Greg Joswiak replaces Phil Schiller as head of Apple marketing - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/4/21354367/apple-phil-schiller-fellow-greg-joswiak-head-marketing-store-events <comment><USER2> This is the first I've ever heard of "Apple Fellows". According to Wikipedia [0],

> To recognize the best of its employees, Apple created the Apple Fellows > program which awards individuals who make extraordinary technical or > leadership contributions to personal computing while at the company. The > Apple Fellowship has so far been awarded to individuals including Bill > Atkinson, Steve Capps, Rod Holt, Alan Kay, Guy Kawasaki, Al Alcorn, Don > Norman, Rich Page, and Steve Wozniak.

I wonder what qualifies "extraordinary". For example, Chris Lattner, creator of Swift and LLVM, seems to have fit that adjective as well as anyone and yet his name is absent from this list.

[0]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#Corporate_affairs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#Corporate_affairs)

<comment><USER3> Bill Atkinson deserves it. He almost singlehandedly wrote the original Macintosh graphics API, QuickDraw, and also created MacPaint, which defined the UI/UX of the graphical pixel editor. Photoshop is its clear descendant.

The Mac graphics API was interesting, because it was all done in software, as opposed to platforms like the Amiga which relied on graphics hardware. Personally, I think relying on graphics hardware acceleration would have been smarter, as every platform this does now, but it was certainly a bold choice for the Mac.

Atkinson also created HyperCard, which could have been the first web browser had Apple managed it better — Tim Berners Lee references it in his original web proposal document.

It would be interesting to know how many stock options an Apple Fellow receives, and whether it is a one-time award, or continuing.

<comment><USER4> HyperCard was one of the best tools I've ever used. A real shame it never caught on.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't say that it never caught on, but rather, that its successor (the Web), which it inspired directly, succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

<comment><USER6> Not really. Hypercard included a fully functional programming language (HyperTalk) and a simple database. It really isn't analogous to the Web.

<comment><USER7> I don't know anything about HyperTalk but given that we live in an age where the web basically doesn't work without a fully functional programming language (JavaScript) and a simple database (websql) isn't the parent correct?

<comment><USER8> It's not really fair to compare the two that closely. Doing so misses a key aspect of Hypercard, which is how it fit holistically into the operating systems of its time. Hypercard "authors" had the ability to do many of the things their operating system could do from within the HC/HT system.

Hypertalk is also different in purpose and kind from JS. The former is easier to read than it is to write (Hypercard encouraged learning by copying / example), and was explicitly designed for everyday people. It was meant to bridge the gap between "users" and "programmers" and provide true computational media authoring.

<comment><USER5> It's true that HyperCard and the Web aren't exactly the same in all respects, but that's orthogonal to the fact that the Web drew direct inspiration from HyperCard (like, documented, on record, the inventors of Web browsers and HTTP saying as much).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've always loved seeing Phil Schiller's presentations on stage in keynotes for several years, though in the last few years he stepped back and Apple started putting many more people (than before) on stage to present in the keynotes.

A few of his words or lines on stage have been fodder for people to argue on ("courage" when removing the headphone jack from iPhones) or make fun of ("can't innovate my ass" when introducing the trash can Mac Pro that later went without any updates or news for years). But he was a natural and a master at presentations, IMO.

If one didn't know about him and watched his presentation, they'd find it hard to believe that a "marketing" person could talk so well about tech.

Craig Federighi is another great presenter who brings in humor along with some puns involving tech terms (not all his jokes may land well, but you gotta give him credit for many that do).

In this mix, I don't see Greg Joswiak in the same league. He may be a good senior VP of marketing, but a great story teller and presenter he's not. Sorry, Greg, if you're reading this. Those others have set standards that are difficult to beat.

I wish Phil well, and hope that he's able to contribute to Apple for many more years to come.

<comment><USER10> It's funny, I have the exact opposite opinion of Phil.

Back when I worked at Apple we'd watch every presentation because, hey, it's a good excuse to slack off at the office.

Phil was always the most boring guy because you always knew _exactly_ what he was going to say and _exactly_ what kind of non-answers he'd give to questions.

I mean yeah, it's great he hits the mark perfectly every time, but it's also so, so boring. He's the classic marketing shill. I wonder if his name is really even Fill Shiller, it's too perfect.

<comment><USER9> Thanks. It's interesting to hear other perspectives.

 _> Phil was always the most boring guy because you always knew exactly what he was going to say and exactly what kind of non-answers he'd give to questions._

I never felt this way. Maybe it's because I was never in a place where I could ask him questions or watched a presentation where someone could ask him questions.

 _> I mean yeah, it's great he hits the mark perfectly every time, but it's also so, so boring. He's the classic marketing shill. I wonder if his name is really even Fill Shiller, it's too perfect._

I didn't see most of his presentations as marketing shill. Maybe I haven't been paying much attention to that aspect.

<comment><USER11> Just a guess, but I assume someone internal to the company has a much different perspective, just because they have more knowledge of how things actually went.

I've seen senior folks at my former company do external talks that get rave reviews and my opinion was always "that's not how it happened at all!".

Sort of like not eating sausage anymore once you've seen how it's made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I had to talk with my wife about her next home office. We sat down, and talked about a screen, a keyboard, a desk, everything. We looked at a new Macbook Air, maybe a Mac Mini, and ended up at a 21-inch iMac for her, because it has everything but the desk and chair. That discussion, with Shiller now leaving the position, was absolutely engineered by Shiller and his team to happen exactly the way it happened. His influence on computing is deep.

<comment><USER13> Wouldn't give Phil or Apple marketing that much credit. They're good, they're not that good.

<comment><USER14> Apple is easily the single most successful exercise in branding in modern corporate history, right up there with Nike and Coca-Cola.

<comment><USER15> To play devil's advocate, Apple products tend to live or die based on how good they are, not the brand. Apple has produced plenty of duds over the years.

Whereas for Nike they could make the ugliest shoe in the world and people would still buy it.

<comment><USER14> They're "duds" by Apple's own standards. Their margins and sheer volume means that virtually every Apple product in the Steve Jobs era has been financially successful - excluding maybe the things like the G4 Cube

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> No need for corporate PR. Via verge: [https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/4/21354367/apple-phil- schill...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/4/21354367/apple-phil-schiller- fellow-greg-joswiak-head-marketing-store-events)

>Apple's longtime marketing chief, Phil Schiller, is stepping into a slightly smaller role after decades with the company. Schiller is dropping his role as senior vice president of worldwide marketing, but he'll remain in charge of the App Store and Apple Events. Greg Joswiak, previously the head of product marketing, will take over Schiller's former position as Apple's overall marketing leader.

<comment><USER17> _No need for corporate PR. Via verge_

I'd rather read the information from the original source, rather than a blog re-writing the Apple press release and then adding its own spin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I saw some snap reactions that boiled down to "he doesn't want to deal with the potential antitrust firestorm", but also, the guy is 60, and has worked at what I can imagine must be a frenetic pace for like 30 years, and maybe he just wants to slow down a bit.

<comment><USER19> He's also still head of the App Store which is the center of the majority of the antitrust firestorm, so it honestly looks more like he'll be able to focus on that for now.

<comment><USER20> Steve Troughton-Smith suggested on Twitter that he may keep that role only so that they can fire him as a sacrificial lamb when the anti-trust hammer comes down.

<comment><USER21> Tim Cook just gave a full-throated defense of the App Store under oath before Congress. There's no possibility of Tim making Phil the fall guy. Tim owns this now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Phil Schiller, and the whole marketing group, are an underestimated part of Apple's success over the past 20 years. It's why there's no company like Apple in the tech industry.

<comment><USER23> Nobody underestimates Apple's marketing. In fact I think it's the other way around, a lot of people pooh-pooh desire for their products as just marketing- susceptible idiots (e.g. "I could get the same features in an Android for $200 less and it comes with a MicroSD slot and headphone jack... but fanboys need their iPhone") looking for a cool brand when the reality is that they also make some of the best products.

<comment><USER24> Exactly. It can be difficult to explain to someone who used Android their whole life that iMessage (for example) is such a huge differentiating feature (at least in the US) when they see iPhone users as sheeple who buy purely based on marketing and product placement. Apple does a really good job of taking care of the little details on many of their devices, even if Macs are very expensive for what you get and the ecosystem has such a significant lock- in effect.

Also, despite the fact that it's shallow, status signaling is sometimes useful. Just like with the well-dressed Manhattan lawyer example in the recent thread about physical attractiveness in legal justice, having the right product in the right crowd subconsciously affects how others see you.

<comment><USER25> Yes, but you have to consider also that people have different priorities. For example, you say that "iMessage is a huge differentiating feature", but if most of that person's social circle uses other services, there is no advantage there. And UI polish might rank lower compared to the lock-in.

I'm not saying you're wrong to value those things, but a good amount of people don't. So no amount of explaining why iMessage is great will convince them, _even if_ they understand and agree iMessage is great, since the "maximum appreciation" for any feature is capped by the perceived value of its premise.

<comment><USER24> I think that's very fair. If you're able to have that kind of conversation with someone, hopefully it's easy for them to see that Apple's stellar marketing wasn't the reason you bought an iPhone; there were logical reasons behind it as well.

<comment><USER23> Or you could just say, life is too short to try to defend yourself against accusations of fanboyism, and just get up and walk away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Many many moons ago, before the iPhone existed, I found myself reading an email from Steve Jobs while coding in the garage at 3:30AM.

The email exchange had to do with difficulties we were having working with Apple hardware in the context of hardware we were developing. I reached out to Steve at 3:00 AM and got a response thirty minutes later. After replying with a detailed explanation of the issues we encountered I got a one sentence reply back from Steve: "I understand".

The next morning, actually, later that same morning, I got a call from someone from Apple. He said "Steve asked me to take care of this". That person was Greg Joswiak. We were invited to come up to headquarters to discuss the issues and work out a path forward. I met him and many other members of the engineering team while there.

Small world.

<comment><USER27> Both Greg Joswiak and Craig Federighi respond to emails that come from anyone, just like Steve Jobs did. That's wild how Joz had you even come into the headquarters to sort out that hardware issue.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, it was very cool to not only get straight to the top at three in the morning but to also see immediate action. We were in Cupertino the very next week, took a few road cases full of test equipment and hardware, setup in one of the conference rooms and had a bunch of great conversations with a range of engineers and non-engineers as well. Good memories of a different era for Apple. Once the iPhone took off priorities changed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Very glad Phil remains in control of AppStore mainly because he has _respect_ for independent software developers. Eddy Cue, Hairforce One and Apple Employee #8 see them like unsigned musicians and should not be involved with developers in anyway.

What's more is that it's clear their new boss (Tim Apple), like millions of others, is only now beginning to realize that the "gangster tactics" (of using math to restrict app functionality) is not totally about about preventing malware, ensuring privacy and protecting the brand reputation with users. He seems almost blind-sided by the world governments moving to act on a level that even Billy and Balmy didn't have to face after many years of actually killing the life's work (and thus the life) of hundreds of earlier software professionals (RIP Jay Miner).

<comment><USER29> You're kidding right? 100% of the 30% cut stuff is Phil.

<comment><USER30> While I'm sure he agreed with it, the 30% cut predated his management of the store by a decade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I legitimately cannot tell from the way this is worded if this is a promotion or if he's stepping aside. I guess that's intentional and means it's the latter, right?

<comment><USER32> Phill became 60 years old, this step is just him taking a smaller role while he can educate his replacement until he decides to retire (which is certainly financially possible for him to do after he becomes 65).

<comment><USER33> I imagine financially he probably could've retired a while ago, no?

<comment><USER34> I would say so:

"Mr. Schiller owns over 69,491 units of Apple stock worth over $18,846,432 and over the last 16 years he sold AAPL stock worth over $73,528,915."

<comment><USER35> So you're saying he can have big dinners at the local Golden Corral every time he wants?

<comment><USER36> He can buy the local Golden Corral any time he wants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> When Phil took over the App Store from Eddy Cue, he made substantial improvements in how developers were treated in amazingly short span of time. Developers should be very sad when he finally retires.

<comment><USER37> Eddy has been in charge for years Now

<comment><USER30> Responsibility for the App Store was taken from Eddie Cue and given to Phil Schiller at the end of 2015.

Eddie still runs iTunes and Apple Music, iCloud, Maos, Apple Pay, and their productivity apps. He's been known to work so hard he falls asleep in meetings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't know if it's the age (like Phil mentioned he wants to spend time with Family, Friends, Personal projects) or it's the recent criticism that areas like App Store and others got.

Whatever I always enjoyed Phil Schiller on stage. While Jony Ive's voiceover looked like a real marketing material, Phil's presentations were always energetic and real. Especially his way of introducing new hardwares and processors. I'll miss his presentations. Hope he gets good time to do what he wants!

<comment><USER39> If the move were due to the recent App Store criticism, it would be odd for the App Store to remain part of his reduced portfolio, as seems to be the case.

> I always enjoyed Phil Schiller on stage

My favorite Schiller keynote moment was his iBook stunt: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MR4R5LdrJw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MR4R5LdrJw)

I've heard rumors that Schiller was actually afraid of heights, so this may not have been that easy for him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I predict this is the end of Apple. The marketing is what made the Trillion dollar company, not the product.

Why would you change what works?

Utterly shocking, I wouldn't be surprised if the stock price plummets tomorrow.

<comment><USER41> Oh wow "the marketing.... not the product". How to utterly, hilariously miss the point.

The marketing is the product. This is exactly why so many people don't get Apple and how they operate. Do you know who came up with the concept for the click wheel on the original iPod? It was Phil Schiller, he suggested it in a meeting with all the senior heads on how the device should work. Marketing, design and engineering work incredibly closely together at Apple.

Phil would be a great loss (it seems he's not actually going yet), but Apple has lost major contributors before. They have a strong team and incredible depth of talent. They'll be ok.

<comment><USER30> But this is the end of Apple!

It's always the End of Apple!!!!

<comment><USER41> Proudly on the brink of going out of business since 1976.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Bye phil. Hope we can upgrade.</comment>


CEOs Want Their Offices Back - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/ceos-want-their-offices-back-1495445400 <comment><USER2> We have an open floor plan, and it works like this:

* Desk area is for getting work done. Everyone agrees on this.

* We have "phone rooms" for small discussions. But we limit those usually to 1:1s or discussing office politics.

* Try to limit all discussions at the desk area to 5 people or less.

* If someone sighs loudly as they put on their headphones when you're having a discussion right behind them, then that is their signal to you to keep talking loudly, as their noise-canceling headphones will eliminate any trace of your conversation.

* You can usually carry a conversation at your desk at any volume, because other engineers will let you know if you're being too loud. Engineers tend to be extroverted and won't hesitate to let you know if you're bothering them.

* When someone first sits at their desk, it's polite to immediately engage them in a 30-minute conversation about their weekend or what they did last night. It eases their transition into work.

* A person working without headphones on, signifies that it's ok to tap them on the shoulder to ask them a question.

* A person working WITH headphones on, signifies that it's ok to tap them on the shoulder to ask them a question.

* If someone usually works off in quiet parts of the building, one should always remind them "you're never at your desk" with an accusatory tone.

<comment><USER3> "Engineers tend to be extroverted"

Where did you get your statistics on that one?

<comment><USER4> The Big Book of Sarcastic Stats

<comment><USER5> Boom!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why do CEO's think they're alone in the need for quiet spaces where they can focus? Sure some people can work in the noisy space where interruptions abound. The only thing in my office that works well with interruptions is my CPU. I'd rather have a Cube farm, but better yet, a small tiny phone booth as an office.

<comment><USER7> Just like the cargo cult Agile pandemic peaked a few years ago, I suspect we're reaching peak open floor plans right now. The overall negative effects of an open floor plan for a significant fraction of engineers (though not all) is self-evident and backed up by reams of data stretching back nearly 40 years:

[http://iansommerville.com/software-engineering- book/web/work...](http://iansommerville.com/software-engineering- book/web/workspace/)

TLDR: 100 square feet of personal space is optimal. The highest I've ever had in tech was 81. I miss those days and I end up working from home a lot because of the current open floor plan. But square feet cost $$$ and switching to an open floor plan is an immediate cost cutter. Never mind what it's doing to overall productivity and future earnings, the analysts love $h!+ like this.

Fortunately, executives are not all idiots, so once the more insightful of them realize how much more they get done in private spaces, one or more of them will push back on this. And if employers start treating cubes and offices as a perk, I suspect they'll see lots of converts.

<comment><USER8> Cargo Cult is exactly right. Our organization is selling us this right now. "We're creating a more collaborative atmosphere! Facebook does it, this must be what IT people want." (Any discussion of paying IT staff like FB, though, is "well, we're not an IT company, and besides we're mission driven!") Because they don't think we're mature enough to accept that they want to squeeze more bodies unto a smaller space, for purely financial reasons.

Leadership got called out at a recent company meeting by someone who commented that noise-cancelling headphone were critical. One of the C-suite evangelists was like "haha, yeah you're right next to my office aren't you." In other words, "I'm so oblivious, I think it's amusing that my loud conversations are negatively impacting my subordinates' ability to concentrate in this 'collaborative' environment'".

My team does not need a collaborative atmosphere. We're not marketers. We're quiet, introverted, methodical folks who need a quiet atmosphere where they can concentrate on writing ops code that won't bring down a production server in the middle of the day. We don't want to have to listen to overheard gossip, ostensibly private phone calls, etc. while we're trying to figure triage a complex issue. But more than anything, it's offensive that they won't just come out and admit that this is being done for financial reasons. We're all adults in a capitalist economy; we know the score.

<comment><USER9> I don't think it is a cargo cult. My guess is that the focus is to make these engineers replaceable. And "quiet, introverted, methodical folks" are difficult to replace. Dumbed down open office workers and brogrammers are easily replaceable with another recent graduate some place cheaper.

<comment><USER10> Definitely part of it. Businesses are afraid developers will come to regard themselves, and to be regarded, as real professionals, like doctors, lawyers, some categories of engineer (god forbid they stop cowering around the MBAs or start questioning the ethics of... well, anything, really!)

Systemically keeping their tastes and station "lower" than that is probably part of what's going on, especially with the bigger companies. Developer pay may (sometimes) approach or match upper-middle, professional-class level, but (self-)respect for developers can't be permitted to reach those heights. Better their conditions are kept closer to, say, mid-20th-century secretary pools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > The lofty building Jordan Hamad moved his tech-advisory firm into four years > ago had the trappings of a startup idyll: open floor plan, _polished > concrete floors_ , custom-built communal tables.

Decisions like this make me seriously question the whole idea that our economy is populated by rational actors. _Obviously_ polished concrete floors are a terrible idea in an office. Even if you believe that open plan works, there is no rational basis for having floors that will reflect rather than dampen noise.

<comment><USER12> Markets are efficient, not rational.

<comment><USER13> I think it's clear they are more rational than efficient, and perfect at neither.

<comment><USER14> Markets != people, last I checked. If you're talking about the efficiency or rationality of a market, you're talking about some statistical measure of the market. If you're talking about one guy making a bad choice of flooring material, that's just one idiot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _He has since moved to a 5-by-8-foot pod in the company's innovation center. He retreats to it when he needs to focus or switch mental gears between meetings. [...] "It's not about status or privilege," he says of the pod, a prototype with still-exposed two-by-fours. "This is a space where you do certain kinds of work."_

Yeah, sure. Ok.

<comment><USER16> Good thing none of his lower status employees ever need to do certain kinds of work!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Theory: open space fosters communication, because you can easily engage in discussion with others.

Reality: everybody is sitting with their headphones on. The only way to get their attention is via Slack or by throwing objects at them.

<comment><USER12> In the academia, where good communication and idea sharing are essential, there are no open offices.

Said communication happens where it ought to be: in rec room or cafeteria.

<comment><USER18> I thought Academics jealousy hoarded ideas, carefully ensuring that they weren't stolen by competing researchers — especially in the same department.

<comment><USER19> No. Usually you talk to your colleagues and you help each other -- especially in the same department.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> When I was at Shell we were in the Houston medical center (near it, really) so Shell built a hospital and jammed their people into it in case they ever needed to sell the building. The company didn't bother buying real desks: we used full sized party tables and two people sat in a space designed to be a private hospital room. It was so tight I had to get up and leave to let my office mate in or out. I'd still rather sit there over a dog bone or trader desk setup you find today.

As one of the old farts who started when even the lowliest peon had an office the fact CEOs are discovering forcing people to do their work in a large, loud, noisy space doesn't work isn't terribly surprising. Nor does the fact that 30+ years later almost everyone above a certain level still gets an office even in the cube farm environments. At Shell you could instantly tell the rank of a person by the size of their office. Fast forward to today and you must be an ED to rank an office where I work now. It's a status symbol.

</comment><comment><USER21> For over a year, our dev team has been begging management to fix our open- office. It's loud, distracting, and negatively impacts our productivity. The team wants 1/2 height cloth cubicles that would provide a limited measure of privacy and personal space while also helping to dampen the noise. Their response: Buy on-desk semi-transparent plastic partitions that just provide another noise-amplifying hard surface...

Thankfully, I was recently hired onto a 100% remote development team and put in my 2 weeks. I'm done with open office floor plans and hope to never again work at a company that uses them for developers.

<comment><USER22> _Their response: Buy on-desk semi-transparent plastic partitions that just provide another noise-amplifying hard surface..._

LOL. "Isn't there some gadget at OfficeMax we can use instead?"

The most bizarre part of these stories is that cheap, used cubicles are as common as tennis shoes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> At the risk of repeating myself, I will recommend that people read Cal Newport's blog, and his book: Deep Work.

Here is a good blog post on office design that supports deep work: [http://strongproject.com/blog/how-cal-newports-deep-work- con...](http://strongproject.com/blog/how-cal-newports-deep-work-concept-will- influence-office-design/)

If I ever get a chance to design an office, it will be something like the above. Small risk of that, however.

At the risk of sounding like I want to dehumanize work (quite the opposite, actually), I'd like to point out that anybody thinking of adding, say, a new milling machine to a machine shop, would look at how much space you need for it and around it to work productively and have quick access to the necessary accessories. Yet, we don't put any analysis at all into what it takes to maximize the productivity of people. And too often, we go for one-size-fits- all solutions. I can imagine a high-functioning dev-ops team really benefiting from the instantaneous communication of having all 8 people on the team sitting within a short chair roll of each other in a common space. For the people who need long blocks of unbroken concentration, that kind of space is not as functional. "Interrupt driven" work and "deep though" work are two different kinds of work, and it should be no surprise that a single space is not optimal for both.

</comment><comment><USER24> It seems like when "Open Office" articles come out there seem to be quite a few people talking ill of them. I recently switched jobs and with it switched from an open concept (large room with whiteboards separating teams) to an office (shared with one other coworker.) Maybe I was conditioned to like it (I certainly didn't like it at first) but I really did prefer the open concept when working on a team of 8 or 9 people. I never missed a conversation my team was having and if I ever needed anything all I needed to do was turn around. I guess I get the noise issues, but even in an office with my door open I can still hear conversations in the hallways so I still wear my noise canceling headphones.

<comment><USER25> This is why I actually _like_ cubicles. you are physically close to your team, if your space is organized well you are on a common isle with people you work with, but you still have at least a little bit of isolation in your personal workspace.

I DO NOT understand why cubes get so much hate.

<comment><USER26> As someone with ADD (who immediately drops focus when someone walks by or when music has lyrics) cubicles are much better than most open office plans.

They just don't look as "cool" or "hip" as a long, open table.

<comment><USER24> I should add that we did not have long open tables. Each person had their own mobile sit/stand desk and mobile filing cabinet for personal belongings. There was quite a few people who positioned themselves facing a corner for that reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> That's great - what about everybody else? The problems he described apply to everyone in the office. Why leave them in that mess?

<comment><USER28> 'Slave ownership by companies has traditionally taken very curious forms.'

[http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nassim-nicholas- taleb...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nassim-nicholas-taleb-how-to- own-a-slave.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> CEOs also typically believe they are the only resource that isn't replaceable or outsource-able. But, if they're good at what they do, and the buck truly stops with them... I'm fine with that level of responsibility vs benefit. This is mostly because I imagine the CEO doing a bunch of jobs that I do not _want_ to do.

I like popping on my headphones and going to town... but I'll admit, distractions often overcome even my headphones. That's where working from home comes in.

</comment><comment><USER30> No paywall: [http://archive.is/tSeuX](http://archive.is/tSeuX)

<comment><USER31> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Curiously, in my experience it's been senior management (including CEOs) who've fought for open plan offices in the first place. Cost benefits aside, they do wax lyrical about all the reason why open plan is great.

<comment><USER33> Because they have allowed tail functions like HR and Building Services to set company policy with no thought to the wider effect on the company. Aka I got my bonus and I don't care if I have F%$Ked up the company

<comment><USER34> At a previous job, I was sent to a partner company who was building a web site we'd take over. This company had a wide open floor plan (except for the execs). I remember one day our HR VP visiting and exclaiming how wonderful this is. She said she wanted to implement it where we worked. She asked me what I thought with this beatific smile, and I said I found the never ending movement and ad-hoc meetings around me to be distracting. The smile on her face dropped and she said, "You'll get used to it", as she walked away.

<comment><USER35> "At a previous job ..."

Quite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I think this whole collaborative workspace bullshit was oversold and overbrought. The only thing it does serve is the ego of an insecured management who doesn't trust its employees that they are working in closed spaces. That is the reason they want open office spaces and support Agile.

I fail to understand why do you need your team to sit next to each other when you have modern day collaboration tools like Slack, hipchat etc. The management folks who argue that open office increases collaboration fail to understand that engineers don't collaborate whole day long. They collaborate for an hour or so and then they need to focus and build things. The ideal ratio would be 80:20. An engineer wants 80% productivity and 20% collaboration. By this it makes sense to have a closed office spaces and have collboration areas around the office. Having an open office and few personal areas scattered around the office promotes 80% collaboration and 20% productivity. As an organization are you really aiming for that?

</comment><comment><USER37> A very small startup team does benefit from an open plan, such as shared desks or a shared office. This scales to maybe 6 people. I think this is the environment that larger companies are trying to capture.

But at scale, this is a ridiculous setup and one that breeds interruptions. In a small team, what one person knows is often useful to another. In a larger team there are many more independent parts, and entangling communication is a waste of attention. Worse, I think it causes people to deliberately adopt a default-closed mentality to avoid overload.

Companies don't easily outgrow their early cultures; they think what got them there will continue to serve them -- in fact, they want to go back and "capture the magic" that were there in the early days. It's a form of corporate nostalgia that is one symptom of becoming sclerotic.

It's not really about open floor plan vs. cubicles. I recall the first time I visited HP's vast cube farm at their silicon valley headquarters. It was vast, drab, mostly quiet, and absolutely soul-deadening. OTOH the Dropbox headquarters in SF was open floor plan and absolutely cramped, yet buzzing with youthful energy. Lots of people were using headphones. I could see how it would be an exciting place for a young person. On the one hand the buzzing energy is a potential distractor, but it's also an energy booster. It makes your heart beat a little faster. It makes you feel like you're in a place where things are happening.

With age, my powers of concentration have waned a bit and I cannot power through distractions like I did when younger. A cube farm would be very demotivating. An open floor plan would be highly distracting, but likely somewhat better. But the best is to avoid large environments like that entirely, and stick with a smaller group where the interruptions are actually useful, where a shared office and a shared mission produce energy and focus.

</comment><comment><USER38> I've worked at a few places with open workspaces. In the field of law, open workspaces make zero sense. You're always on the phone or always attempting to fully concentrate on the task at hand. Open workspaces allow distractions to fester.

One open workspace was intentionally planned so that the micro-managing CEO could readily see if the employees -- mostly attorneys, mind you -- were hard at work or hardly working. Nothing was private, especially not the condescending beratement from said CEO. I quit and started my own law firm, requiring work from home for my subsequent hires and leasing shared office space.

That firm was acquired by a client, and I was again forced to commute to work since I would be directing a large on-site team of attorneys and paralegals. It was another open workspace but, thankfully, the C-suite enjoyed perimeter offices. I don't understanding why they realized that we needed offices to avoid distractions and to keep confidential conversations in confidence, but failed to consider the effect of the open space on other employees -- also mostly attorneys and licensing guys.

I've since had a successful exit and again get to enjoy "working" from home.

</comment><comment><USER39> Notice you don't see them giving most other employees private space back. Just themselves and some 'senior employees'

</comment><comment><USER40> Open plan offices suck for everyone who needs to think. I don't know anyone who doesn't know this.

</comment><comment><USER41> Ultimately, each team has its own optimal cadence that oscillates between face-to-face and secluded concentration.

Open space implies that cadence is "daily", but for workers who create intellectual property, that cadence is more realistically every 5-10 days.

The need for in-person "check and balance" varies with experience. I work with remote teams of Sr Engineers that meet in-person 1-2 times per year. Minimal communication issues.

But if apprentice-level Engineers are being groomed, then the frequency of in- person meetings needs to be daily/weekly/monthly.

</comment><comment><USER42> I think people forget, or maybe don't realize, open floor plans were popularized in the startup world because of their cost savings. It's very hard/expensive to rent office space with enough rooms for everyone, or build one out that way. It's way easier to put a bunch of IKEA desks next to each other.

I'm not saying there's not a better way, but that's the justification. Anybody trying to convince others that open floor plans are more productive is living in crazy town.

</comment><comment><USER43> I can handle one conversation. Or many. But two or three going on is really annoying.

And I think it's because we natural pay attention to humans and look for patterns. You can't really do that when there are multiple conversations. And the brain doesn't bother trying when there are too many voices.

So one conversation is fine. If there's already one conversation and you need to speak to somebody, use Slack or get a room or set up a meeting or wait.

</comment><comment><USER44> Individual contributors want private offices. Companies want "openness and collaboration".

As I've been at WeWorks lately, I've noticed that they have all glass walls on the offices. This means that everybody has natural light and a sense of openness, but with a locking door and quiet. A more general question to people in such all-glass private offices - is it the best of both worlds? Or, is more privacy needed than all-glass walls?

<comment><USER45> They make glass that can be turned opaque electronically. That's probably ideal (albeit more expensive)

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

<comment><USER46> They also make blinds :-)

<comment><USER47> or as we like to call it these days "smart curtains".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I've worked in open offices my whole career. To me its normal and I'm used to it, probably I dont want an office locked away.

I have found the next step down though where I work - hot desks. Basically you get a locker for your stuff, no reserved desk location and a virtual terminal to a desktop on a server. This really does suck.

</comment><comment><USER49> The penjulum of "things startups are wrong about" and/or "you succeed despite this rather than because of it" open plan offices will shift back the other way in the next decade to "deep work" and "closed door productivity". Joel Spolsky & co are just two decades ahead.

</comment><comment><USER50> Oh really? How many hundred years will it take until they find out that "regular" workers also have declined performance in large offices? I find them a disgrace. I don't need a single office for me - but 3-6 People is enough.

</comment><comment><USER51> I really want to know how Apple's laying out the new campus. I've read something about different types of "pods".[1] Is the idea you can float among different types of spaces (quiet vs collaborative)? Who gets a door? Does anyone know more details?

[1] [https://www.wired.com/2017/05/apple-park-new-silicon- valley-...](https://www.wired.com/2017/05/apple-park-new-silicon-valley- campus/)

</comment><comment><USER52> Sometimes I wonder if this open office thing is pushed on people because of the high real estate cost in San Francisco. Anything can be spinned into a great thing.

<comment><USER53> I think that's globally true: it's been known since the 1970s that open-plan offices aren't good for productivity but they're undeniably cheaper and, in many cases, also has the unstated advantage of making it clear where people rank on the status hierarchy in organizations where only management above a certain rank are allowed offices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I was dead wrong about the open office layout: I was an advocate, but I now see that over time, for any company larger than a garage startup, it ends becoming a way to cut costs and pack more employees per square foot. It isn't worse than cube-farms, but it isn't much better.

I wonder if per-team offices of 2-5 people around a central hub would actually hit the right balance between interaction and think time.

<comment><USER25> I think its worse than cube farms, way worse. In a cube you have some modicum of isolation, even if its just a physical barrier to keep from seeing 100% of the movement/traffic around your workspace.

In an open environment, literally everything is a distraction. The only time I've been content-ish in an open environment is when I happened to be facing a corner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Mate I'm not even a CEO and I want my office back

</comment><comment><USER56> Solution is simple. "Make sure you reply to company wide messenger. Make all open area conversation via messengers. Make any conversations that benefit vocal speaking in a separate room. Give everyone an option to book private rooms for occasions where you need long phone conversation"

</comment><comment><USER57> Incidentally, Steelcase CEO Jim Hackett quoted in this article was just named CEO of Ford.

<comment><USER13> I think it's the previous CEO of Steelcase.

But also note that the Steelcase CEO's quotes are shaped to help sell their office pod systems. He's really not going to share his personal preferences, he's going to push their product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> We all do, buddy!

Well, actually, I WFH, but I sympathize with open floor plan workers.

</comment><comment><USER59> As a CEO I mostly don't work from the same space as the rest of the team as my work tends to be multi-person meetings and phone calls. We mostly share our meals together, however.

</comment><comment><USER60> Is there a HN facility where I could just block these pay-walled articles? I have nothing against someone trying to make a buck, but there is insignificant chance that I will 'subscribe' or login to read a wsj article. I just want to save me some time and wsj some bandwidth.

OK maybe I just need to learn to look at the link.

<comment><USER6> Buy a subscription? Theres a link to the free version

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://outline.com/b4muXW](https://outline.com/b4muXW)

<comment><USER61> How is this not just stealing their work?

<comment><USER62> How is it "stealing"?

<comment><USER63> I'm not here to defend it, but as a paying digital subscriber to WSJ (and other papers), this link is useful! WSJ signed me out (they often do), and to sign in again I have to re-enable JavaScript which means their site gets slower and the text bounces all over as things load. I'm happy to pay for quality content but news sites have to stop degrading the digital experience if they want me to keep forking over $30/month.

Edit: for science, I enabled JavaScript and loaded the WSJ page with a cold cache. The text jumped 3 times over the 22 seconds it took to fully load the page.

<comment><USER60> All I want from these pay-walls is a instapaper-like experience, and that you cannot get that for $30? With $30 I can buy 130 kid's polio vaccines.

<comment><USER63> Right? It doesn't seem like too much to ask for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I do want my office back. My office is the land around us, and NIMBY idiots along with people that don't understand individual-level mining (which is very low impact) keeps me out of that office.

</comment><comment><USER62> Why on earth would I need to "log in" in order to read an article?

<comment><USER65> so they can make money from you reading an article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Polished concrete.

Does anyone actually like it? It's super noisy. It's become pretty popular in cafes around here, and they're almost unbearable at busy times.</comment>


Rejection email from Y Combinator - <AUTHOR>

Hi Friends,
I've just received rejection email from Ycombinator... :( Though I realize, how competitive it gets to get in, its not the start one expect for their product or idea...
I would appreciate if fellow community members can help point out ares of improvement in my product or idea,
http://joday.com
Thanks for your time! I really appreciate it!
Nish Founder, Joday.com <comment><USER2> Honest feedback: I don't see what problem this is solving; I don't see a real problem that I can identify with, or at least not one worth solving. That said, I'm one person, and I may be in the minority for not having a problem this solves.

When embarking on a new product idea, I pitch the problem to all kinds of different people first, before I even pitch my proposed solution. This allows me to see if the problem I think exists resonates with others, how people think about the problem, and whether or not it's something they actually care about. This sets the best foundation for proposing a solution and how to go about pitching or selling it to people.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks @alexobenauer I appreciate.

Your point about user sessions is absolutely right and I completely agree with you. Solution should be made for a problem and one should not expect solution to fit into a problem somehow.

My challenge is solving a problem for future presents a paradox, future is unknown with nothing to compare to... it becomes even more challenging when present is working just fine....

here is what I wanted to solve...

Entertainment industry is going thru a tectonic shift. For the first time in history, creating(smart phones), hosting(Youtube, Dailymotion) and distributing(Social media, Youtube) content is never so easy, cheap or accessible to everyone.

We are going thru a Content Democratization (Content Spring). New content is created every second, new stars are born everyday. According to Youtube, 100 hours of videos are uploaded to YouTube every minute.

But, just as any democracy, Content Democratization is bringing chaos to video watching experience. How would you find entertainment you really want to watch? How would you personalized your video watching experience?

That's where Joday comes in. Joday cancels all the noise and delivers high quality entertainment relevant to YOU (by curating, organizing for easy access by channels etc and by personalizing to recommend new content based on your taste)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I second most of the comments here so far. It seems you have a solution in search of a problem. I spend a lot of my time working for or starting companies that deal with media aggregation and I don't understand what you are solving. But I am willing to give you a few thoughts from a business and investment perspective as well.

First off, you are a single founder. This isn't always a problem. Though, historically, it is for YCombinator. Founding a company, particularly one which wants to get into a very saturated media aggregation market is not easy. It requires a lot of understanding; business, finance, legal, marketing, sales, and technical. Even if you could bring all of those things to the table, it is unlikely you can juggle that many balls by yourself.

Next, I don't see a clear path to monetization. The answer might of course be "We will gain a large user base and then we will sell to a large media company who wants those users". Which large media company would that be? YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, or one of the other giants of the social media industry that can afford to buy a company? They aren't going to be interested because honestly, you'll be selling them back their own users base.

Another option for monetization might be "We are going to build up this brilliant machine learning algorithm, prove out the concept, and sell that to a large media company." Not a bad plan, but remember these companies have the means and reputation to hire small armies of algorithm writers. Are you differentiated enough to get in and show you can beat those small armies?

I'll mention one more way you might be thinking of monetizing. "We'll sell advertising space!" My favorite of all. If you have a user base large enough this can do very well. However, remember, you are showing media that is hosted by other companies who make their money by advertising around other peoples uploaded media. Those companies are not going to be keen to allow you to steal away their advertising dollars.

I could talk about your site design and the professionalism in your presentation, which is lacking. However, I am not trying to discourage you. If you are interested in machine learning (which is what comes out from your entire site), you should continue in that market. There is a TON of space there for people to do very well. I suggest you not get stuck on your first idea. Pivot. Find some good friends who are also interested in using machine learning to solve a problem with skills that complement yours, and work together. Then find a problem that has some clear path to monetization and in which you are passionate and go for it. You have the ambition and you will be successful. Don't give up!

<comment><USER4> HN thinks I am bot so replying as different user... :(

<comment><USER4> Thanks trcollinson, for your detail reply. Very few good wishers like you spends time to explain or suggest on someone Else's mistake. I really appreciate your time.

Now, 1\. Single Founder: I guess, I have to work on it. The idea and prototype was build as a side project thus no other heads... nevertheless, its one of my top priority to get it going....

2\. How to Monetize: Ads is easiest but as you said its challenging. Also, as I have mention earlier I am here to complement not compete with big guys. having said that, this is my thinking....

Though like any consumer web company, I would need a large use base (~1M) but here are my thought for it,

\- Subscription to watch premium content. \- Feature or Promotional or Ad. Videos \- Targeted Video Distribution (revenue share) Similar to youtube ads but for videos, we have rich data about user likeness thus can facilitate target video distribution. Content creator can distribute paid content to their target audience based on our data. I called it, CPV : Cost per 1k Video Views.

3\. Machine Learning and getting like minded people together... I'm on it. would love to get more inputs from you... i'm at, nish at joday

Thanks again! really appreciate your comments!

\--Nish

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm just not going to sign up and watch videos from your site. It's just not going to happen. Sorry...

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand. Is it because its so bad? or its not useful?

<comment><USER6> Commenter might be implying he doesn't want to sign up to just try it...

The copy on your page implies you need to signup, even though you have a login as "guest" feature.

Maybe change the copy to something to just, "Check It Out Now"

<comment><AUTHOR> worth trying.. will try out! thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would like to thanks all the HN members, taking time to comment on this thread.... you guys are awesome!

I can only improve my product with your suggestions....

please keep it coming.... feel free to directly reach me at, nish at joday

Nish.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think youtube itself is trying to do this. I don't think you can compete with that. Even if you gained traction, wouldn't they just block your ip addresses and prevent you from embedding video?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have always thought of complementing Youtube rather than competing with them.

Youtube is platform and a really good one... allowing the rise of new age content... brining content democratization/revolution...

whereas Joday has curated content from Youtube(for now) and other sources... organized for easy access by channels etc. and further more personalize it according to user taste...

It would be really sad if youtube decides to blocks video embedding as majority of youtube videos are watched by embedding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> just pointing out that you should check your spelling for the word "relevant" on your site

</comment><comment><USER9> Isn't this just YouTube without hosting? Why would I use this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well according to recent statistics, "100 hours of videos are uploaded to youtube every minute."

my goal is to make it easy for you to discover videos from youtube and other sources on internet...

consider it, "Netflix for Youtube Videos"

<comment><USER10> Anytime someone describes something as "X of/for Y", I go check out Y. I'd work on your pitch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure. But as a product or idea, do you see a need for it.

<comment><USER10> Not really. I subscribe to multiple channels on YouTube, which has provided plenty of extra subscriptions based on the home page "What to watch" and the sidebar related videos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Aren't youtube suggestions good enough?</comment>


Ask HN: Is it too late to do a startup after 35? - <AUTHOR> I've been in a corporate for many years after grad school. Climbing endless corporate ladder. I want to feel the excitement of a start-up. Should I quit my job and do my own gig full time? Or is this age already too old to compete with the 20s? <comment><USER2> You are absolutely not too old. Actually, contrary to the Silicon Valley stereotype, most startup founders are between their late 30's and early 40's - where they have the perfect mix of remaining youthful drive and critical industry experience (it is also, coincidentally, the age range where fluid intelligence of youth and crystallized intelligence of wisdom intersect and balance out). The fastest growing startups are actually far more likely to be led by people over the age of 50 than under the age of 30.

Don't listen to the Silicon Valley echo chamber - the rest of the country thrives on stable businesses, which are most likely to be led by older founders. Not only can you compete with those 20-somethings, but you can out- maneuver them using the experience you've earned in other environments. Younger founders may have to put in 100 hours a week and make dozens of costly mistakes that you, because of your corporate background, can potentially foresee and avoid altogether.

Reference: [http://business.time.com/2013/03/14/ask-the-expert-the- best-...](http://business.time.com/2013/03/14/ask-the-expert-the-best-age-for- a-start-up-founder/)

<comment><USER3> If you have a family, obligations, the amount of risk you can take on might be more limited. It's ok taking equity in leui of a decent salary in your 20's when single, but this is much harder when life goals change after having a kid.

<comment><USER2> Well, that is another stereotype. When you're older and have held more high- paying jobs, you also tend to have savings, assets, a better credit history and other funds to cushion the blow. Plus, with a spouse, you have economies of scale potentially so they can work while you lead a startup with little or no pay.

I would guarantee if you took a survey, that the average founder actually falls somewhere around 38-45 years old, with one to two kids, a mortgage and everything else. Yet, the risk is substantially lower because they can leverage up to 20 years of earned experience (and contacts) in an industry (or multiple).

If you don't believe me, just ask the guys that started Intel, who were in their 40's with families. They even did it in a time when technology startups were virtually unheard of.

<comment><USER3> I was referring to working for a startup than founding one. I think you are right about founding, that many founders will be older necessarily. And in that case, you at least have controls of the risks and are chasing your vision, not someone else's. But working for a startup at 40 seems problematic, since you aren't really taking risks as an entrepreneur.

<comment><USER2> I don't believe the original post was about _working_ at a startup, it was more regarding founding one. Hence my answers to that effect.

I don't see the difference though. Netscape was co-founded by a 20-something Marc Andreessen, but run day-to-day by a couple 40-and-50-somethings in the early days, not including the developers, many of which were well into their 30's.

Like I said, the 20-something startup kid - either worker or founder - is a stereotype and not accurate. I can keep coming up with more examples if you want. There are dozens of them for every one 20-something wunderkind example.

Heck, looking back now that I'm in my 30's, I marvel at the ignorance I had in my 20's that could have easily led me to ruining a startup. Experience is simply irreplaceable and more valuable than youth in business, regardless of what you've been told.

Now that I'm a little older, I have a successful company which I could simply not have achieved without millions of dollars in investment at a younger age. That investment would have all gone to keeping me afloat while I made mistakes due to the naivete of my 20's. Contrarily, working in industry for a little while first, I learned from other successful companies and leveraged the good things while jettisoning the bad things I saw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> No age is too old. I co-founded a startup last year, successfully raised a 8 figure series A, and am the youngest of founders by more than a decade, and I'm over 35.

The difference between now (startup #4 for me) and when I was in my 20s, is now I waste a lot less time and energy on things that don't matter.

My advice is start consulting on something you know just slightly better than the next guy. You can often jumpstart a product development plan by helping a large company define a product they need. Then make that if more than one company really needs it :)

</comment><comment><USER5> "Doing a startup" is a middling to bad idea (particularly if you mean "working for below-market wages & illiquid impossible-to-value options at a hip VC funded consumer web foosball emporium", as opposed to actually founding).

"Starting a company" on the other hand is an excellent idea, if you think you've found a niche where you can make it work.

Your remarks about wanting to "feel the excitement" and "compete with the 20s" though make me think you might want to contemplate what you're trying to get out of it. If it's possibly-positive-value consumption (similar to the idea of starting a clothing boutique or coffeeshop) that's a different decision calculus than if it's an investment of time & some money that's intended to pay off with a given return in a given timeframe.

Some people spend money climbing mountains; some people found guide companies so they can spend more time climbing mountains; some people found sporting goods stores because they've noticed the margins are pretty high and more people seem to be climbing mountains lately. There's a key difference between #2 & #3.

<comment><USER6> And #2 never works: people who try that soon find that they're too worn out to climb anything fun, they're stuck in the mountains, and they don't like being there any more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> From: [http://v25media.s3.amazonaws.com/edw519_mod.pdf](http://v25media.s3.amazonaws.com/edw519_mod.pdf)

      127. It's Never Too Late
      Teen years - flipped burgers & partied
      Age 21 - graduated college, flipped burgers, & partied
      Age 24 - touched my first computer
      Age 25 - wrote my first program
      Age 27 - touched my first PC
      Age 31 - wrote my first low level code
      Age 32 - started my first business
      Age 39 - started my second business
      Age 41 - accessed the internet for the first time
      Age 44 - wrote my first browser-based app
      Age 51 - found Hacker News
      Now - having more fun than ever

      It's never too late, you're never too old, and it's not whether the glass is half full or half empty.

      It's about getting up off your butt and filling the glass the rest of the way.

If you spend any time around here, you might be passingly familiar with the author (as he is currently #5 on the leader board):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=edw519](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=edw519)

</comment><comment><USER8> As someone who has spent almost 40 years in high tech, and who has founded 3 companies after 30 (one after 40), I just don't buy the B.S. that you've over the hill after your 20's. I think any V.C. that buys that hype is going to miss out on enormous opportunities.

Part of the thinking is that once you marry and have a family, then 100 hour work weeks are out. Well, setting aside the discussion of quantity v. quality of work, now that my kids are out of school and out of the nest I'm free to work the long hours again, but this time around I have a wealth of experience and wisdom to bring to the table as well as the hours.

<comment><USER9> VCs don't buy that hype. They just know that young founders are more likely to be convinced that VCs are mentors and follow their guidance easier than guys in their 40s. The VCs will own more of the company, and have more board seats, and have more influence, all for less output of cash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10>
      > In fact, research shows that the median age of U.S.-born tech company founders
      > is 39, and there are twice as many entrepreneurs older than 50 than there are
      > younger that age 25.

[http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242851](http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242851)

</comment><comment><USER11> Don't quit your job. There's no reason to unless your real motivation is to feel like you're being an entrepreneur. In which case, I urge you to reconsider.

Create a project and work on it in your spare time. Get people using it early, and learn as much from them as possible. When an aspect of your project takes more time than you have spare, find someone to help with that task. Ideally, charge money; and once you have 10-20 customers, double your price and get 10-20 more. Keep doubling your price until a healthy amount of customers start citing price as the deciding factor—you've found a value for your product that serves both you and your customers.

At some point, you'll be making enough to live and save at least $1,000/mo—that's when you quit and focus on your project full-time; if you want to go the funding route, you have that freedom still.

</comment><comment><USER12> No. I founded a software company when I was 46, and it's still going strong twenty years later. The most fun I've ever had.

</comment><comment><USER13> No, nor at 45, 55, or 65.

The biggest advantages early-twenty-somethings have over later age groups is a higher risk tolerance and a lack of obligations getting in the way of putting in unlimited time at the office.

The latter is a little dubious, since the data shows that productivity tends to fall after about 40 hours of work a week and to drop off a cliff after 50. Sometimes you gotta crunch, but if you're crunching all the time something is wrong. I consider that a sign of poor planning or "work hygiene."

The former does matter, but it can be overcome by compensating with better planning and by leveraging superior experience. You can compensate for lower risk tolerance by working to _de-risk_ the venture as early as possible as much as you can.

</comment><comment><USER14> YC interviewers say yes. Some have directly told me that they use this equation when judging applications:

impressiveness = achievements / age

Now that YC has tried to tackle the race and gender concerns, I really hope that ageism is next. They can start by switching the age application question to just an "over 18?" checkbox.

<comment><USER15> As someone who is 39, why is "impressiveness = achievements / age" a problem in your eyes?

Looking back at my own life, pretty much all my worthwhile achievements has come after 20, and according to that formula I'd come out very favourable against 20-25 years olds like myself.

That formula is pretty much just saying that they expect people to have more achievements the older they are, which does not seem unreasonable to me.

<comment><USER14> No one has ever said "that's incredible for a 40 year old".

Only the young get benefit from this equation. I would bet that your achievements would not be considered great by someone who uses this equation, no matter how great they are.

The somewhat misquoted phrase that's attributed to the Alibaba CEO describes the spirit of people who use this type of thinking better than my equation will:

"If you're not rich at 35, you deserve it!"

<comment><USER15> No one says "that's incredible for a 40 year old" because a 40 year old is expected to have had time enough that we don't need the qualifier of age.

In part because the world is full of examples of 40 year olds being successful, but despite the Silicon Valley bias, impressive 20-year olds or 25-year olds (or even 30-year olds) with big achievements are extreme outliers.

Even in the startup world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> SHIT NO!!! I'm 35, live in NYC, and one year into my first real startup that I co-founded. A few insights from my experience, as well as some challenges and advantages: 1) Everyone is younger than me and it's mostly humorous and enjoyable (I play much younger than typical 35yo's, tho). 2) I spent 10 years running a partnership marketing agency and I was lucky that I could easily translate my skills/experience/contacts to the startup world (mostly in biz dev). 3) There is a strong need for people with real-world business, people management, and corporate relations experience in startupland. You can probably run a conference call much better than these damn whippersnapper programmers. 4) The only real disadvantage associated with being 35yo in startups is risk mitigation. If you have kids and a mortgage, it's gonna be much harder to move fast and jump on opportunities. I am mostly unencumbered and that's crucial right now (actually moving for 3 months soon, as we got into an accelerator). 5) I'll never forget when a startup colleague (23yo developer) expressed bewilderment when I called him (on the telephone!) to talk about some business matter. He promptly explained that his generation usually does this stuff over gchat. I laughed. He laughed. 6) I've been thinking about this a lot lately; we only have one short life to live on this earth and it friggin flies by, so why not reinvent yourself a few times, professionally and personally? Assuming you're smart enough not to risk your/your family's future well being, go for it.

<comment><USER16> I should add: 7) Coming from the corporate/agency world, you'll be floored by the lack of basic business sense and planning found in the average early stage startup. Perhaps I was naive, but the severity of that mindset ("let's just make something flashy and get a ton of users and everything else will figure itself out!") surprised me at first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm not a founder, but I don't believe it's (ever) too late, as long as you have the passion and drive to get it done.

My suggestion would be to stop thinking about "startup founders" as 20-something college-dropouts that we so easily envision, and instead remember that most of the world's successful companies (not startups) are run by older, more experienced CEOs. You might not pull as many ridiculous redbull-fueled all-nighters (or maybe you will), but you've also seen a lot more in the world -- especially in business.

You ask if you're "too old to compete with the 20s" \-- I have little doubt that they wonder if they're too young to compete with more experienced businesspeople.

If you want to build a startup, do it.

</comment><comment><USER18> Nope. The founder of [http://magnetis.com.br](http://magnetis.com.br) spent most of his life working in a bank and in a fund. Money wasn't a problem, but he was unhappy. He's got a management background, and never programmed until his late thirties. He then learned Ruby, found a few partners and created this app to track the performance of investment funds. During my internship in the company, he took part as CEO and developer. So, if you have enough dedication, you can completely change your life regardless of age.

</comment><comment><USER19> As some already mentioned, it's never too late. I'll add a little bit from my experience, of having started a technology company in my 20s and then, later, starting two others after my 40s, all of them active until now. The two most important things I felt different were: time and energy. I explain. The time I had to work for my startup when in my 20s was huge, almost any time I wanted, and everyday. And that's what I did. I worked everyday, all the time. When you love the company you founded, that's what you want to do. But now, after my 40s, life changed. Married, children, and a lot of obligations and responsabilities. I definitely don't have the time I had in my 20s to dedicate to the startup. And yes, you need to dedicate time! Regarding the energy, I mean the energy related to health, physical capacity, intellectual concentration and ability to handle stress. These are all different 20 years down the road. And I amazed now, to see and feel the amount of energy one needs to dedicate to the startup. I had forgotten this. I'm not commenting all other aspects related to loving what you want to do, entrepreneurship capacity and persistence because I'm taking these as given. So, in short, if you have the _time_ and the _energy_, go ahead do your startup. Otherwise, go do something else.

</comment><comment><USER20> Over at 500 Startups we see a substantial number of founders and founding members who are in their 30s and 40s, and even some in their 50s and beyond.

This topic resurfaces every so often. Google will produce various articles and studies on the topic. Here's a study from HBR using Crunchbase API, LinkedIn, WSJ-

[https://hbr.org/2014/04/how-old-are-silicon-valleys-top- foun...](https://hbr.org/2014/04/how-old-are-silicon-valleys-top-founders- heres-the-data/)

<comment><AUTHOR> interesting statistics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> About 15 years ago I met a 65 year old (a founder of Adobe) who was considering "taking another run at the fence."

The term "taking another run at the fence" refers to flocks of turkeys, who are often crushed against short fences when the flock panics. They are stupid birds and don't know that they are able to fly above the fence.

For me, the considerations are:

\- Time away from family

\- Likelihood that the compensation will ultimately be crap

I can compensate for the long hours by taking care of myself, and by working smart.

</comment><comment><USER22> Certainly not. In fact during the Female Founders Conference today Jessica mentioned that there's someone in the current batch who's in their late 60's.

Assuming you don't squander your early years starting older has some advantages. When you're older you've likely built some domain expertise, have a better idea of what you want from life, and can support yourself better.

For example, I started in my late 20's. By that time I'd saved a lot of money, built steady passive income, was married (wife's career keeps her busy), and didn't have any kids. Since most other areas of my life were taken care (especially financial) of I could pour myself into my startup without worrying about raising money or runway.

That said, remember that wanting to feel "the excitement of a start-up" is the wrong reason to join or start one. Before quitting your job I'd highly recommend just starting a side project and do it for at least 6 months before making any major decisions. It's very unglamorous and odds are you won't even launch a product, which is fine. Better to learn that now than after you quit your job because 35 isn't too old to start a startup but it is too old to be unemployed.

</comment><comment><USER23> If you have the vision and the guts to make it happen you can do it at any age. BUT, think about your life situation, how adverse to risk are you? Can you put in long hours if needed with out FAMILY suffering? Mid life is a often a lot about family. I am getting close to sending my last child off to college. When I get there I am open for anything. But I know many of my kids friends better then their mother or father does. They talk to me about their problems, don't miss out on your children(s) life... No amount of money can make up for it.

</comment><comment><USER24> Definitely check out the answers to the Quora question "What do people in Silicon Valley plan to do once they are over 35?"

[https://www.quora.com/What-do-people-in-Silicon-Valley- plan-...](https://www.quora.com/What-do-people-in-Silicon-Valley-plan-to-do- once-they-are-over-35)

Lots of great examples of entrepreneurs who founded successful companies after turning 35, and includes answers from Craig Newmark (Craigslist), Reed Hastings (Netflix), Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia, Wikia), and more.

</comment><comment><USER25> The biggest challenge I find with ex-corporate mid 30s folks is their inability to reduce their personal burn and lifestyle in order to survive the startup process to succeed. The question you're asking is the wrong one. It's not how old you are. The question is, can you do without your pay, sustain your family (if you have one) and the mental stress around that, for 18-24 months before your startup becomes profitable (or you raise money).

Usually from mid 30s people, the answer is hell, no.

<comment><USER2> Actually, the answer is most commonly yes, and more so than someone in their 20's that is burdened with student debt and no experience or industry contacts. Mid-30's people have savings, assets, credit history and other funds. Plus, they potentially have a spouse to cover expenses while the startup grows. That is the best kind of investment in terms of supporting a new business.

The stats don't lie - the average founder is late 30's to early 40's. The 20-something wunderkind is a Silicon Valley thing, not reality for the rest of the country's businesses.

<comment><USER25> My answer was based on anecdotal evidence. Yes, having a supportive a spouse is key and a win for a mid 30s professional. I started my first business in my mid 30s so my peers are in this group.

From that perspective, the average founder is definitely not late 30s to early 40s. Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd... :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> No way. If anything you may be at an a significant advantage. Theirs an awesome book by Noam Wasserman "Founders Dilemmas" which puts data behind all factors of founderhood. Your experience could give you a great base of knowledge to work from.

I have been told by some that corporate experience allows you to develop good working relationships that can be used when finding co-founders as well as getting customers.

</comment><comment><USER27> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Koum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Koum)

Jan Koum started WhatsApp when he was 33. Now I'm not saying you are the next Jan Koum but I do believe it's never too late to work on something you're passionate about.

Sometimes joining an early stage startup can let you be part of that exhilarating experience so that's one idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Of course you're not too old! I highly recommend taking a vacation or simply stepping outside of your bubble first - this'll be a big part of determining product/market fit if you're trying to make something viable for the masses. At your age, it's important to have the wisdom & experience to separate fact from fiction in start-up success stories.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't even get the question. Why would a 20 year old be inherently better at running a business than a 40 year old?

</comment><comment><USER30> If you already have a stable job, find something you can do on the side for 5-10 hours a week. Wait until it seems like it's doing well to quit your regular job.

Also, it's better to bootstrap with savings than raise VC at the beginning.

</comment><comment><USER31> you should read following:

The Ray Kroc Story

"If I had a brick for every time I've repeated the phrase Quality, Service, Cleanliness and Value, I think I'd probably be able to bridge the Atlantic Ocean with them." —Ray Kroc

How do you create a restaurant business and become an overnight success at the age of 52? As Ray Kroc said, "I was an overnight success alright, but 30 years is a long, long night."

[http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/our_story/our_history/the_ray...](http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/our_story/our_history/the_ray_kroc_story.html)

You are never too old to dream! Jut work hard and you will get to where you want to be.

</comment><comment><USER32> I bet you already know if you _feel_ able to compete with people in their 20s. If the question is, will other people, for instance, investors, think that you're too old?

Two words: fuck 'em.

Signed, a 35-year old CEO.

<comment><USER2> Age of founder(s) may exclude some startups from funding in California, but elsewhere the older a founder the more competent they are usually rated. Even then, more traditional funding sources, like banks, are more likely to lend or invest in older founders because of their experience and potential assets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm 25 and I'm aiming to start my first startup when I'm 35!

In the mean time, I want to have some financial security, sort out immigration to the US, etc.

</comment><comment><USER34> Don't be distracted by the noise of the world. Focus on what matters to you and be fearless.

</comment><comment><USER35> In what way would you be competing with these 20 year olds?

</comment><comment><USER36> It is better than 36

</comment><comment><USER37> Not at all, developers usually don't really have the scope to put out great products before then < 10 years in. Some do but it is because of support networks and coding since a really early age. As an example Zuckerberg had funding and support his entire life so he was decades ahead at 20.

It takes a good 10 years of coding before you can make products from design to development to maintenance and live mode, and some good working time to understand problems that need solving.

You are actually in the prime age for entrepreneurship. Go get it.

Paul Graham and Robert Morris started Viaweb when they were 31/30 years old and sold it after a couple of years.

VCs do want younger because it is better terms/leverage ([http://business.time.com/2013/03/14/ask-the-expert-the- best-...](http://business.time.com/2013/03/14/ask-the-expert-the-best-age-for- a-start-up-founder/)) but if you have a good company/product that is investable you will get investment, or if you make a product people want, people will want it if you get it in front of them. I think the bias toward funding only young is also probably harming products differentiation.

However you can understand why VCs go younger, mainly because success of those kids is like an emerging underground band that might sell out stadiums one day. They want in earlier than other VCs or before anything of value has been created so it is under their umbrella. VCs are hipsters in that they are trying to find value before others see it.

VCs main goal is to pan for Zuckerbergs like gold upstream from the blue ocean well before the red ocean, because in 5-10 years time they might be their 1 in 10 successes needed. It is a risk they are willing to take to get potential big companies very early.

But you can build a company that makes you a success where you can create your own freedom at any age, you might do it so well you don't need investment, or it may make your company more robust and market tested because you have to bootstrap instead of seeking investment.

Great people with great products find a way.

Some links on ages of entrepreneurs:

[http://www.quora.com/What-successful-Internet- entrepreneurs-...](http://www.quora.com/What-successful-Internet- entrepreneurs-are-late-bloomers-succeeded-in-their-mid-30s-or-later)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/krisztinaholly/2014/01/15/why- gr...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/krisztinaholly/2014/01/15/why-great- entrepreneurs-are-older-than-you-think/)

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/28/peak-age- entrepreneurship/](http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/28/peak-age- entrepreneurship/)

[https://hbr.org/2014/04/how-old-are-silicon-valleys-top- foun...](https://hbr.org/2014/04/how-old-are-silicon-valleys-top-founders- heres-the-data/)

[http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/31/why-middle-aged- entreprene...](http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/31/why-middle-aged- entrepreneurs-will-be-critical-to-the-next-trillion-dollar-business/)

[https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/older- entrepreneurs-...](https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/older-entrepreneurs --the-startup-mentality-is-not-bound-by-age-000959494.html)

</comment><comment><USER38> only if you believe it is.</comment>


Call Congress today to support HR 1892, "The Unlocking Technology Act" - <AUTHOR> http://fixthedmca.org/unlocking-technology-act.html?call=1

<comment><AUTHOR> When I posted this page last week with an "email your reps" form, a lot of people commented to say that calling your representatives is much more effective than emailing.

So I scrambled around, and was eventually introduced to the folks at Call2Action, who've built a Twilio integration that makes calling really easy. It took a couple of all-nighters (mostly because I redesigned the entire site), but the page now has a number that you can dial that'll request your zip code and then connect you to talk to your representatives.

At the moment, the leading bill in Congress on this issue is the "Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act." That bill is proposed by the heads of the judiciary committee. It does absolutely nothing to correct the problems with Section 1201 of the DMCA; instead it simply reverses the Librarian of Congress's removal of the unlocking exemption. The problem is that those exemptions only cover personal acts of circumvention, and not the tools and services needed to make it happen. I'd be willing to bet that even here on HN, very few of us have the skills to unlock a smartphone from scratch. For unlocking software to exist, it needs to be feasible for developers to invest time in building those tools.

The "Unlocking Technology Act" would not only make tools and services legal, but would amend the DMCA to make circumvention of "technological protection measures" legal as long as the purpose isn't piracy. That'd cover unlocking, jailbreaking, modding game consoles, but also it'd enable removing DRM for "fair use." For example, it'd make it significantly easier for documentary filmmakers, teachers, archivists and remix artists to access content for use in the course of there day to day work. And it would prevent security researchers from being threatened under the DMCA when they try and publish research about DRM.

This has become a bit of a personal project for me while I'm between startups, and I'd really appreciate you taking the time to support it.

 __tl;dr Please take a few minutes today and call - this bill deserves our support. __

<comment><USER2> That's really cool how you got the phone stuff working!

What do you instead about having the user enter their own phone number and zip code on the site and click submit. Then twilio calls the rep and the user? That way the user doesn't have to even dial.

<comment><USER3> I'm not totally sure, but I think it's helpful if the call comes from a local area code. But, many of us have legacy area codes from places we lived 10-15 years ago, so it may not matter too much.

<comment><USER4> Relevant XKCD: <http://xkcd.com/1129/>

In all seriousness, though, calling from a local area code _does_ make a huge difference.

If you don't have a local phone number for some reason (recently moved, etc.), then you can still call and identify yourself by name and say that you're a constituent (note: say "constituent", _not_ "voter").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bill Text for 113th Congress (2013-2014) H.R.1892.IH [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1892ih/pdf/BILLS-113...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1892ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr1892ih.pdf) [pdf]

</comment><comment><USER6> The system worked flawlessly for me, and hitting * to automatically connect to the next representative or senator saved a ton of time. Great work!

</comment><comment><USER7> Called. Thanks for putting this together! Slick experience.

I had some complaints that I was hard to hear; not sure if that was Twilio or that I was calling through Google Voice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for calling!

If anyone else has call quality problems, please let me know.

<comment><USER8> Do you have analytics? How is the response?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I started talking about supporting the bill and the lady answering the phone (for Nancy Pelosi) rather abruptly switched me to the dedicated voicemail system for these types of calls. I was expecting her to listen to it, but I guess this would more efficient.

<comment><USER10> I was surprised to reach real people on the other end of the line, and for the sake of brevity shortened my message to say that I was a voter and business owner in the area that wished to voice support for H.R. 1892, and would appreciate said representative's support as well.

Big ups for helping me get off my ass and pick up the phone. It feels empowering.

<comment><USER11> The one actual person I got was nice and listened to me, even though they knew nothing about the issue at all. Everyone else dumps you to a full voicemail box, which is pretty sad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Done! Thanks.</comment>


Ask HN: What is your immigration story? - <AUTHOR> I'm interested in immigrating for work and I've been reading many people's stories. I was curious what kind of immigration stories HN would have. <comment><USER2> Not sure if this is the kind of story you're looking for but here goes...

I immigrated for a change of life. I moved from Canada to Europe, and as a developer was able to find a job before I even landed here.

My gf and I decided to travel for a couple weeks before we officially landed in the new city, and went all over Levant, and as we were staying in a place on our trip, I had calls already with recruiters that found me via LinkedIn. I had set myself to residing in the new city before I left.

When we did finish our trip I had an interview lined up and I ended up hired. Canada luckily has a work holiday visa with this country so it was easy for me to get one of those and not be forced to work only for one sponsor company for my visa.

It has been really great and refreshing doing this and a fun change of pace.

Recently, we decided to start to become digital nomads and have no permanent home, at least for a while. We spent the last year getting side gigs with clients and trying to get involved more in the world of freelancing and remote working so that we could travel anywhere in the world and work. So I suppose our immigration story is not over yet.

Again, maybe not the kind of story you're looking for but I thought I'd share.</comment>


Ask HN: CS and programming books of 2017 - <AUTHOR> Which CS/Programming related book(s) that were released in 2017 would you suggest?<p>Last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15878575 <comment><AUTHOR> woops this was supposed to be 2018 oh well I give up</comment>


Elements Of A Viral Launch Page - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/09/01/elements-of-a-viral-launch-page/ <comment><USER2> Any other things that people have done to create a lot of buzz prelaunch?</comment>


Why Bitcoin is Stupid - <AUTHOR> http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/01/02/why-bitcoin-is-stupid/ <comment><USER2> Some great links in that post:

[https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/09/01/the-bear-case-for- crypto...](https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/09/01/the-bear-case-for-crypto/) \- The Bear Case for Crypto

[https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/](https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/) \- The Problem with Calling Bitcoin a "Ponzi Scheme"

Answer: it's actually a hybrid Ponzi scheme and Pyrmaid scheme with all the strengths and none of the weaknesses of either (weakness in terms of getting caught and blamed when the house of cards comes crashing down).

[https://medium.com/@yobanjo/ethereum-wont-scale-like-you- ve-...](https://medium.com/@yobanjo/ethereum-wont-scale-like-you-ve-been-told- cae445bef539) \- Ethereum won't scale like you've been told</comment>


Foursquare app helps you find a place near you where you can pee for free  - <AUTHOR> http://foursquare.com/app/peefree

<comment><USER2> A coworker once came up to me with their million dollar iPhone idea, and I had to tell her it had already been invented by George Costanza. Then we found <http://www.sitorsquat.com/> after 2 minutes of Google research and she was severely disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yet another new technology that would have ruined the plot of any Seinfeld episode. Like the cell phone, for example...

</comment><comment><USER4> Isn't this George Costanza's idea?

<comment><USER5> It's funny you would say that. In my Intro to Software Engineering class my team basically built this (location-based restroom finder with ratings etc.)

George Constanza was my inspiration haha.

We called it "Poopt" though.

<comment><AUTHOR> poopt is a great name!

<comment><USER6> Already taken :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> free AND legal

lots of places to pee, not all legal or with privacy

useful app idea

</comment><comment><USER8> You see, foursquare _can_ be useful.

</comment><comment><USER9> I am glad that most American suburbs have free public restrooms. I am also glad that I live in those suburbs.

<comment><USER10> Kinda what I was thinking (and I don't even live in a suburb). Where are there businesses serving the public but yet no public restrooms?

<comment><USER11> I am currently in Paris and based on this city (for sure!) and actually a lot of my other international experiences: it seems to be a uniquely American idea that the public sometimes has human needs.

I say that kind of tongue in cheek, but to prevent every European from flaming me: I really _am_ trying to understand what the alternative is that other countries are practicing. Drink less? More stamina? Or, as in Sydney: just find a convenient wall?

<comment><USER12> In Amsterdam I remember some interesting iron outdoor urinals. In Munich (I think) there were these futuristic pee-daleks that would arise from the ground at night, in one of the squares. I could be mixing up Munich and Amsterdam, it was about 10 years ago.

In Tokyo, the salaryman just pee directly on the street - in unison, while singing. In San Francisco people also pee on the street, or on the wall, or on your car, or next to the poo they left on the bike rack. NYC is a challenge, but Starbucks is usually a good bet during the daytime. At night, most bars won't notice if you just use the restroom if they are sufficiently busy (but not _too_ busy). As far as I can tell, the entire world sucks for finding a restroom if you are a woman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "web2.0" is really a revolution! ;)</comment>