Ask HN: How can I start my own bank? (Let's redesign banks) - <AUTHOR>

I'm sick and tired of banks. This all started with a personal irresponsibility, an overdraft fee I tried to pay by traveling to an ATM and depositing the difference in cash. My local bank doesn't accept cash in ATM's... so I might get nabbed with another fee tomorrow morning.
Decent banks still have their glaring flaws, and most big banks are quite simply crooks. Local banks typically do a decent job competing since they need to in order to steal customers from big institutions like Chase and Wells Fargo, but in places like Hawaii (where I live and work) those banks don't exist. So.. local banks such as Bank of Hawaii, First Hawaiian Bank, etc... don't need to do as much to compete because they're all there is. I get a $26 overdraft charge on even a $1 charge, and I don't get notified for 3 days via a note in the mail. By then things are even worse. Services like Mint help... but they don't work all the time. A bank needs to solve this, but they never will because so much of their profits come from these kinds of fees.
I'm also a customer with ING Direct where they do a great job providing more than all other banks by not having any branches. They exist purely online, so their online services are great. I can pay my rent online and they mail out a paper check to my landlord. If I need a check somewhere real fast, they can do that too and overnight it for a $20 fee. They also give you a line of credit for overdrafts, instead of charging you an overdraft. You pay a tiny bit of interest and solve the problem with a few cents down the tube. ING falls slightly short because while not having branches helps keep their overhead low, it makes it harder for customers to use their services. I have to mail a check to some place 5000 miles away (again, a lot of my anguish is probably due to being in Hawaii) and wait for it to appear in my account.
There are big stinky issues with our financial system today. My problems aren't incredibly large, I have $500 to my name and I'm 20 years old with zero investments. I'm not talking Enron here. I mean... why can't I receive money from a client overseas instantly into my account without going through someone like Paypal (who can take control of my funds at any time)? Why aren't all banks letting me take a photo of my check and get the funds like USAA does? Why doesn't a bank send me an email or text message as soon as my funds get to a certain point, or when I overdraft? Banks are OLD technology and they really need to be brought up to speed. I'd spend night and day working on something to revolutionize the banking industry, from top to bottom. What do we need to do guys? I imagine that all of you have LOTS of more ideas and feedback for banks and this problem in general.
Further reading on the topic - http://ma.tt/2009/08/starting-a-bank/
Come on HN, let's start a BANK! I realize it's incredibly hard... there are security issues and more legal issues than I care to shake a stick at. It will require capital, experience^200, etc.. No one is going to give their money to some jacknob 20 year old like myself. I want all of your feedback though, I know that we all hate our banks. <comment><USER3> Hi! I'm a developer for ING Direct, and I'm pleased that you speak so highly of your experience here. I wonder if I can help out some with the concerns you still have. You mention not having branches -- which is true, but we DO run the occasional internet cafe complete with trained ING barista/bankers (no... I'm really serious!). You say you live in Hawaii, so consider stopping by 1958 Kalakaua Ave, Honolulu HI and saying "Hi".

You also talk about the trouble of mailing a check 5000 miles (it's closer to 4000, but who's counting?). I'm sympathetic: what kind of system would you prefer? For instance, do you think you should be able to scan the check at your PC and enter it that way? Would you rather have a payments system so that you don't need to use checks at all? Nothing will happen magically tomorrow, but I'd be very interested to hear what HN readers think, and I'd keep it in mind as we work to improve our systems!

Starting a bank is HARD... I wish you luck in your endeavor, but it MAY be easier to find a "good" bank (different people may have different ideas about what that means) and support them. You are certainly welcome to pass on your good ideas to someone like me.

<comment><USER4> As a happy ING Direct customer, here are my comments:

\- I'm extremely jealous of USAA's Deposit@Home feature. Depositing a check just by snapping a photo in an iPhone app? Yes, please.

\- I've received an answer about the required linked account before, but I still don't like it. ING really can do everything I need from a bank - <USER2> with another one is just annoying.

\- It sounds like you two are talking about depositing checks into an ING account by mail? I didn't even know that was possible. The only thing I use my linked checking account for is making deposits and then transferring them to ING. Why isn't this option mentioned in any help topics regarding deposits?

<comment><USER5> Hey eggsagain,

I use USAA and it is awesome. I have never used deposit@home because I generally go for direct deposit, but maybe I'll try it. They give you pre-paid stamped envelopes for depositing checks. That is what I use for the rare times I have to cash a random check. Now that I live in NYC with copious blue boxes, it is even easier.

To join USAA you have to be a veteran or a relative of a veteran. I'm lucky that both of my parents were in the Navy. I've tried other banks and always felt I was getting shafted in some way. USAA, on the other hand consistently makes you feel like you are getting a good deal.

<comment><USER6> Actually, you don't have to be related to the armed forces in any way to join USAA bank. I am not even a US citizen, and I was able to sign-up without trouble. All you have to do is answer no to all the questions about the armed forces, and it will still allow you to open an account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not saying banks are perfect, but it seems like 90% of your complaint is about overdrafts. If you don't want to worry about overdrafts, check your balance in the morning, write down the amount, and don't spend more than that. Or pay for everything in cash from an ATM and use the ATM to double-check the balance first.

As for the $26 overdraft charge, do you know how much it costs the bank? Do you know that it makes a difference if it's only a $1 overdraft? If you don't know the industry, how can you propose to change it? Sure, it might be nice for me to say I think all banks should give 10% interest on accounts, but they can't. Maybe there's nothing they can do about the overdraft fee.

<comment><USER8> Actually, fees can drive as much as half a bank's revenue, and overdraft fees are typically the largest component of that income. These fees are almost entirely driven from checking behavior of Americans earning less than $50K a year. You would be shocked at how frequently overdrafts occur for a customer with a low balance. These fees can add up to hundreds of dollars a year on average for low balance customers. In fact, they are among the primary reasons why "Free Checking" is an attractive offer for big banks. (Hint: it ain't really free.)

There is serious congressional concern about the inherently predatory nature of overdraft fees. However, with Dodd's impending departure from the Senate it appears that the banking lobby will prevail in avoiding legislative restrictions.

<comment><USER9> In this sense I believe it is more beneficial to change the spending habits of people than fixing the banking system :)

<comment><USER8> That is a reasonable argument. (You'd make a great banker!) However, realize that in today's world the message coming from banks is spend-spend-spend.

Furthermore, a huge amount of overdraft fees comes from the practice of auto- enrollment in overdraft protection. If consumers need education, having transactions go through at the point-of-sale despite having an empty bank account is a recipe for trouble.

Last, is the issue of check ordering. (Considered a "courtesy" by most banks!) Today, most banks clear all debit card purchases (and checks) at the end of the day, after sorting them from largest to smallest. The idea is to run your account into the red as quickly as possible, saving the small $1-5 charges for the end. This simple greedy algorithm (no pun intended) maximizes the number of overdrafts. The typical rationale is "big checks tend to be rent and other important payments, which you would prefer to clear under any circumstance" -- laughable when the majority of overdrafts are on small, card-based debits.

So while I agree with you that consumer behavior needs to change, the people that need to save and not spend are exactly the ones that banks are (intentionally) targeting, and they have gotten exceedingly good at doing so. Check order policies and automatic enrollment in OD protection only complicate the issue.

<comment><USER9> I look at this the other way; assaulting the bastions of banking is probably pretty difficult and could take years (though it might be a bit easier at the moment).

But if we can brainstorm/think of other ways to modify _individuals_ behavior - to help them manage money better, avoid over spending etc. then the banks are a bit screwed and would have to adapt.

Actually better idea: we'll meet in the middle. :D

<comment><USER10> Why 'assault the bastions'? Why not just chip away at the edifice? A smaller bank with clear customer service pledges that rigidly controls costs through as much automation as possible. Keep most transactions online. No large physical locations with drive thrus and corresponding staffing...smaller loan centers with loan officers paid by some sort of commission structure based on loans given out and repayment rate.

Lean and mean...except when it comes to customers who will be treated with the dignity they were used to 25 years ago. Make money with the bank's core services instead of an abusive fee structure. Doesn't seem terribly outlandish to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The simplest way is probably to do what Richard Branson (Virgin) just did and buy a small existing deposit taking bank.That way you get the legal entity and all of the controls and procedures already in place and can start to expand the operation "on line" (as I am sure Virgin are now about to do in the UK). The USA might still have some of those small local banks in existence that could be purchased at a reasonable multiple of earnings - or perhaps you might find one interested in an Internet based joint venture.

<comment><USER12> One falls every week. Just ask the FDIC. But i am sure the us is encumbered by states vs national complications, as well as the need to route through larger banks.

<comment><USER8> The critical issue here is the presence of a national vs. state charter. National charters alone add substantial acquisition value to a bank.

Keep in mind that anyone buying a bank right now is competing with an unprecedented amount of highly sophisticated Private Equity buyers with access to plenty of cash.

<comment><USER13> Most PE guys I know of are having a hell of a time trying to acquire banks. While there has been some indication of a relaxing of the bank holding company act (that would otherwise prevent PE, or any non-banking firm from acquiring a bank), the issues that I mention in my other comment seem to be blocking any acquisitions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is cute. I like the tenacity of what you're doing here.

Thing is, it's entirely impossible. To start a bank you need capital to leverage your deposits. That's anything from 10-30%, so to have a liability of $1000 you'll need $300 in capital reserves just to keep within the rules. Then there's the insurance you'll need to buy on the risk you take, and the other ways you'll need to turn profit - otherwise, why will i invest in you (with retail deposits?)

As jacques said, credit unions are a simpler step- but even simpler are lending groups where everyone pitches in money and then everyone takes a turn in being able to borrow from the pool. I can't quite recall the name of these structures, but they are on wikipedia- NPR's Planet Money podcast covered them a few months ago. (which, if you are in any way interested in this stuff, you should listen to back-to-front).

But i don't think it's the banking that's the problem.

If you have a bunch of money - liquidity - then it's easy to move it around to ensure you're covered. Then you don't get hit by charges. In fact, most systems (wells fargo included) do this by default now, and you don't even have to care. You can realize then that cashflow is the lifeblood of small biz, and if you have it, everything is great. If you don't, you're screwed.

The bottom line might seem to be that it's hard to be financially stable when you're starting out/contracting/consulting/low paycheck, whatever. There are two ways of dealing with this: making a strict budget and keeping to it (boring) or deferring your care till you make enough money to just buy that debt off - in which you risk bankruptcy and other nasty things.

<comment><USER14> _even simpler are lending groups where everyone pitches in money and then everyone takes a turn in being able to borrow from the pool. I can't quite recall the name of these structures_

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_Savings_and_Credit_Ass...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_Savings_and_Credit_Association)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Or simply join a Credit Union which has a much different approach than banks. Focuses on returning profits as services to the consumer via lower rates, more features, etc.

And, like others have said, if a big concern of yours are the overdraft fees call your bank and tell them you no longer want overdraft protection.

</comment><comment><USER16> One of the main difficulties is obtaining a banking licence so that you can accept consumer deposits.

Personally, I like Virgin's take on this; buy a small bank that already has a licence and go from there:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfina...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6952446/Virgin- Money-primed-for-assault-on-UK-banking-market-after-Church-House-deal.html)

<comment><USER17> I thought you bought a large bank on credit, paid off the creditors using the banks funds and then asked the gov for money to cover you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The fact that the word "check" is still used regularly in US banking seems to indicate that it's not a business that is amenable to a tech startup... I mean, come on: "If I need a check somewhere real fast, they can do that too and overnight it for a $20 fee." It's not ING's fault, of course. I don't think anyone in Sweden has written a check in the past 30 years. Whenever I talk to my family about this they just snicker.

</comment><comment><USER19> I work for a bank (not from USA though) and what I see as the toughest barrier in initiating a Bank is the massive amount of banking regulation that every institution must comply (not negotiable). Also the impact of new regulations on the systems running the business are usually non trivial. Missing any of these, means that you cant operate (or you can't do certain operations, generally critical).

As I said, the effort put in keeping with all this is very big. Usually the split is 50/50 with regulation vs new features (my view is as a software developer). The bank being global only makes things worse, as only adds more regulations from different places to equation.

Well that was the boring part. I think theres a place for new financial services but perhaps the way to get started is providing those new services and avoiding being a bank. As the institution adds more services and grows, it can begin to take into account the regulation little by little. That was my simplistic view ;)

</comment><comment><USER20> See, I've been thinking that money is fundamentally broken. We don't need a better bank; we need to abolish banks. (If they do serve some purpose, then they can remain as a service for the wealthy.)

Paper money works in its simplicity. You always know how much you have, because you can hold it and count it. There's no way to overdraft, or have it charged without your consent. The main downside is having to be physically present to transfer it to another person. Making change is also a minor annoyance.

So, digital money should be designed to be very similar to cash. First, it should be legally within your possession at all times, even if it is just a number stored in a government database. You should never have to hand control over to a bank if you do not wish. Because losing control means they can fuck with your balance and delay transactions. Perhaps it could be thought of as micro treasury bonds (not sure). Second, there are no transaction fees. It does not make sense to hamper commerce; and any infrastructure costs for money servers and bandwidth are a complimentary service of the U.S. Mint. Third: transactions are completely controlled by the sole account owner. Nothing gets in or out without the owner's permission. There is a combined transaction history and queue, extending arbitrarily far into the past and future. You may authorize a transaction or deny one without penalty at any time. If insufficient funds are available, the transaction is either delayed or canceled. You may also authorize a recurring transaction, but these will appear in the same queue in case the need arises to cancel. The beauty of the infinite queue is there are no surprises.

Now, I'd argue that Congress or the Treasury should get cracking on this immediately, but I doubt that's going to happen. So if you start a bank, please try to hold the principles of paper money in mind. Institute firm policies of ownership and self control with zero fees. You can practice with a virtual currency (maybe for a game) and just try to get the security and interface down. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER21> Starting a real bank is hard, lots of solvency requirements and lots of very large lawyer fees in your future.

It might be more feasible to start a credit union:

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

<comment><USER8> Not to mention that the OCC has to approve your business plan! "Lean startup" proponents need not apply. This is a long, slow, paper-driven process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Banks are indeed incredibly frustrating. I recently posted a rant on Chase bank which I'll link below. They really do make it unbelievably difficult for you to monitor your balance properly, which is why I don't rely on the bank to tell me how much money I have - I keep track of it externally and the bank is more or less a verification. If there is ever a conflict, I go with what my tracking indicates as it's almost always the lesser amount.

A relative works in the banking industry as a branch manager and they literally have goals on how much they're supposed to collect via fee's, especially overdrafts. These goals alone can make or break quarterly bonuses and yes, they do indeed make a LOT of money from them.

I realize that overdrafting is in almost all cases the customers fault, but in my mind a bank should be loyal to its customers in the same way a customer is loyal to the bank. If I've been with a bank for 10 years and I overdraft 30 cents, cover it for me or at least reverse the fee without question if I call and ask about it. Often times, the banks are also meeting quota's on how many reverals they're allowed to give per day, month, quarter and per account. Call them at the wrong time and your plight won't matter, they'll just deny you. It really seems like customer service is no longer a top priority in most banks, perhaps not even in the top 5.

Unfortunately, as much as I'd love to see progress and change made in this area, I simply don't see myself ever giving my money to a bank or credit union that isn't well established unless I have some expendable income that I could test the waters with.

<http://wesleyjohnson.posterous.com/chase-bank-sucks>

</comment><comment><USER23> I feel like there is a lot my bank could be doing but isn't. Most of it relates to technology.

First, I think a decent web interface for my money would be nice. The bank wont let me have 20 checking accounts, but it would be nice if I could have the appearance of that many accounts in a web interface. One account for bills, one account for the new computer I want to buy, one account for food, one account for random transactions (i.e. where my debit card pulls from). Then, when my direct deposit paycheck comes in, I want to be able to have it automatically be split up into these bins. I do all of this mentally any way, but if I could see it on screen then it would make things much easier.

I also want there to be text message alerts for things, especially overdraft. I got $720 in over draft fees for spending something like $150 last fall, this is absurd! If they had sent me a text message or email, or anything I wouldn't have had to skimp on Christmas presents. Of course many will say "this is how they make their money: fees." I would reply, "this is capitalism: have a better service and make your competitors bend to your will, or let them go bankrupt."

I have come up with other ideas on what a bank could do, and would like to be updated if anything happens with this.

</comment><comment><USER24> Michael, open an account with someone nicer. Direct banks usually have to try harder because they don't have local branches and need to incent you somehow. ING Direct is good, but Charles Schwab (<http://www.schwabbank.com/checking.do>) might be better; they even refund your ATM fees. I'd keep an account at a local bank for convenience, sending everything by mail to your direct bank sucks. I wouldn't use the local account for anything else though to avoid getting nickel and dimed. Most banks allow you to set up electronic transfers between your accounts and these transfers are usually free. BOH allows this, just make sure that they won't ding you for that. This way you will have a convenient way for making deposits and a more sophisticated and friendly account for everything else. Your most pressing problem is cash though. You really need to build up a savings cushion to avoid the likelihood of overdrafts and even worse - falling into debt. I know that it's easier said than done, but do set spending budgets. Mint.com or even a simple Google doc spreadsheet are great ways of tracking your spending habits.

</comment><comment><USER25> YES. I agree wholeheartedly with you. This is something that I've wanted to do for years -- but unfortunately has been way too far out of the reach of my resources. For now.

Most of the comments here seem to miss the point: banks act as liaisons between people and money, and most banks -- even local ones -- aren't doing a good enough job at that, so there is a notable opportunity here.

For example, lending practices: there are many individuals with poor credit or financial liquidity issues that would still be reliable loan customers if the relationship was handled carefully.

And, other people here are missing the point about fees: these are not small sums of money which primarily target the poor. They are a _poor tax_. At what point did that become socially acceptable?

Then there's the problem of interest-bearing accounts. Financially savvy individuals don't bother investing in banks, because the yields are too low -- which in turn affects the bank's ability to lend.

So, yes. I'd love to see this.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's the 3/6/3 model, and it works beautifully.

Savings accounts at a 3% rate.

Mortgages at a 6% rate.

On the golf course by 3PM.

<comment><USER27> If it were a Savings and Loan in 1982.

<comment><USER28> Except in 1982 the rates would have been 8% and 12%.

<comment><USER29> And who wants to start a golf game at 8:00 PM?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Erm... don't take this the wrong way, but this is one of those things where if you have to ask, you probably shouldn't do it. You'd probably be _much_ better off finding a cofounder who has experience in banking. There are a _lot_ of regulations that banks have to comply with, and every time you miss one of them (which is almost unavoidable), it's a potential lawsuit.

Still, I hope you're successful. I'd love to see better banks.

</comment><comment><USER31> If it wasn't obvious that the banking system has its flaws, the recent crisis made it crystal clear.

But, I'm not quite sure what's the exact problem you want to address. You are confusing local banks problems or their services with international issues.

For example Zopa (<http://www.zopa.com>) targets the loan issue.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well I think the problem I want to solve is a bank that the common tech-savvy (wo)man can use. My sister in college, my girlfriends freelancing mom, my defense contractor dad... anyone who is comfortable with online banking and smartphones, anyone who is open to new technology and using it to make their lives more efficient. The USAA scan-your-check-instant-fund-availability concept is fantastic! Paying bills with my phone like the new Square concept is amazing as well. This is the future and I want a bank that is pioneering in these ways too. Combine all of that with a bank that doesn't wanna nickel and dime me.. and I think we have a winner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Right or wrong, the general public hates large banks. If you can find a niche where you can compete with them on customer service and margins, while avoiding major legal barriers, I would say the timing feels right.

Also, a lot of the innovation in that field is limited to the US. I don't know of anything comparable to Mint.com in Europe, for example.

</comment><comment><USER33> Banks in Iceland (yeah laugh away) are quite high tech. You get a text message when your card is used online, you can create accounts and move your funds around online. Transfers between accounts within Iceland are all instant (huge DB2 database run on an interbank computer).

<comment><USER34> As an aside: I was in Iceland shortly after the bank crisis, and it was REALLY weird to walk by large banks downtown on a Monday afternoon and see them all closed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I am stunned to see this on the front page. It boils down to a bunch of crybaby whining by people who can't balance their checkbooks. Banks by and large give you more tools than ever to keep track of your transactions, and it's all free. Good grief.

</comment><comment><USER36> Since it seems that most of your complaint is centered around orverdrafts, perhaps it would be more beneficial for you to start a service that helps people avoid them?

</comment><comment><USER37> I listened to a radio programme a few months ago which concluded that to set up a bank in the UK would cost £100,000,000 to comply with regulatory requirements.

<comment><USER38> I don't know how true this is (I suspect at least part of that will be money you need to have on hand rather than spend as such) but I do know that Virgin have just bought an existing bank because it was quicker and easier than starting from scratch. It would apparently have taken 6 months to jump through all the regulatory hoops.

<comment><USER39> No, it took 6 months to _buy_ an existing bank. There's at least one group who put in a request in 2008 for a license and is still jumping through hoops.

<comment><USER38> Without knowing who this other group is the fact that they started the process in 2008 and still hasn't finished does not mean that Virgin would be unable to complete it in 6 months.

I got my figures from [http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing/2009/12/30/virgin- break...](http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing/2009/12/30/virgin-breaks-into- banking.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Check out Matt Mullenweg's take on it <http://ma.tt/2009/08/starting-a-bank/>

</comment><comment><USER41> I think for about 1/10,000,000 the effort of starting a bank you could locate a more user-friendly, local coop.

</comment><comment><USER42> First: make your own currency.

<comment><USER43> That's almost what banks actually do. In the Federal Reserve system a bank can literally write new money into existence with a flick of a pen.

What you're spending on food, rent, and iPhones day-to-day is a substance called _bank credit_ that sprung into existence when someone, somewhere, applied for a loan. When they spend that bank credit it goes into circulation and eventually winds up in your paycheck.

The issuing bank doesn't need to find real money to service that credit until they either have to correct an imbalance with another bank (call for a Brinks truck), or increase their deposit with the Federal Reserve to cover their mandatory 9:1 credit ratio.

It's all paper money and bits now.

<comment><USER30> It's been that way for as long as banks have existed. The only difference is that prior to the 60s, people were passing around notes that represent theoretical gold somewhere, some place.

And the bank also has to find real money when you withdraw it.

<comment><USER6> And even before 1973, the gold in the Fed's vaults did not back all the currency in circulation, only a fraction of ith (thats why it was called the fractional reserve system).

Also, banks cannot actually create money. Before a bank can lend money to a customer, it has to receive money from another customer. During any given business day they may end up lending more money than they received (or vice versa), but at the end of the day they just borrow it in the overnight Fed Funds market (or lend the excess). The only agency that actually creates money (electronically or physically) in the US is the Federal Reserve. They typically do this by creating money electronically, and then buying bonds, so that the money enters circulation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Two words: Credit Union.</comment>


Etude on the iPad—A Young Boston Developer Follows the Music to San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2010/06/23/etude-on-the-ipad-a-young-boston-developer-follows-the-music-to-san-francisco/

<comment><USER2> I give a lot of credit to dangrover for creating and shipping a product that people want to have (Etude for iOS).

Dan's been fairly active in the HN community, and I think a lof of us have been inspired by his success as an indie developer. If he wants to sell his product to another company, that's his choice. If he wants to live in Silicon Valley, that's his choice. Maybe some of you in the HN community in the bay area can help him out. It seems like he's trying to address the number one issue with ETude - the lack of music publisher contracts, at the least.

I had no idea Dan was so young. I think he's different from the other masses because he has dreams _and_ cash flow. He's more like an successful entrepreneur than some of the other dreamers because he has some success already.

I'm curious why Tap Tap Tap was such a sucky place to work. Is it because there is an inner circle?

"Show HN: I finally released that sheet music app I keep yammering about"

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1196055>

"Etude for iPad is out"

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1399258>

<comment><USER3> Tapulous, not Tap Tap Tap. I like Tap Tap Tap. :)

<comment><USER2> Thanks. I get/got them confused.

In case you read this, what do you think of SwankoLab? It seems to push the envelope for creativity because it gives normal users the tools to programatically alter their photos. Very clever how they did that, too.

<http://swankolab.com>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hey Dan, here are my thoughts on monetizing Etude better: first is a bookstore model for music publishers; allow them to sell through Etude. Right now, I think you only allow free downloads, right? You've got a walled garden setup thanks to Steve, so there should be very little concern about copying and piracy from the publishers.

Second is opening up the market for piano teachers. One thought - it would be super super cool to have the app recognize what notes you're playing on the piano and mark them. There's an interesting discussion over at [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1457228/pitch- recognition...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1457228/pitch-recognition- of-musical-notes-on-a-smart-phone) on this.

</comment><comment><USER5> Yikes, this is the typical silliness that seems to be the post-web 2.0 trend. Rather than people coming up with new ideas and new ways to make companies, they do something derivative, spend a lot of time in design, then rush to san fransisco to huddle in with the other masses of 20-26 year old MIT/Stanford graduates who are following all the VCs and Angels on twitter.

I thought being an entreprenuer was about being free, and not about confining yourself to a certain space and trying to meet the expectations of certain people, who are only trying to maximise THEIR profit? What's the difference to a job then, apart from the potential stakes?

<comment><USER6> I don't understand the negativity. You could make an argument that there are too many startups duplicating effort with similar ideas (with the counterpoint being that there are often valid reasons for that, and established companies certainly do the same thing). But Etude doesn't really fit that mold. It has its own niche.

His story is that he worked for software development shops but didn't enjoy it, built up his own side business until it paid the rent, went full-time and released a new, solidly profitable app, and moved to SF to try his luck in the startup scene. It fits the HN indie template to a T, but that's not a knock. He's taking a more independent path than most people no matter how you look at it.

The first project grew out of software he wrote for himself, and Etude grew out of his tinkering with an iPhone music synthesizer. How does his awareness of a target market and prospective acquirers dilute his entrepreneurship? I'm asking seriously, because I don't understand your point.

<comment><USER5> It's because if you find something that works and that can give you the money and freedom that I assume entrepreneurs want, then why take the move into a 'closed community'? What he's doing is not entrepreneurship as I imagine it - what he is doing feels more like trying to insert himself into a social group of pseudo-entreprenuers.

These are the people who are more interested in their standing within a certain community, than in actually starting multiple businesses.

I could mention names that fit this template, because there are quite a lot. What they are doing is not about the money, it's about the fame and the social ranking they hope to acquire. That's why it disappoints me to see this - because in my opinion, businessmen should be aggressive money chasers and should not care what their peers think about them.

<comment><USER7> Personally, I find both the preoccupation with money and status a little foreign. Me, I just want to do things that make people happy, that make their lives easier. If I could do that and still have some free time, and still have some people around who like to be around me, and I like to be around (though not people who think I'm some sort of superhuman because of my accomplishments) that would be ideal for me.

<comment><USER8> You're right. Payment processors (including the App Store) should have an option to cap the amount of income a developer can earn in a month, just in case an app actually takes off (after a year of hard full-time work on it), to prevent making developers and customers who hear about it jealous.

Everybody you read about who made X dollars, planned to do so, right? It was very easy and certain, right?

<comment><USER7> What? I'm just saying I don't like the spotlight, and beyond $60000/year I'd be inclined to give most of my money away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Whoah, weird, didn't realize people were talking about this article here.

I blabbed too much about some of the wrong things to that reporter...kind of afraid of people reading it now. It sort of makes me seem like a dick.

</comment><comment><USER9> Congrats Dan!</comment>


The problem with Amazon's Kindle Owners' Lending Library - <AUTHOR> http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/11/amazon-kindle-lending-library-publishers-authors.html <comment><USER2> Hmmm... he says that Amazon doesn't pay publishers enough for the lending library. How much does my local library pay publishers for the same dead-tree book? Cover price, right? And nothing for each reader? Actually, they probably pay the volume discount price, not even cover price.

I like to see him argue this from the ground up. Start with the local-library model: why should Amazon pay _anything_ for book lending? Aside from the fact that technology has made it possible?

As I recall from the three books I wrote, authors don't get crap from discount, book club, or library sales.

Is the publisher is trying to make a little extra margin for itself, by demanding a fee for loaned books? Will a standard author's contract now include an author's cut of these lending fees?

<comment><USER3> Technology, economics, and society don't develop independent of each other. Due to physical distribution constraints, there were artificial limits on how widely a single book copy could be distributed. Hence, simplest system that compensated all parties appropriately, was the the policy of a fixed fee to individual buyer and library (the "first sale doctrine" may also apply here).

Now, with the Internet allowing practically infinite lending, should the policy be different? Probably.

Think about it the dual of your though experiment: if lending libraries were invented in a world with effortless, almost-infinite lending among a 25-million-or-so "library", don't you think per-usage charges would be an automatic feature?

Btw,AFAIK DVD rentals work this way: Netflix can't rent out more than 100 times or so before paying for a new copy. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER4> > Now, with the Internet allowing practically infinite lending, should the > policy be different? Probably.

Well sure. The question is whether something that has no inherent cost (electronic duplication) should have an artificial cost imposed on it for no apparent reason. The answer is clearly no.

> Btw,AFAIK DVD rentals work this way: Netflix can't rent out more than 100 > times or so before paying for a new copy. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Any DVD purchaser can lend them, just as any book purchaser can lend them. This has been litigated.

<comment><USER5> >Any DVD purchaser can lend them, just as any book purchaser can lend them. This has been litigated.

He means that the DVD wears out after 100 or so views, so Netflix must buy a new one. In other words, the DVD is not an infinite good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was hoping he was pointing out the painful thing about it from the user side --- you have to use the Kindle itself to borrow a title, which (at least on their e-ink readers) requires a level of patience I don't possess. Browsing through hundreds of pages of titles with a second of refresh between each brings back unpleasant memories of 9600 baud modems and scrolling through BBS file listings.

I really hope they add the Borrow button to the website.

</comment><comment><USER7> Publishers love variable fee rates. Consumers prefer flat fee rates. Such is life. I don't understand why they are not looking at the renting as advertisement. It would be interesting to see if sales go up as a result of the borrowing. The other problem is that there really is not very many books available (5,000 sounds like a lot, but if you can't find anything...). The last problem is that it is at most one book a month. I can read a substantial book in 3 days.

<comment><USER8> Of course in this case Amazon is in the middle, right? Suppose publishers demand to be paid by usage. Amazon can still charge their customers a flat fee --it just moves the risk of mis-setting the flat fee onto Amazon rather than the publishers.

Also, consider the incentives that a flat fee system sets up for publishers and writers: if you get paid per title rather than per reader, you're motivated to flood the market with books not to try to write a few really good books that lots of folks want to read.

<comment><USER9> Your second point is key: the fixed fee plans compensate poor writers as much as excellent ones. With that argument, I think publishers could sell a variable fee.

Maybe there's a slightly more middle ground--pay based on the number of peak _simultaneous_ borrows in a period. Just as a library would have to pay for each physical copy lent, is it too Luddite to suggest Amazon do something similar? Not pay for each borrow, but based on the peak simultaneous borrows?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If I were an author or publisher, I'd try the drug dealer model -- give away ($2.99 Kindle price, or participation in Lending Library) the first book or two in a series, or the first non-fiction book on a related set of topics -- with the remainder being $9.99 or higher.

</comment><comment><USER11> Here's a simple suggestion. Carve out a portion of the Prime fee for book borrowing, say $12/year. Since you can rent 1/book per month, each publisher gets $1/month per borrow. Someone takes six months to read your book, you get $6. 1000 people check out your book this month, you get $1000.

The price is just an example, but it seems a reasonable compromise. Fixed fee for the customers, variable fees for the authors.

</comment><comment><USER12> _"For the vast majority of titles, Amazon has reached agreement with publishers to include titles for a fixed fee." So no matter how popular (or unpopular) the publisher's titles are, they get one flat fee for participation in the library._

What makes you think that is an Amazon stipulation? Maybe publishers wanted the flat fee.

</comment><comment><USER13> As a Kindle Direct Publisher myself, my problem with the Lending Library is they have excluded KDP books from it. I _want_ my books in the Lending Library!</comment>


Huawei Should IPO in the US - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/kevinsxu/status/1263854534880718848 <comment><USER2> This must win the joke tweet of the year award.

<comment><USER3> But that's the main problem isn't it ?

If americans could get richer owning a piece of their infrastructure, they would protect Huawei. The fact it's stubbornly private exacerbates the suspicions, however realistic it is that Xi Jinping uses 5G antennas to listen to your grandma birthday calls.

<comment><USER4> I don't think Huawei, or any other Chinese investor really that wants to trade Chinese citizens getting rich by buying into Huawei over Americans citizens getting rich by buying into Huawei.</comment></comment></comment>


How China is Cashing in on Group Chats - <AUTHOR> https://a16z.com/2019/09/06/china-is-cashing-in-on-group-chats/ <comment><USER3> "On WeChat, for example, group chats are discovered entirely by word-of-mouth or QR code—there is no global search option. The QR code is automatically disabled once a group reaches 100 members. Once the group grows to that size, users can only join if invited by a friend; groups are capped at 500. This means that even large group chats have a built-in social filter, since anyone who joins the group is likely the friend of at least one other existing group member. As a result, every group feels like a secret, known only to other members."

I couldn't imagine Facebook limiting group size. It seems like mass groupings and mass trends are kind of the bread and butter of western culture. I am reminded of how anti "Sorcery of the Spectacle" this is.

 __ __* The paranoia about mass action in china has created a new kind of artificial collectivism /individualism hybrid: The capped size group. ____* We are seeing a new form of social organziation! People, this is momentus! Seriously, go read "Sorcery of the Spectacle" again and think deeply about what this means. It's practically a re-conquering by the proletariat of the social sphere!

The no global search thing is crazy. You actually have to know people who tell you about things? How absurdly 1990s! The whole thing reminds me a bit of the mailing list culture of the late 90s. That all got eaten by Facebook groups, but it could have been something different.

"Cultivating a sense of safety is key. Unlike WhatsApp and Signal, which reveal users' private cell phone numbers to the group– or the now-defunct chats within Facebook Groups, which exposed users' real identities–WeChat allows its users to adopt aliases. Those anonymous usernames act as a privacy shield, giving users control over how their identities are displayed. (Though it's hidden from other group users, WeChat does require a phone number and real-name verification to sign up, which curtails anonymous troll abuse.)"

So they've learned from 4chan!

<comment><USER4> Group size caps don't do a lot to limit mass trends. Once a group hits the cap, the administrator will simply open a new one and tell everyone to join that instead. People in only one of the groups obviously can't speak to those in the others, but the administrators can make announcements in all groups, which is enough e.g. for organizing a large event.

Even requiring invitations past 100 members doesn't mean you need some kind of personal connection. Instead of the group QR code, organizers can post their personal one and then add everyone to the group who messages them. It might slow down spammers who constantly try to join random groups, because they won't know whom to ask for an invite.

Lack of global search _for groups_ also isn't much of a hurdle, since you can still globally search for posts inviting people to join a group. It does mean that there's a niche for companies who create groups and assign members to them based on some criteria, as described in the article.

And regarding usernames and anonymity: they work a bit differently than you might expect. Every WeChat user has a unique identifier which is random by default, but can be set to something intelligible if you want to make it easier for others to add you by searching. Then there's a global username, which is shown to your contacts and in groups by default. Per-group aliases don't completely override that; you can still find out someone's global username by looking at their profile. So most people set their alias to their real name in groups that require it and stay pseudonymous otherwise. You can also set aliases for your own contacts, which helps recognize people who constantly change their name and avatar.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

<comment><USER5> The group size thing is of course easily bypass. It was not intended to be a preventive measure, but a reminder from Big brother that we are watching you. People are required to use real name and other personal information to register and law enforcement can freely read those information. It was not unheard that people would raid by police for their online activity.

So, the group size cap is just a rule to say if your group was not over the cap, you will be fine. If you bypass that somehow, you enter a grey area where the government may or may not inference you depending on the nature of the event.

<comment><USER6> I remember there is law punish people spreading false information, it starts with 500 people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like the idea of building small groups on platforms like WeChat, especially the online school. Sounds like a good way to leverage one instructor helping 100 students.

The big problem however is getting locked in on one proprietary platform. I guess what we can realistically hope for is for there to be three or four big players and competition will keep them from being exploitive monopolies.

I still think that we are going to end up with a world out of William Gibson's cyber punk sci-fi novels: a few mega corporations with small groups, arcologies, and individual hustlers living on platforms they don't control. A mixture of mega corps with small scale entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER8> What about not only the teacher helping the students, but the students also helping each other?

And each question can get it's own topic -- there's a chat but it need not be used for everything?

And, an open source platform? A university can choose to install on their own server.

Then have a look at Talkyard:

[https://www.talkyard.io/use-cases](https://www.talkyard.io/use-cases) (I'm developing it)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well this sows seeds of mistrust. If commerce infiltrate our private conversation, it turn from convenience to creepy.

Every conversation will invoke a feeling that someone is trying to sell something for profit.

This is one of the issues in modern commerce in China.

<comment><USER10> Sounds like a whole platform built for MLM type of commerce. Somebody you ostensibly trust and think you know just tries to sell you stuff.

<comment><USER11> Social commerce would be different from MLM though. MLM has incentive to recruit salespeople and then profit off of the salespeople you recruit, usually several levels down. This creates immense pressure on those at the bottom, as their revenue potential is much more difficult to realize. China started heavily regulating MLM due to the social problems it was creating among a large populace that was only still just starting to develop their economy. M without the multiple levels (ML from MLM) is completely different and still feasible in this social setting.

<comment><USER9> In China Amway (called Anli in China) and Mary Kay generates over 40% of its global revenue. It's memebers actively promote and use WeChat and their relationship with personal friend for sale.

All the live broadcaster use their friends network. Every conversation happening in WeChat or other messaging app is analyzed multiple times to figure out what could be sold to those people to generate profit.

It becomes tiring when you can only see in everything one do someone is trying to sale something, be it taking taxi, trying to talk with your friends, watching movie, even when people sleep companies try to analyze their sleep and process the information to find what can be sold to that person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a seriously interesting article. I've never thought of chat applications the way these guys are doing it.

</comment><comment><USER13> Personally I've been working on Chat based commerce in the U.S for over 5 years now... crazy. The adoption in US markets is definitely slower compared to SEA. Habits and behavior are much more in favor of mobile, and specifically chat for everything experiences in SEA. WeChat is the prime example that doesn't have a strong comparison in the West.

However, the tide is here past the hype of "Chat Bots" and I'm happy to be working on this problem for helping people find jobs. Messaging is the ultimate form of UX. Communicate it, and it's done.

At Edvo, we're having a lot of positive feedback from the job seeker side over Messenger. We have a lot to work on still but, definitely see and feel the adoption of messaging based commerce and general ux.

It'll be interesting how that transitions in a post mobile era. I'm excited!

<comment><USER14> > Messaging is the ultimate form of UX

Bold claim. I do not think this is true outside of very specific use-cases.

<comment><USER15> If you're interacting with a human, I'll argue that synchronous messaging is the most efficient and comfortable way to communicate. Imagine how much faster customer service problems are to solve that way than with a ticketing system, email, or phone (where you have to wait on hold and one operator can only help one person at a time).

<comment><USER16> The biggest advantage of messenger apps is that they're both synchronous and asynchronous, depending on the client and user behaviour. I'm working at a place that builds a customer service platform based on connecting messenger apps to a web client for agents to work in. The speedup you notice compared to Callcenter agents is astounding - they can handle multiple cases simultaneously, without having to wait for individual customers. They, in turn, can respond whenever they like to. It's really cool!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So we are essentially talking about a more accessible and immediate forum, not really anything more; this forum you are currently reading, transposed into a group chat functionality, like the yahoo chat rooms of the 90s, on mobile. That's all this group chat thing is. But whatever, let's do this, "what a genus and wonderful innovation. It's definitely worth $100 billion, pre- money!"

<comment><USER18> It's definitely worth $100 billion today if it will be "worth" (valued) $200 billion tomorrow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This reads like it was written by a Chinese government official trying to sway HK protesters. WeChat asks for so much personal info in order to onboard, and your messages are definitely monitored and censored by the government - <USER2> how they left out that tiny detail. It is the exact opposite of privacy and secure messaging.

</comment><comment><USER20> WeChat is a financial disaster for all we know. Tencent doesn't share any financials. Internet chat has always been hugely popular. Building a profitable business out of Internet chat has not been so easy historically. Historically, successful free chat software have been loss leaders (FB messenger for FB, yahoo messenger, AIM for AOL). Snapchat has never made money. LINE is the only chat app I know of to really turn a profit from just their app, and it has come at the expense of active users and squeezing more advertising into the app.

Odd title "cashing in" considering there's no talk of the _business_ behind WeChat...

<comment><USER21> _WeChat is a financial disaster for all we know._

1.4 billion people use it as their dominant payment method. Not mobile payment method, but payment method _full stop_. I think it's safe to say they're incredibly profitable.

<comment><USER20> They could be losing money on 1.4 billion in transactions. Their super low transaction fees might indicate WeChat Pay is a loss leader.

That's my point. Tencent intentionally hides WeChat in their financials. You assume it's wildly profitable because Tencent is. Usually when a company tries to hide the financial narrative of a product it's not because it's doing great.

"We consider payment at this point in time as to [sic] infrastructure service rather than a service that generates profit for us. And I think that status will maintain for quite some time," Martin Lau

<comment><USER21> I don't think you understand the model. People transfer money in, then leave it there. It literally can't lose money.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Customer Development? Really? - <AUTHOR>

Disclaimer:
I might be splitting hairs in here. So if you're in a rush please feel free to skip this question. I just need to let it out.
Question:
When I heard the phrase "Customer Development" first, I thought that it's some sort of technique of "developing" customers, i.e. changing, converting existing people's behaviours into those that you need for your business, akin to "software development".
I quickly discovered that it's actually a development of your understanding of customers' needs, or as Wikipedia puts it:
"The concept details a scientific approach that can be applied by startups and entrepreneurs to improve their products' success by developing a better understanding of their consumers."
Yet when I encounter this phrase in text anywhere I have to make this conscious effort to go from initial understanding of it to the right one.
Admittedly English is not my native language (although I've been living in an English-speaking country for few years now) and this could've influenced the problem.
Although I wonder: does it sound a bit strange to any of you or you have no problems with it, no cognitive frictions, so to speak?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> The term "Customer Development" is really only one highly specific methodology for understanding your users' reactions to an existing product. It's an awkward phrase, and kind of a backwards approach to innovation (try starting with identifying an actual user problem that needs solving, not just throwing technology against the wall to see if it sticks). Depending on where you are in the development process, there are a number of ways for you to understand your users' upfront needs and how they are interacting with or want to interact with your product/category. Feel free to reach out if you're looking for actual guidance on understanding why and how people use your product. <http://uxhours.com/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the issue is that you're thinking of the customer as being a person, who you move along the sales process.

think of "Customer" in this context as being Customer with a Capital "C". The General idea of customers.

As in, "Who's your Customer". In this case it's almost interchangable with "Market".

What you're developing is who the customer of your product is. You're making a model of what the customer is like, what they want, and why. And you're manipulating that model as you learn more things about real people who _might_ actually be a customer of your company later on.

Think of it as Developing the Customer section of your [business plan](<http://www.ashmaurya.com/2010/08/businessmodelcanvas/>)

</comment><comment><USER4> This phrase is part of the specialized jargon of a particular field. It doesn't matter what it sounds like to someone not in the field; they never use it. And it doesn't matter what one might think it means; the people who use it need to learn what it means.

Similarly, "resistance" in electronics and "bond" in chemistry and "pitcher" in baseball and "election" in the politics of a democracy, etc., etc., have specialized meanings.

That said, as a native speaker of English, I find that most business jargon sounds inane. And "customer development" is no exception.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's the "learning" part that I had problems with. It just wasn't immediately intuitive that subject (customer) is being studied, not manipulated (i.e. "developed").

Those ones that you outlined - resistance and bond in particular - can be directly related to the phenomena they describe.

With customer development, well at least for me, it's a two step process, very much akin to working with a clunky UI - "no, don't click here, it's actually not a button, scroll down here and then click".

<comment><USER4> Good point. I guess I went too far. The usual meaning of "bond" (say) is not irrelevant. Some other word ("llama"?) could have been used, but wasn't, and for good reason.

So we can add "customer development" to the list of terminology that does not fit the concept it describes. It joins many previous entries, including "vitamin", "malaria", "tree shrew", "lunar maria", and "resource acquisition is initialization".</comment></comment></comment>


Like React for front-end? Try Fire for backend - <AUTHOR> https://www.npmjs.com/package/fire-backend <comment><USER2> Github link?

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://github.com/exactchange/fire](https://github.com/exactchange/fire)</comment></comment>


Taxi Strike Redux: Is France Failing Its Entrepreneurs? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/welcome-to-thefamily/taxi-strike-redux-is-france-failing-its-entrepreneurs-49c4d7249498#.vuh68hprz <comment><USER2> France has a long history of killing off entrepreneurs with socialistic behavior. Now it has zero colonies to milk, the long decline begins. The old style tax network, with a land line phone system, tied to a 2 way radio network is dead. French taxi companies want to use cell-phones and apps, get rid of the radio network and the land line call in center - looks modern? Yes, but they do not want to reduce the cost per ride to reflect the lower cost. They also do not want to pay the drivers more. All taxi companies are like this in New York as well as India. Change will come as politicians are burned at the electoral stake.

Notice how it resembles electronic publishing - same process, far higher margins, same to the writer...</comment>


Ask HN: What to do if you hate your coding job? (UK, 24yr old) - <AUTHOR> Okay, so after just reading my question again, it seems the obvious answer is just to quit it. But it's not that simple. Or is it?
I taught myself coding when I was 14-15 years old. I love working on my own projects. Since I started my job (2 years ago) I wasn't able to find any energy to do that, it just seems time is too valuable (after working 9 hours a day and feeling pretty tired) to work on some stupid idea just for fun when you know it will lead to nothing.
I moved to UK to get my Computer Science degree. I loved it. I love learning new stuff. That amazing feeling when you have some interesting problem and you need to solve it.
I'm sorry for this horrible mess of a text. I don't know what I'm actually expecting to get for an answer. I guess people will just say quit it and go travelling. I don't think it's that simple. I don't want to just blow up my all savings for a few months of travel, and just start working again. Some will probably say go into academics, but even though I don't care about money, I don't want to live with strangers for the rest of my life. Plus you have to be way way above average to achieve something meaningful in academics. And even though I love learning new stuff and applying that learnt stuff to solve something, academics is just not for me.
I don't know. I just posted this because I guessed many people here have been in my shoes. Have you? What did you do? I don't care if I had to move again to some new country. I don't care about large salaries. I have saved up some money for me to survive for the next 1.5-2 years. I just want to work on something interesting. Solve problems. Not just debug code and fix legacy code. I want to do stuff which made me fall in love with computers and programming. I don't want to do this bullshit any more. Or it's just the way it goes for average people?
Working conditions are fine. Managers too. I always have access to food and water. I'm not at war. How can I complain? <comment><USER2> _it just seems time is too valuable (after working 9 hours a day and feeling pretty tired) to work on some stupid idea just for fun when you know it will lead to nothing_

I've had that before, with an idea that's fun, but not fun enough. I thought maybe I was getting sick of programming.

Now I work 9 hours a day, feeling pretty tired, and still go on to work on my idea until 1am or 2am. 3am if I can make it.

 _If you aren 't energetic enough to work on an idea for fun after 9 hours of tiring work, the idea isn't fun enough, and not worth quitting full time employment_.

But on the other hand if despite 9 hour of tiring work, you find yourself working till the wee hours every night working on your idea, perhaps consider maybe there's something interesting in your mind?

That's the situation I'm in. I'm planning a year or two without working in a year's time to work on this idea. Not because I have no energy to work on it after 9 hours of work everyday, but because the idea is so interesting to me even after 9 hours of work, I find myself working an additional 6 hours on it. It's on my mind in the shower, on the way to work, at lunch, in afternoon tea break, on the way home, eating dinner, when I am working on it, when I'm in bed, as soon as I wake up. (And I try to resist thinking about it when _the_ director of the company is sitting next to me. I hope he didn't catch me writing this comment. ;)) My ideas were the same ones I've had for the past decade, except I've refined them as time gone by. An idea that was once stupid and won't lead to anywhere, is now an idea I can't take my mind off, an idea, for me, that will lead to _everything_.

Keep living. Look for a new job if you're sick of it. But I don't think you're tired because you don't have time to work on your ideas. I think you're tired because you haven't found or refined your existing ideas to a state where it will be so interesting to you you're working on it even as your eyelids struggle to keep opened. You don't have the time for ideas that aren't that interesting, but when you have an idea that's interesting enough to you, you will find you always manage to find some time for it.

</comment><comment><USER3> > I don't know. I just posted this because I guessed many people here have > been in my shoes. Have you? What did you do?

Not in this context but in a similar situation yes. Long time ago. What I did was introspection until finally I reached and embraced the cold, hard truth:

\- I'm finding all kind of excuses not to _do_ what I _know_ I should be _doing_ because I'm afraid.

\- The fact that I am not happy has little to do with my job and everything to do with me.

\- Why I feel unhappy? With whom am I really unhappy with and why?!

\- If I can't find some _quality time_ NOW (running, learning an instrument, having fun with my then gf - now wife, etc.) it will _never_ happen. I have to make it happen.

\- It's all about choices I do, some are intentional and others are unintentional

... and finally it hit me! I lacked two things: A very specific _cause_ like a clear destination, where do I see myself in 10 years, in 5 years, in 1 year? How do I wanna look next year? How do I wanna my relationship to evolve? How good do I wanna become? etc.

Once you have this sorted out (where do you want to and why) everything else starts making sense. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hi dthrw, I'm from UK too. In my previous job, I was working on something very cool with the best colleagues that I got so far in my professional life but I wasn't feeling great by the new vision of the company. They weren't going in the wrong direction, just not the one that I was expecting. So I left. I didn't travel around the world like some people do but I searched for a remote job because I wanted to take a break from offices and work in my cozy room. UK and specifically London are looking for many developers so it should not be a problem to find a new job. Take your time to choose the right one. You may find it hard first (for me, it was remote or nothing) but you need to stand on your choice of life. You may have chosen the wrong job, don't do the mistake one more time. It's not selfish to privilege yourself. You worked and studied hard for your future so you should have the life that you want. Cheers and good luck bro ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> I know exactly how you feel and I've felt the same way, except I'm 3 years older than you. Still haven't figured out the solution, but I'm hopeful. My biggest issue is that I'm a big picture guy.

I like thinking about AI at the high level, reading about the ultimate fate of the universe and studying macroeconomics. I don't like worrying about the details, Angular vs. React, writing unit tests, fixing bugs. I suppose I'm just lazy. But at my point in my career at least, I'm the one supposed to be doing the grunt coding work and I find it boring.

One day we'll figure it out, but it's not a problem you solve overnight I've learned. I've been dealing with this for half a decade now. Some days feel worse than others, but at the end of the day, we can pay our bills and live a pretty nice lifestyle to find consolation, so I guess it's all a first world problem.

</comment><comment><USER6> I was in a similar spot almost two years ago. I actually didn't mind the work that I did, but it just became rather dull.

So I quit and traveled. It does seem like traveling is the "default" thing to do to cure one's ennui. What I can say is that being in a new locale doesn't magically give you newfound motivation/inspiration etc, and depending on your personality it can be quite isolating.

Over the years I've kept a list of things I'd like to build if I ever found the time. Now I'm just going down the list and seeing what sticks.

The way I see it, if you really do _hate_ your job then quitting is simply a matter of time - better sooner rather than later, for both you and your employer.

<comment><USER7> > So I quit and traveled. It does seem like traveling is the "default" thing > to do to cure one's ennui. What I can say is that being in a new locale > doesn't magically give you newfound motivation/inspiration etc, and > depending on your personality it can be quite isolating.

This. I never understood how being thousands of kilometers from anyone you know or care about is supposed to be good for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am in your exact situation right now and I also am 24year old.

</comment><comment><USER9> Quit and let someone else have it.

</comment><comment><USER10> Hi OP, I'm in much the same position. Perhaps with a few differences - I was more interested in computer hardware and setup, but got into coding because I was told that is where I would make money. These people were not wrong; hardware monkey jobs pay considerably less than developers, but I hate my job. I've stuck with it for 2.5 years now (age 25) for the money and convenient location (not in London) but I've been desperate to move on for over 12 months.

The problem with working in IT, I find, is that it saps the fun out of your hobby. The best place to work if you actually want to code and enjoy it would be a start-up, but those are uncommon in the UK and come with their own drawbacks - unusual/long working hours, impossible deadlines, holding the future of the company quite literally in your hands. Big corporations give you more stability there and reduce the pressure, but at the cost of your input having little to no direct impact on the company. You also have to fight corporate bureaucracy which seems to be inevitable once a company reaches a certain size. The company I work at has recently crossed that tipping point, so I'm watching everyone's work ethic come crashing down.

The other option is to go freelance. If you can do web development, there will always be people wanting websites built, maintained or enhanced. Obviously you would become self-employed but you would have ultimate freedom over your work life. You could also start a local computer maintenance business for companies to outsource their IT work to; not all companies will hire someone in-house for small projects. It's difficult but not impossible to do at our age.

I've considered a lot of options in the time since I've graduated university. Computing was always my hobby: working in the same field seemed natural, but I'm finding the drawbacks are numerous. I'm moving teams within my company into more of a DevOps role - it means I will be doing less hands-on coding, and no client interaction, so my immediate contribution to the company's product will be essentially zero. However, I'll be working on systems that support other developers which sounds like a better option for me. It will also give me a break from coding professionally, which might leave me some energy to code in my spare time. Ultimately though, I've decided to get out of IT completely and do something else, because it just doesn't fit in my long- term plans.

The problem with IT in the UK is that everything is based in London, and we do not foster as much of a startup culture here as other countries, so most work is with big, historic companies where it's easy to become a small cog in a very big machine. You'll need to do some soul searching to decide if you can keep going with that.

I have also thought long and hard about complaining about my situation; correct, all our basic needs are addressed by having a job - food, shelter, even transport - but being in a bad job is equally bad for your mental health. I know it takes less effort to complain about it than do something about it - believe me, I've done enough of that! - but that's what you'll need to do. See if you can move sideways in your company into another job, or look into other options.

Hope this helps.

<comment><USER11> I am 26. Quit my job almost 1 year ago after 2 years of soul-crushing, passionless web development.

After 6 months off the job, now I'm trying to figure it out as a web freelancer. Not making anywhere near my old salary but I'm optimistic.

I'm enjoying it more for now, but it's tough. I'm broke. Blew through my meager savings in the first 6 months of unemployment, and I'm now dealing with back-to-back underestimated contracts. But I'm taking out a small loan and gonna be optimistic about it. I mean, worst case scenario I end up back in another soul-crushing job making mad stacks.

In the meanwhile, since starting the freelancing journey, a couple other promising opportunities have come up. A couple friends of mine started a company selling a plugin for a popular online platform and are looking for someone to handle their support line part-time (help people when they can't install his software, fix bugs that they uncover, and help building small features that customers request).

Programming just full time might actually be a good solution. I can handle a 3 day/week commitment, it'll pay enough for now and give me opportunities to do something outside of programming for a change.

My other option right now centers around a couple friends who are similarly dissatisfied with the life of a corporate programmer and who are seriously considering "doing a startup".

We're not American, but flights are cheap. The money seems so loose over there, and if we can manage to convince some investors to give us an even half-decent salary (hell, I'll happily work for half of what an engineer gets in Silicon Valley) it could be a great time.

I'm fortunate to have some amazing friends who are willing to go on this journey as a team. No way I'd ever have the stamina to do it alone.

All this to say is that there are a handful of ways to make a living as a programmer without losing your sanity, but you'll have to really keep your eyes open and ears to the ground to find them.</comment></comment>


Compose, a community-written story - <AUTHOR> http://wecompose.org <comment><USER2> This is a really really cool idea. Two things:

1\. I don't use Facebook. I want to, but I can't interact!! :(

2\. I'm not sure if's still the case but I heard Japan has a culture around stories spread very similarly to this. If that sort of thing is still happening, it might be an interesting idea to localize this to Japanese.</comment>


Ask HN: Advice on Amending Intellectual Property Clause of a Freelance Contract - <AUTHOR> Hi I am working as a freelancer/contractor in the UK and am about to sign the terms of services of a recruiter for a new contract. The current intellectual property clause in the terms of service seems to be too broad to me and the recruiter has said I can propose new wording. Here is the current wording.<p>"The Supplier hereby assigns to [Recruiter Company Name] all existing and future Intellectual Property Rights in the Services and the Inventions and all materials embodying these rights to the fullest extent permitted by law. Insofar as they do not vest automatically by operation of law or under this Agreement, the Supplier holds legal title in these rights and inventions on trust for [Recruiter Company Name] (or as [Recruiter Company Name] directs)."<p>It seems to be a standard clause that I have seen in other similar terms of service. Does anyone have any experience in how to amend this clause to make it clear that only the IP that results for the work done on client site is covered and not anything done outside of working hours? <comment><USER2> I am not a lawyer, but I do have some experience with amending contracts to protect my rights of authorship and ownership over code that I write, and I would encourage all software developers to fight for these rights.

That first sentence is a doozy, but if you can re-arrange the "to [Recruiter Company Name]" so that it comes at the end of the sentence instead of the beginning, then you can add your "on site" stipulation at the end.

Then it would read something like the following.

"The Supplier hereby assigns all existing and future Intellectual Property Rights in the Services and the Inventions and all materials embodying these rights to the fullest extent permitted by law to [Recruiter Company Name] for only those Services, Inventions, and materials produced at the business establishment ("on-site") of [Recruiter Company Name]."

It wouldn't hurt to add another sentence as well to make it clear that you will retain rights of authorship and ownership of code that you write outside work.

Something like, "Furthermore, The Supplier retains all rights of ownership and authorship of materials which are not produced at the business establishment ("not on-site") of [Recruiter Company Name]."

The most important thing in contracts is clarity. So be explicit and make clear what you are looking for in the contract, and that the contract contains the wording to your satisfaction.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for the help. This is a great help. I really like those changes you suggest and I will make those amendments.</comment></comment>


Racket News – Issue 31 - <AUTHOR> https://racket-news.com/2020/05/racket-news-issue-31.html <comment><USER3> I would like to see wider adoption of Racket. I spent six weeks earlier this year evaluating and comparing Racket, LispWorks Common Lisp, and Swift for an application [1] I am working on. I ended up not choosing Racket, but it was a very close decision.

As a modern Lisp, Racket really has it all: vibrant user and dev community, portable GUI support, easy to make standalone applications, and great libraries.

[1] [http://knowledgegraphnavigator.com/](http://knowledgegraphnavigator.com/)

<comment><USER4> Can you share, what was the deciding factor against Racket?

<comment><USER5> Not OP but for me, I wanted to write http server applications and I was put off by having to specify the http response status messages and timestamps. I'm wondering why something slightly higher level isn't built into the standard lib.

<comment><USER6> You don't have to specify those things yourself unless you want to manually construct a response struct. There are helpers like response/xexpr and response/output that construct responses for you.

This article might help: [https://defn.io/2020/02/12/racket-web-server- guide/](https://defn.io/2020/02/12/racket-web-server-guide/)

<comment><USER5> But if I wanted to say return a 404 I don't want to have to specify "Not Found" along with it every time.

<comment><USER6> As of a couple releases ago, the message gets set according to the status code so this code would behave as expected:

        (response/xexpr #:code 404 '(h1 "Not Found"))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting[1]:

> This library defines disposables, composable first-class producers of values > with associated external resources that must be allocated and deallocated > such as database connections. Several safe abstractions are provided to > consume disposable values while ensuring their associated resources are > deallocated after use.

Apparently, disposable supplement custodians to work better for cleaning up externally allocated resources. I found the concept of custodians powerful, but not _quite_ powerful enough, so it's good to see some work done in this area.

[1] [https://docs.racket- lang.org/disposable/Basic_Disposable_API...](https://docs.racket- lang.org/disposable/Basic_Disposable_API_and_Concepts.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> A lot of new MIDI packages :p

      rs(src/pkg) is a live coding tool that lets you sequence MIDI using Racket.

      fuzzy-search(src/pkg) is a live coding tool that lets you sequence MIDI using Racket.

      planning(src/pkg) is a live coding tool that lets you sequence MIDI using Racket.

<comment><USER9> I started using Racket for some MIDI a few months ago. Racket is a great little music play ground.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Related: The Racket Stories news aggregator focuses on the Racket programming language, including news such as the original post.

[https://racket-stories.com/](https://racket-stories.com/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Long time ago hygienic macros move me to decide to farewell racket. Common Lisp, clojure or scheme allow me to program in Lisp when I have some code to do. So I don't look back to racket. /rant

Edited: Hygienic macros are powerful but as an user of a computer language and not as a researcher I find them very difficult to grasp compared to Common Lisp macros. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, what is down is that the language is more oriented to researcher than to get things done. Should I work in Northwest University, I would appreciate a lot those complexity and make progress in the field, but that is not my cup of tea now. I don't have problems to program in Haskell or any other language, but I don't buy racket complexity.

<comment><USER12> What don't you like about Racket macros? AFAIK Racket has the most advanced macro hygiene system out of any of the other languages you mentioned - <USER2> guarantees that all macros are hygienic by default, as opposed to other Lisps which require you to manually call (gensym) or use special syntax in your macro to guarantee that macro symbols don't shadow existing bindings.

<comment><USER11> From (1) Fear of Macros ( this is from someone that mainly program in racket, not my personal opinion)

But the moment I stepped past routine pattern-matching, I kind of fell off a cliff into a terminology soup. I marinaded myself in material, hoping it would eventually sink in after enough re-readings. I even found myself using trial and error, rather than having a clear mental model what was going on. Gah.

(1) [https://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of- macros/all.html](https://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of-macros/all.html)

My personal opinion: I think racket is more an ivory tower for researcher, many for northwest university. "PLT" refers to the group that is the core of the Racket development team. PLT consists of numerous people distributed across several different universities in the USA.

As I am getting older I should prefer some middle ground between racket and go. Hygienic macros are difficult to understand in this context, that is I don't want to buy the power of hygienic macros, it is over sold.

Anyway, I admire Mattew Flatt efforts in compilation tecniques and the author of Beautiful Racket.

<comment><USER7> So, what is it that you don't like about Racket macros? The quote doesn't explain it. Is it the fact that there are some concepts to learn before you can use them effectively?

> that precludes hygienic macros.

The fact that you are so fixated on hygiene as problematic, but can't really explain _why_ you think it's like this, is a huge red herring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The videos for the "European Lisp Symposium" appear to just be random 30-second clips. Am I missing something?

[https://www.twitch.tv/elsconf/videos](https://www.twitch.tv/elsconf/videos)

<comment><USER14> Videos of the streams are gone. Likely this account had no status to make them available for a longer time:

[..]Twitch Partners, Twitch Prime and Twitch Turbo users will have their broadcasts saved for 60 days before being deleted. All other broadcasters will have their broadcasts saved for 14 days before they are deleted.[..]

Source: [https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/video-on- demand?language=en...](https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/video-on- demand?language=en_US)

I hope someone made backups. I think are ways to reupload those videos, or make them longer available. I looked at some other streamers archive, and some do have way older videos under the highlights-section available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I really wish that racket had something similar to the c preprocessor's #line.

<comment><USER16> You can do that with `syntax/loc` when you're writing macros.</comment></comment>


Apple Warns Looters with Stolen iPhones: You Are Being Tracked - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/06/01/apple-warns-looters-with-stolen-iphones-you-are-being-tracked/#49ba81155098 <comment><USER2> Any stolen phone can be tracked or barred from networks thanks to its unique IMEI. Doing this as a matter of course would seriously discourage theft.</comment>