features."

<comment><USER25> Wow. Every microwave I've used in years has had a "add 30 seconds" button that works regardless of whether it's adding to an existing countdown or starting for 30 seconds from zero.

However, it also doesn't take long for me to learn the microwave settings for my preferred popcorn brand/type for a new microwave: the one built-in at my apartment requires 2:40, and the new one at my work 2:30. I usually put those in directly rather than hitting "add 30 seconds" five times.

I also use the microwave for thawing beef, at significantly less than full power. I use it to heat frozen pot pies, since they come out at least as well as in the oven, and it's 13:30 instead of 45 minutes in the oven. But 7:30 of that is at half power.

I want to go back to my room and watch my show until the microwave beeps to let me know it's done. It's never occurred to me that I might want to mute or quiet it.

I guess microwave manufacturers make devices for me, and not you. :/

<comment><USER24> I guess so. I'm not really opposed to features; they're cheap and they add value for some people.

My beef is that the most common operation (heating something up quickly) should be really simple to do. I thought this was a fundamental idea in UI design, but it's broken on appliances everywhere.

Here's how it should work: numbers 1-10 represent commonly used cook times. 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 120 seconds...I hit one of those and the microwaves waits two seconds and then goes.

If I hit multiple numbers in rapid succession, I can enter an exact time.

The only other buttons on there should allow the functions you want too. A power level button, add 30 seconds, and the more advanced scheduling option that lets you set multiple times and power levels.

All options, which are almost always set-and-forget, should be accessible through a single button. My car does this well; I can change what I want displayed on the dashboard and what color it's in using two buttons. It's not a quick interface, but I only have to use it when I change the car battery, which is hardly ever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "And the truth is, simplicity does not sell".

BS.

Some people prefer simplicity, some prefer complexity. I'm not sure where the median is, it might be on either side. Preference can be a function of many things, including culture.

You can make money from either. Just know your customer.

<comment><USER27> I agree. Simplicity sells, but only when needs are met.

I only ever use 1 heat setting on my toaster. All the others are useless. If you sold me a toaster that only heated on that setting, I'd be perfectly happy. But how many other people are happy with my taste in toast? The product simply would not sell well enough.

It's the same with all the other products listed. Sure, maybe a few 'features' are unused, but without extensive market testing, you can't know which ones they are.

Digg recently removed some features... Apparently they were useful features to the community, and there were a lot of complaints about that. (Among other things.)

Facebook recently added some features... These features didn't have enough features on them, and there was a revolt. Facebook would have been fine without more features, or by adding enough new features, but they stopped somewhere in-between and paid for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The whole article seems to be more of a style argument then a complexity argument. It presents the false dichotomy that things that are simple to operate, must have less controls. There is no reason why you can't have all the controls _and_ a button that does everything very simply. First page of the manual should say, use the "auto" button, if that doesn't work for you, keep reading.

We've also been trained to want a manual override switch. When I think of simplicity in UI, I think of Apple. I remember when Apple stopped putting eject buttons on their Mac disk drives. A also remember constantly having to find a paper clip when the machine refused to eject the disc(often).

Secondly, there are always special cases where you need some extra control. It's hard to believe that the manufacturers software has accounted for everything. When I find a "bug" it's very frustrating to not be able to manually override the behavior.

Another case for complexity is if some sensor breaks, the appliance becomes useless. I remember shopping for a car in the early 90s (with my parents), and wanting manual windows because everyone I knew with electric windows had broken motors with windows that didn't work anymore. The situation is drastically improved now, but then, manual ruled. Sooner or later your "automatic" appliance won't work the way it did when it was first purchased. Having manual controls should extend the life of the appliance.

</comment><comment><USER29> So he has a marketing message: "we purchase on features", and we "equate apparent [...] complexity with power'. His solution is spot on: give the appearance of power (for purchase), but make it actually simple-to-use (for use.)

He also mentions users' "favorite features" (it's well known that we don't like having to change our behaviour, even for the better); and ""critical" features" (sometimes they aren't actually necessary; and sometimes, as Joel says, "everyone uses a different 20%" - Linus has also said this). An example of the latter, and as people have said here, is when really do need to customize a default behaviour.

Love Joel's linked comment on bootstrapping: _So you sell "simple" as if it were this wonderful thing, when, coincidentally, it's the only thing you have the resources to produce._ <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/12/09.html>

</comment><comment><USER30> I suppose a counter-argument to this would be... anything Apple makes? Their non-computer products generally have fewer buttons on them than comparable phones/mp3 players.

The MiFi that was just being raved about earlier today also only has an on/off button.

Perhaps those are exceptions, rather than the rule. What makes those exceptional, though?

<comment><USER31> Apple Mac's aren't a success considering their market share. [Personal opinions are irrelevant]

Your argument is fallacious: iPod evolved to address the feature issue: so from a single Classic iPod you now have shuffle, nano and touch. even within each type say iPod nano there has been considerable change. Check out the latest nano and the earlier one, adding touchscreen is same as adding complexity.

It's probably your Apple bias which seems to be at play here.

<comment><USER32> > _Apple Mac's aren't a success considering their market share._

Some companies prefer market share. Some companies prefer profit.

Your definition of success is your personal opinion, which you admit is irrelevant.

"While Apple only commands 7 percent of overall revenues in the PC market, its products account for 35 percent of the operating profits. None of the other manufacturers—which includes such giants as Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and Lenovo—comes even close to matching Apple's five-to-one ratio between revenue and profit share."

[http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue- vs-o...](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue-vs-operating- profit-share-of-top-pc-vendors-2010-3)

<comment><USER31>
         Your definition of success is your personal opinion, which you admit is irrelevant.

If you have read the article,you will realize the criteria used is market share or selling more than your competitors.

The method used in the info graphic mentioned in your article does not differentiates between profits from different divisions within Apple or even HP and Dell.

BI is an Apple fanboi site, so no wonder, it dishes out nonsense, to quote from a recent article "how apple is beginning to destroy Googles core search business "[http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-apple-is- beginning-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-apple-is-beginning-to- destroy-googles-core-search-business-2010-9)

         The App Store is replacing the web search engine for mobile device users, at least for some searches. This should scare Google, because search is its core business, and it's being supplanted.

Anyway this thread is now being flooded by Apple iFanboi's, thus no point in making logical arguments.

<comment><USER11> >>>Anyway this thread is now being flooded by Apple iFanboi's, thus no point in making logical arguments.<<<

Look it's of no use whatsoever being a rude asshole over here i.e. HN. You called me an idiot not too long ago (see: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1651363> ), and it appears that you like to insult people willy nilly if they don't conform to the mold of your expectations. That isn't the point of HN.

The sad bit is that you're missing out on the things that make HN beautiful; having your beliefs questioned and learning new things from amazing people. So, open up your mind a bit and you might love what you see. :)

Take care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think it is possible to have a complicated product that is made easy to use and has extra features that get 'exposed' over time for your power users to find, preferably _just_ when they need them the first time.

Complexity per-se has nothing to do with it, (over) complex problems fail just as fast as overly simplified products.

The trick is to match what your application is offering to the user in such a way that the context determines what face the application puts on it's capabilities.

Mobile phones fail spectacularly in this respect, often used features are stacked 6 down in unnavigable menu trees, never used (but commercially interesting stuff for the carriers) sits near the top.

There are many examples like that.

But there are (fortunately) also examples to the contrary.

<comment><USER34> this was my first thought too (and there are plenty of washing machines with a couple of buttons and the rest hidden behind a panel to prove it, I thought).

But this is also addressed in the article, in the addendum part:

""" One person truly misunderstood because he advocated hiding the extra controls, thus preserving the apparent simplicity. Sorry: it is the apparent complexity that drives the sale. """

<comment><USER33> > Sorry: it is the apparent complexity that drives the sale.

Maybe that holds true for some applications, but for the most part (in my experience at least) 'hiding' is not synonymous with 'having the right stuff at the right time'.

To make your application appear complex is just going to increase the barrier to entry.

I'm fairly sure the _only_ reason I'm in business and have been for a long time is because the first contact with our application is as simple as you could possibly make it.

That it can do a lot of other stuff is assumed until needed. People sometimes send support mail about very advanced features indicating that the 'power users' are definitely able to find their way. But for 99% of the audience the first level is all they'll ever get to and they're happy there.

If you sell a luxury car, apparently it has to have buttons.

But when you look at those buttons on a 10 year old car you'll see which ones are the ones that got used (because they wore!). As a rules, it's the same buttons that you'll find on a Lada.

But cars are 'conspicuous consumption' for some, so they are not to be compared with a web-app.

Something like 'mint' has enormous functionality but they've made it relatively (as easy as you can make it I guess) easy to get on board because of this exposure trick.

Good software uses context. Over-complex design does _not_ drive sales unless you're trying to send all your competitors down a dead end street.

Microsoft word, that pinnacle of design, is only where it is today because of lock-in, if not for that (users emailing each other word documents) and some pretty ruthless marketing it wouldn't stand a chance.

Text editing is - as someone quoted here - a solved problem, but it seems that there still isn't an easy way to get what you want. Possibly there will never be (because text editing is inherently complex), but that should not discourage those that seek to enhance the user experience with minimalist approaches.

To me the apple audio line of products is a great example of how minimal + gradual exposure is the way to enormous sales, don't forget they weren't the first company to produce an audio player (or a smartphone either).

<comment><USER35> _To make your application appear complex is just going to increase the barrier to entry._

That depends on the customer segment you are targeting.

 _Over-complex design does not drive sales unless you're trying to send all your competitors down a dead end street._

Or, if you're selling "Enterprise Software". I've had to re-design things to be less simple, in order to make them more attractive to customers, and had my staff spend countless hours developing bells and whistles that impressed purchasing VPs in demos, but then were never used by the actual users.

Some customers will take "more features, and a busier looking interface" over "a simple, elegant design that actually does everything you need it to" every time. In my experience, these tend to be the customers who are not users themselves-- but, they often have the purchasing power over thousands of users.

<comment><USER33> That's kind of the point right? When end users do not drive sales you are likely right, as your experience indicates. But when end users do drive sales (and for most of us here that's day to day life) then a clean interface is key.

B2B is different in this respect than B2C, and conspicuous consumption is different from both of those still.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I think people want products that are simple to use, not just simple. There's a big difference.

There are many products that have a lot of features, but employ concepts like progressive disclosure to make them easier for a wide range of people to use.

</comment><comment><USER37> Back when a food company was coming out with cake mixes, it discovered that cooks felt bad about just adding water & stirring. They redid the recipe so that it was necessary to add an egg, and everyone was happier.

<comment><USER38> I think you're referencing this urban legend: <http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/cakemix.asp>

<comment><USER39> Wow, that has to be the most unconvincing debunking of an urban legend I've ever seen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Reminds me of the good ol' Larry Wall quote "Easy things should be easy, and hard things should be possible."

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm going to argue about something else: clarity. As a consumer I look objects whose use is clear to me, and prefer to buy from brands with reputations for quality.

My Capresso kettle has only one button. I fill it to two cups, the minimum, boil the water and make my tea. Now, what if I wanted green tea instead of black? They say that green tea ought to be brewed at 200°F for best taste. Do I have _less_ control because it has one button? No, I have the same amount of control as before: I just have less automation. So to get my ~200°F I pour the water into my mug, wait 30-60 seconds and add my tea bag.

But really, do features sell to all consumers equally well, or just to the inattentive or uneducated?

My dishwasher has only 8 settings, 4 of which are the type of wash. Nothing is unclear in the design. If I've got a light load I press "Light". If I don't want it to do a heated dry I press "Heated Dry" to turn it off. The design and intended use of the dishwasher is _clear_.

I'll be the first to admit that I like a little too much automation. But really, is the $250 toaster worth it? I don't find myself needing the features, and I would not buy such a thing unless tricked into it.

</comment><comment><USER42> I think the author makes a valid point, but it's important not to confuse feature-rich and complex. A customer's purchase decision may be driven by the abundance of features, but the review they post later that week will be driven by the experience using your product.

Highlight features to sell, but keep those features well-organized and intuitive to create a positive experience after the sale.

</comment><comment><USER43> I am a big fan of simplicity, but I recently realized that I was going too far. It is hard to make money by just concentrating on simplicity. Most cash- cows are really complex beasts. See Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Oracle. If the emphasis of your product is simplicity, chances are you have to compete with free software. Joel had a presentation on this: there are dozens of simple bug trackers out there, lots of them are free, but still only a few companies make big money in the field, and their products are not the simplest ones. I still value simplicity, it is just risky if that is the main value proposition of a product.

Also there is simplicity on the user's side and there is simplicity on the engineering side. Sometimes it implies incredibly complex and hard engineering work to enable simplicity on the user's side. Although UX is the king, I've realized that sometimes you have to make compromises even in UX to keep the underlying technology not extremely complex.

<comment><USER7> > Most cash-cows are really complex beasts. See Microsoft Windows, Microsoft > Office, Adobe Photoshop, Oracle

I would argue that these products are cash cows not because they're complex, but because they were created and marketed at the right time and place. In fact, I would argue that these products became complex _after_ having become cash cows, after which adding features was no longer constrained by time or budget. Microsoft Office is amazingly bloated, for instance. I would argue that 95% of its users only ever use 5% of the features.

<comment><USER44> What I wonder is, what is the coverage of features used by Every User? It seems unlikely that every user uses the same 5% of features. Thus the question is, does there exist some set of equivalence classes of feature usage across Office users that is bijective with the set of Office Features? And if not to which degree does it fail to be surjective.

This would be a (silly) measure of how much users drive Office's evolution and how much its just a bunch of people thinking up nonsense to fatten up the feature list.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I certainly agree with article that complex looking appliances subconsciously make us think that the said appliance is more powerful and has more features. I also agree that this would be a selling point to many people. OTH I also know many people (i would say less technical inclined people), that see a complex looking appliance and think "omg i will never figure out how to use that. It probably does all sorts of advanced stuff, but all I want do is make toast".

Now, whether you can convince these people that they also should pay more for their simple looking appliance, or even convince them that the simple looking one can actually do all that 'advanced stuff' as well, is another question. I would guess it depends on how sleek and high-quality you manage to make it look. There is a thin line between "looks simple because it probably is very cheap and basic" and "looks simple but also seems to be high quality and professional"

</comment><comment><USER46> Apple, Apple, Apple.

They went from being a computer company struggling to survive to one of the world's largest and most profitable consumer electronics companies based on an obsession with simplicity and elegance.

Simplicity is hard, but get it right and the world will beat a path to your door.

</comment><comment><USER31> A good way to think about it is via Occam's Razor: Which states that "Multiplicity should not be posited without necessity"

Thus the pioneering products in any new segment are simple, however as time passes new "necessities" emerge, which means the product "must" be modified to fit those needs. This also assumes a well regulated market with rational buyers (no fanboi's).

Note that this does not means that Simplicity should always be favored or The simplest solution is usually the correct answer, even if there is a single legitimate need which a simple solution cannot address, then the solution must be made complex to address that need effectively.

Evolution of Personal Computer or any non monopoly product is a good example.

</comment><comment><USER47> I would argue that it is a good thing for people to be able to take apart and fiddle with the things they buy. The ability to do this had diminished as goods have become increasingly complicated and automated.

The real solution is to offer simple as a feature. Have a default mode which makes everything really easy, and a "complicated" mode which allows people to change everything.

By breaking things up into two usability modes, most people get the benefits of simplicity, while the ones that care get the benefit of control.

</comment><comment><USER48> Simple: A product which will be understood in the long term.

Try to use a very simple product and then switch to a complex one, you'll hate the complex one.

Complex: A product which will attract the buyer on the paper. When you compare features it'll be always on the top.

So if there is a product with WOM involved simple will won in the long term otherwise end user will choose features over simplicity as they don't know whether it's stupidly simple of awesomely simple.

</comment><comment><USER49> The problem with complexity as a feature is that it becomes a positive feedback loop. Marketers will always try to one-up the competition and this will ultimately lead to a backlash against complexity. edit: I'm too tired to make a strong case for why this will happen, however as a user who recently switched to Win7, I can assure you it will.

</comment><comment><USER50> Augh. A colleague had a Civic type-R (2008 model). Man, this dashboard was unfathomable. I risked my life driving this and trying to switch radio station! Not only this dashboard has more buttons than a spaceship console, but most buttons carry different modal functions at different times! Atrocious and unusable.

</comment><comment><USER51> If we were to consider any coffee shop chain - the complexity in some of the coffee that is displayed is extremely apparent.

We can go from £1.50 for an espresso all the way up to £3.60 for something that may resemble a coffee but probably only costs a few pence more to produce!

</comment><comment><USER52> This is mainly a cultural difference between East and West.

I would say that Western people tend to define a successful product as something that's simple, functional, and easy to use.

In other cultures, the feature list defines whether a product is successful. The more the better.

<comment><USER35> Do you have some data to back this up?

One of the primary examples he used was a (German) Siemens washing machine.

Are the dashboards of German-made automobiles significantly less cluttered than those of Japanese-made?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> "The complex expensive toaster? I bet it sells well."

His whole argument basically comes down to this comment. Instead of guessing whether complexity sells well, he should continue his research and find out for sure.

</comment><comment><USER53> Functionality>Simplicity but they aren't entirely opposed.

</comment><comment><USER54> This seems to be another case of people not knowing what their needs are.

<comment><USER55> More like people knowing what their needs are but only being able to buy products that were built with the engineers needs and not the people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> And nobody's buying iPads.</comment>


Ray Dalio "A Template for Understanding Big Debt [Financial] Crisis" [Free PDF] - <AUTHOR> https://www.principles.com/big-debt-crises/ <comment><AUTHOR> Direct link to download the PDF: [https://www.principles.com/A-Template-For- Understanding-Big-...](https://www.principles.com/A-Template-For- Understanding-Big-Debt-Crises-By-Ray-Dalio.pdf) (if you prefer not to share your personal details to get the PDF...)</comment>


Looking for people to help us design and build an Earth Rover - <AUTHOR> http://www.designspark.com/blog/paul-clarke-needs-you-help-me-with-my-massive-earth-rover-project

<comment><USER2> tl;dr: wild idea with no real notion of how to proceed. Wants everybody else to do it.

<comment><USER3> If you want to be uncharitable that could apply to 90% of startups that we talk about here. No reason to be dismissive.

<comment><USER2> The article sounds naieve, unfocussed and lazy. I meant to be dismissive, that's a great word for it. No, not uncharitable, just practical.</comment></comment></comment>


Decentralized Tipping for Websites - <AUTHOR> https://kodfabrik.com/journal/decentralized-tipping-for-websites/ <comment><USER2> I love (and use) Flattr. Brave is basically the same idea. But neither seems to have much traction, even though they are simple to setup. I'm not sure getting people to dive into Ethereum will be easier, but I like the standardization and decentralization aspects.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks!</comment></comment>


BioScrum: Planting the Seeds - <AUTHOR> https://snehaltalati.com/2017/05/10/bioscrum-planting-the-seeds/ <comment><AUTHOR> Love the connections he makes!

<comment><USER2> Yes I agree! Thanks for sharing</comment></comment>