Android Tablets Still Suck, And Google's Running Out Of Time To Fix Them - <AUTHOR> http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/06/19/android-tablets-still-suck-and-googles-running-out-of-time-to-fix-them/

<comment><USER2> It seems like this article could be written for tablets in general.

I own a Xoom, and bought it for two things: reading PDF files, because my it's far superior to my e-reader, and web browsing when it's inconvenient to hold my laptop (read: bed). Because, let's be honest, doing serious browsing on your phone isn't ideal. That's it. And for those purposes it's brilliant.

I'm not sure how owning an iPad would change anything. I own a desktop with a dual monitor setup for serious work. It's got a comfy desk and comfy chair, and I like it. For work on the go, I've got my Macbook Air, which fits just as easily as a tablet in any bag I carry.

Tablets are a niche product. Thanks to the Apple marketing machine, some people started thinking, "Why do I need laptop? I'll just get an iPad". And those people are niche; if you can replace all of your computing with an iPad, then you may as well be using just a phone. If you've got a desktop, laptop, tablet and phone (like me), you're a tech geek, and the tablet is a toy.

> _"The Google Music app is ugly, barren of any useful features"_

It has the one feature I need: it plays music.

<comment><USER3> I disagree completely. I wrote this comment about a year ago and it's still true today. A few details have obviously changed, but I still love my iPad 2 and use it several hours per day. Here's the comment:

"The iPad is a tool and toy you might not need, but if used to the max it'll probably enhance your life in some noticable way.

Every single morning, while sipping coffee and waiting for my omelette to finish cooking, I catch up on the latest news through Reeder, the first RSS reader I've actually enjoyed using. I also check my mail to see if there's anything important I need to respond to right away.

When I'm finished eating and catching up to the latest news, I grab my iPad and go upstairs for my exercize. While doing strenght training I use my iPad to quickly make a note of how many reps and how much I lifted. After I'm done with my strength training, I take a run either outside or on my threadmill. If I take the run on the threadmill, I'll use the iPad for watching a video, maybe South Park or TED.

After I've showered, groomed, brushed my teeth and flossed, it's time to start working. When I work my iPad is always lying on the desk next to my laptop. I use it for:

* Displaying my ToDo-list (the Hit List)

* Displaying the email I'm working on.

* Displaying some relevant notes to the work I'm doing (Evernote).

* Displaying a PDF or website containing documentation to what I'm working on.

* As an extra screen (AirDisplay) for Photoshop tool pads and similar.

* VNC or SSH to another computer

* The occational check of HN, Twitter or Facebook.

* Calculator

* Calendar (Week Cal HD)

Yup, everything I've mentioned could be done on a normal laptop. However, it's incredibly useful to have an extra screen for displaying relevant information that'll never be obscured by application windows covering the information.

After I'm satisfied with my work for the day, I might hang out with my friends, perhaps take a picnic in the park. My iPad is always accessible in my manpurse. If a customer has an emergency problem, I can quickly and easily log into their server and fix the problem (Textastic/Prompt). If I get a brilliant idea, I'll note it down in Evernote and analyse it with the Business Model app. Maybe I want to think deeply about my business - I'll just open Dropbox and read through some business documents about future plans or surf on some of my competitor's sites through Mercury Browser.

When I'm back home I might do some more work or chill out with some games. Perhaps I'll open Rage HD and have one of the most immersive and physically exhausting gaming experiences possible through the Virtual Window control mode.

Right before I go to bed, I write in my diary (Day One) and finish my TODO- list for tomorrow."

<comment><USER2> Right, and nearly everything on your list can be done either more efficiently or cheaper with a phone and laptop with an external monitor. We both understand that; the tablet is a luxury. That's sort of my point: you haven't replaced any devices, you merely added another one in. Not every wants (or can afford) that excess, and the tablet isn't good enough on its own.

> _"Perhaps I'll open Rage HD and have one of the most immersive and > physically exhausting gaming experiences possible"_

That's a slight exaggeration! If you are at all serious about gaming, the iPad isn't even in the conversation. Again, it's pointing to the iPad and telling me how awesome it is at something, but then having to qualify that statement because it isn't as good/cheap/efficient for that purpose as a device _I already own_.

<comment><USER4> > and nearly everything on your list can be done either more efficiently or > cheaper with a phone and laptop with an external monitor

He likes the rich quality of apps (Reeder the first RSS reader he likes, Day One, etc.) and he is obviously carrying it around.. A LOT. And notice the way he's using it, like while sipping coffee, while exercising, etc. I don't know about you but I would rather have a tablet than carry a laptop (even a 11 inch MacBook Air, that's super light, small, and if you only put it to sleep no boot time) all over the place. We are not even talking about the apps (both in terms of quality of apps and the variety) that make things much easier and pleasant. You could more efficiently (by some measures) and more cheaply do all of what he does WITHOUT ANY COMPUTING DEVICE. But is that the point?

> haven't replaced any devices... and the tablet isn't good enough on its own

Did your cellphone replace your landline? Did your computer replace your calculator?

> the tablet is a luxury

Pretty much everything in the First World is a luxury. Visit Africa and you'll realize that. Visit the poor streets of India and you'll realize that. Anything that's beyond your basic needs is by definition luxury.

<comment><USER2> Are we having a battle of anecdotes? I have my own experience owning all of the devices. I'm not biased against my tablet, I'm telling you my experience with owning one and how I use it.

> _"And notice the way he's using it, like while sipping coffee, while > exercising"_

I'm sipping coffee at my desktop right now. And I sip coffee with my laptop ALL the time. Exercising? Well, I think it's ridiculous you'd carry a tablet rather than a phone.

> _"We are not even talking about the apps (both in terms of quality of apps > and the variety) that make things much easier and pleasant."_

No, we're not, because I disagree. A laptop with Windows 7 is going to make far more things "easier and pleasant" in the real world. Once again, what can your laptop do that the iPad can't? Lots. What can the tablet do that the laptop can't? Nothing. It's just easier to hold.

> _"Did your cellphone replace your landline?"_

Yes, it did. For me, my mother, father, sister and almost everyone I know under 30.

> _"Did your computer replace your calculator?"_

Uh, it most certainly did. If I need to do some basic arithmetic, I'm using Excel, or a calculator on my phone.

> _"Pretty much everything in the First World is a luxury. Visit Africa and > you'll realize that."_

That's one hair away from Godwin's Law. Yeah, you're right. Everything I have is a luxury compared to some poor sucker in Africa. Thanks for pointing that out.

It's like you're trying to convince me that I should be using a tablet more. I own them all, and I use whatever tool is most convenient. The tablet is only ever my "go to" device in very specific cases that I've mentioned. I like it, I'm not selling it, but it's not overly useful. It wouldn't affect my productivity in any way if it disappeared tomorrow. And, to bring it full circle to the original article, it isn't because it's an Android instead of an Apple; it's because tablets just aren't that advantageous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Controversial topic with a linkbait headline, I'm assuming the site needed some hits. My understanding is he thinks an entire niche industry should just give up because of his personal preferences? This is a badly written opinion piece that's too easily discounted. He does makes some interesting points in his ranting but overall his article makes little sense.

I can do it too, I have a Galaxy Tab 2 and absolutely love it, therefore if you don't have one then you're stupid and your tablet sucks. The fact that you might actually love your tablet for reasons different than why I love mine means nothing in my attempt to publicize my ego.

<comment><USER6> Admittedly, he's relying on anecdotal evidence, but the conclusions he reaches don't strike me as unreasonable, and if the lackluster sales of Android tables are any indication, his experience is more likely to be generalizable than yours.

Also, I don't think he ever argues that anyone should give up (where are you getting that?). Rather, he suggests that Google should get their asses in gear and improve their offerings on a few specific fronts if they hope to compete with Apple and MS.

<comment><USER5> Ok, here are my thoughts on how I break down the article.

The intro and first section have nothing to do with anything other than his own personal preferences. He doesn't use his tablet that often so he's assuming others have the same experience. But then he talks so highly of the iPad as if the experience with it is simply better only because it's an iPad. Doesn't it seem likely that the possibly experience he describes for an Android tablet can possibly be the same with iPad? With him apparently it is not. The iPad is better because he seems to think it is. Somehow it's just better with little or no evidence as to what he's talking about. He uses his phone more than his tablet. So what? Seems to me he bought something he didn't want or need.

By the way, I like the iPad but I'll never buy one. Why? Personal preference. I don't even have to say that the iPad and iTunes have problems that Apple really needs to work on or Google/Microsoft will take over the market.

In the second section he does make some good points as to why the iPad is so successful but he couldn't help but toss in his own opinion yet again about the Android tablets. Android bad, iPad good. We get it already. The only real reason he gives for Android falling behind is that Google is late to the game with content, which no one disputes. But then he goes right back into tossing out his personal preferences as if it matters. He apparently likes iTunes over what Google offers. That's nice; nice for him. I, for one, have little problems with how I get content for my Android tablet. My opinion in the matter has as much weight as his. In an attempt to prove his point about design preferences he links to another article complaining about the Play Store that also happens to be on the same site. I didn't bother going there because I'm sure it's more iPad good, Android bad, because, well, because of a "I think so" attitude. But then again I didn't read it so I could be wrong.

Concerning content, I notice he didn't bring up Amazon's Kindle Fire which directly addresses this issue. From what I understand the Kindle Fire is a big seller but I guess that's not an Android device anymore?

Then when he finally gets to the real issue he blames the wrong people. Adoption rates are low for upgrading Android to the latest version is because of the hardware vendors, not Google. That's the core of the problem with this article. Comparing Android tablets with the iPad is not the same as comparing Apple to Google. It's the same mistake too many people make with comparing Apple to Microsoft when what they're really doing is comparing Mac to PC, it is not the same thing. Why do I think Apple is so successful with the iPad? Because they are damn good at creating devices and marketing them. Google is a freaking search engine company that sells ads. Do we not see the difference here?

He talks about the lack of Android tablet specific apps. But he himself describes why this is. Why make a tablet specific app for Android when so many of the phones and tablets are not that different in the first place? There's not much difference between a 4.5" phone screen and a 7" tablet screen (which I'm guessing a large number of Android tablets sold are) so it becomes more of a fragmentation issue of hardware features not relating to the screen. So far there is a significant difference between an iPhone and an iPad that many apps probably do need a tablet version. Plus that 225,000 number for iPad apps is just marketing talk. Quantity does not equal quality.

Also, him stating that a phone app will always look like a phone app on a tablet is yet another personal preference. I have apps on both my phone and tablet that is the same version and I have no problem with that whatsoever. Again, it's an opinion but I admit it's biased because I have a 7" tablet. A 10" tablet would probably be an issue, which it is with the iPad.

Android developers don't make money from people paying for apps. So what? Developers don't get to dictate terms in how they make money in any given market. Just because one market hands out cash like crazy doesn't mean they all will. If you want to be in a market then you go by what that market wants. If that means $4.99 on iTunes and free with ads on Android then so be it. I've also seen complaints lately that the iOS platform is not the cash cow it used to be. Factors involving people paying out less and just the sheer amount of competition is the usual. Granted, I've only read this so it's no different a comment than what he's making about the Android market.

Then there's the Surface tablet. A tablet that we know next to nothing about but he's already practically labeling it an Android killer. It might be, it might not. We don't know and won't know for a while. But his personal opinion has kicked in again and this barely existing product is a winner to him. I personally will wait until I can get my hands on one.

I don't agree with his conclusion simply because I feel he doesn't fully understand what Android is and what it means. He only focuses on tablets and I say that tablets are a niche market in the Android ecosystem. Not everybody who wants or needs Android wants or needs a tablet. Until recently Android has been about phones, high and low end. It has been about spreading a free and/or low-cost OS to multiple devices. I don't seen anybody making a cheap $50 computer for emerging markets running iOS, they are using Android. His conclusion assumes that Google can or will do anything about tablets. I say they don't need to, Android is doing exactly what Google has always wanted; to spread like crazy. Most of his complaints are nothing for Google to care about, that's for the individual companies that are creating these tablets to worry over. At least in the final paragraph he finally admits the current state of Android tablets have very little to do with Google itself. But if he admits that then what's the point of the article in the first place?

Where do I get the "give up" part? His second to last paragraph screams give up to me. But, my interpretation.

As I said, I own a Galaxy Tab 2 and I absolutely love it. I use this device every day for various things and it meets my expectations just fine. I also still use my Android phone and I fail to see the problem with that.

In the end, this is just my opinion but I admit to that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Uhm, I'm not sure if this guy is serious. (Shitty anecdote time) None of the iPad owners I know (maybe 20ish?) were iPad bound because of their existing iTunes content. The Android (Tablet and phone IMO) problem has been, so far, Hardware. (Shitty anecdote #2) Every person I know that switched from Anndroid -> iPhone did so because of repeated catastrophic HW failures of the android devices. That point aside, all of the new "best ever" android tablets leave me coming away feeling like the hardware is just not very good (Maybe "Well made" is a better word). I understand the devices are "faster" and have more memory. However, when a consumer gives one of these android tablets a look see they always feel kinda crappy.

I'm probably a unique user in that I think iOS makes for a better phone and Android makes for a better tablet. Sadly, none of the Android tablet HW has been good enough to make me switch. I'm interested in the new MS tablet though; Looks like it has a "substantial" build.

<comment><USER8> I can totally understand his point about iTunes content. I bought an iPad for my wife at first, with teaching purposes in mind (she teaches Japanese language). After a while, I recognized how great it is for consuming media. Nowadays we rent / stream all kinds of video content on it, often beamed to the big screen. It's even great for your homebrew video server, using the rock solid airvideo app. Once you've used it like an interactive remote for your big screen, it becomes clear how much better this is compared to other streaming solutions with clunky interfaces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't think the issues for Android tablets are easily fixed and go deeper than this article. There are two major problems I see:

1\. Tablets, for now, are perceived as a third device which means that it's mostly for people who can afford it. Since Apple absolutely dominates high-end purchases it is far more likely that the iPad will be successful. It's a big problem for Android in that the app ecosystem for iPad will continue to mature while Android remains stagnant.

2\. Price. The iPad doesn't have the high-priced subsidies like the iPhone. It also seems as if the Apple is willing to sacrifice on margins with the iPad to make it difficult for Android tablets to have lower price points. When they do, there is a visible lack of build quality.

I don't think MS is much of a concern at this point since it is vaporware and much of the Surface press conference had more to do with legacy support of the PC than anything else.

<comment><USER10> Apple is making about a 50% margin on iPads. They're not sacrificing margin for market share based on price, I'm pretty sure Apple is pretty opposed to this sort of strategy. The advantage they have for pricing is in their manufacturing and supply chain management. They're actually able to produce better quality hardware for cheaper then their competitors in the Android space (and for that matter the Windows 8 space as well).

[http://www.techspot.com/news/47738-apples-profit-margin- slig...](http://www.techspot.com/news/47738-apples-profit-margin-slightly- slimmer-on-ipad-3-estimates-reveal.html)

<comment><USER9> I don't think it's anywhere close to that considering that is just the cost for the bill of materials and it doesn't take into account the cost of assembly, shipping, marketing and research & development.

<comment><USER10> Last I heard the actual manufacturing cost was about $10 [1] marketing and R&D are pretty much fixed costs and don't really work well in accounting for per- unit margins. At the end of the day there's still no indication that Apple is sacrificing margin for market share.

[1] [http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/16/high_cost_of_n...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/16/high_cost_of_new_ipad_components_drive_down_profit_margins.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have an iPhone, iPad, and 13" MacBook Air. Each device fits a very specific use profile and has a place in my particular lifestyle. This is by _design_.

Android phone and tablet manufacturers are busy destroying the ecosystem by having a wide array of sizes and capabilities.

Android phones are increasingly cannibalizing the Android tablet market.

And Android tablets are, for some unknown reason, trying to shrink down to phone size (see the rise of ~7 inch tablets).

Leading to a confusing mess of 3.5-5.3 inch phones and 7-12 inch tablets. Eventually there's going to be a blend of devices straight thru 3.5 - 10".

And since we as developers know the android fragmentation problem is very real (I used to develop android apps for two years), it's going to produce a downward spiral of app quality as developers focus on certain form factors to the detriment of others.

Say what you will about Apple's "openness", but Apple's insistance on maintaining distinct product positions has absolutely proven itself in the market. Android's ecosystem is a disaster.

<comment><USER12> Sure, fragmentation is bad, when you compare it to a monoculture like iOS. However, PCs managed to thrive just fine for decades, and I'm sure Android will do just fine as well.

TVs and washing machines and refrigerators and watches are starting to run their own operating systems. Which OS do you see your TV running? Because I'm pretty sure they'll all be running Android soon.

<comment><USER13> Did Microsoft allow hardware companies to customize the OS interface? Did Microsoft assign hardware companies the responsibility of delivering OS updates to users? Did Microsoft let hardware companies ship 2-3-4 year old versions of Windows with new hardware?

The Android == Windows analogy is a faulty one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm still pretty shocked at how everyone and their grandma is trying to elbow their way into the tablet market. They don't understand that there _is no_ tablet market. There's only an iPad market.

The iPad wins because Apple is able to pull off a truly beautiful interface (and I mean truly beautiful, not beautiful in "marketing term of the week" sense that it's being used in these days) that's consistent with the iPhone, a sexy display and overall presentation, and the very high quality of apps in the marketplace. The magical Apple brand lust doesn't hurt either.

Generic tablets won't win because nobody ever thought to themselves, "Even though I have a powerful smartphone in my pocket and a powerful laptop at my desk, I feel the indescribable urge to have a third device that's very expensive, isn't as good as either one, and that I can't fit in my pocket."

I never bought a tablet because after toying with an iPad and some random Android tablet I realized I would never use it in real life. All of my friends who have iPads or Android tablets say the same; they play with them once or twice a week, but otherwise they gather dust at the expense of smartphones and laptops.

Everyone wants to copy Apple and make billions, but they just don't get it that people don't care about tablets. They only care about iPads, and that kind of brand loyalty isn't something you can copy.

<comment><USER15> The one area where tablets beat all other devices is reading digital comics. The screen size and resolution are just right. The touch interface is just right.

For just about any activity I can think of, tablets are second-best at best (reading eBooks, watching movies, web browsing), but for digital comics it really is the best way to do it.

<comment><USER16> Apparently, people do not like walking around all day round with all those best of breed devices (a eBook reader, a full-size cinema, and a desktop PC with three 30" monitors) and/or cannot afford to.

I think smartphones are in the same situation: those sub-optimal tablets beat them for reading eBooks, watching movies, web browsing. One could even argue smartphones aren't even best of class for making phone calls. Yet, almost everybody owns one.

From tablet sales, it looks like people want to sacrifice some portability to get a 'big screen smartphone' in exchange for that bigger screen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So the problem with his argument is he bases his thesis off of a false premis. He doesn't use his tablet because he uses either his phone of laptop and he can't find a place to fit his tablet into his workflow. I have competly dropped my laptop and replaced it with the same tablet he has ( A Transformer Prime ). So when he said how often do I reach for it the answer is daily.

His second point about how the iPad fills the video player role in the apple ecosystem is a little disingenuous. Yes if I am an iTunes customer then obviously I am going to need to use Apples hardware to use what I paid for, however in terms of video playback capabilities the Android systems are so much better mainly due to third party video players and the availability of UPnP. so while you might be able to pre-order the newest movies I have decades of digitized DVD's that I would like to watch on my couch using a tablet that my prime plays just fine .

<comment><USER18> > however in terms of video playback capabilities the Android systems are so > much better mainly due to third party video players and the availability of > UPnP

You... you realise that there are third party apps for the iPad, right?

For what it's worth, there are indeed many third party video players for iOS, and software to fulfil both sides of the UPnP relationship.

<comment><USER17> And they cost how much on top of an already higher priced system ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I dunno, i use my galaxy tab every day. Typing this from it now, in fact. I wasn't even sure what I'd use it for when I first got it but I've really come to love it. It's become a solid part of my daily routine, completely replacing my laptop for any task that involves mostly reading, foremost my browsing/news habit during breakfast :-)

I really was skeptical about the role of tablet computing at first, but I have to admit, I'm pretty much sold on it now.

<comment><USER20> I think that's what most people will say. Perhaps some well placed tablet giveaways are in order.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have an Asus Transformer 101 and my wife has an iPad, we both use them in the evenings for Facebook-ing, email, games etc. and I don't see the difference. I also use mine for some music apps which are pretty much unusable on my HTC Desire (which is also painfully slow). All that happens is that sometimes my wife has to ask to borrow mine so she can view some website that uses flash.

It seems the article overplays it's basic premise by making assumptions about what people use a tablet for, and then makes far-reaching claims based on this. It doesn't fit with my own personal experience, which is fine, but then it seems the article's author is basing most of their argument on their own personal views rather than any evidence also.

</comment><comment><USER22> I use my iPad less frequently than the author of this article. I use a combination of my Macbook Air 11" and my Nexus S. It works fine for me.

The only things I ever use my iPad for are games and air travel. I rarely check my email on my computer anymore, so good is the experience on my Phone.

The problem I have with this article is that I suspect that the author would feel the same if he had an iPad, but he wouldn't have written this article.

<comment><USER23> I can see that checking your email would be fine on a tablet or phone, but composing an email must be something of a nightmare?

<comment><USER24> That's what I thought. However, I like the keyboard on my iPad. For 5 line emails, it is absolutely fine for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The author seems to ignore non-US markets, where Android tablets do sell quite nicely. The same markets that don't have access to Hulu or Netflix. I get daily flyers in my mailbox that are trying to convince me to buy yet another Android tablet (from manufacturers that I've never heard of). And those tablets are fine for browsing, email, games, youtube and playing movies from home NAS.

Regarding ms office: myself and most of everone I know around me (regular people with regular jobs) have no need for it. In fact, many have already switched to open office (at home and at work). So I don't see how Microsoft is a big threat because of perceived productivity gains from office being available on surface tablets. Make no mistake, the threat is real, but not for the reason author states.

</comment><comment><USER26> "This is far and away the most common substantive argument levied against Android tablets: the tablet-friendly app selection sucks. And make no mistake, it does."

Bleh. I have had zero issue finding tablet apps on Android. Within the last half year, anyway -- it did use to be a problem when Honeycomb had just come out, but around the time devs started updating their apps for ICS/Holo, the selection started growing greatly. At this point, I think maybe three of the apps I use don't have tablet UIs, and only one is any worse for wear over it (Steam).

</comment><comment><USER27> I think this article misses it for me. He's almost there.

yes I had an iPod and an iPhone first, but I never use my iPad for iTunes media. I listen to podcasts and music on my Phone. My wife and kids use the iPad every day and never for iTunes. They use it for web browsing, games and edutainment like Bobo Explores Light, or interactive books. At bedtime I sometimes read stories to the kids from free eBooks, such as the Just So Stories and let them take turns turning the pages.

For us it really is the apps. When the iPad came out, from day one there were garage band and pages to show what it was capable of and a bunch of other apps, plus every iPhone app on the planet worked fine. Skype, if only in emulation mode, was a huge deal for us. I actually waited for the iPad2, so there were a raft of excellent creative apps and games available for us from day one.

I read comics on it, read and look up stuff in PDFs (I'm an old-skool tabletop roleplayer) and I'm learning Lua using Codea. Apps, apps, apps.

</comment><comment><USER28> I wanted to address his third point, productivity. Android is sorely lacking in productivity apps, and some enterprise technologies (Cisco IPSec VPN). Unfortunately, while the iPad is improving, its still pretty weak in that area. Of the 225k iPad specific apps, there are only a handful that try to replicate the complexity of a desktop app. Most apps aren't that ambitious. Omnigroup deserves special recognition--OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, OmniPlan, and OmniFocus, are full scale applications. Apple, of course, has the iWork apps plus iMovie and iPhoto. And there are some others--Diet Coda, Photoshop Touch, etc.

</comment><comment><USER29> I have a Galaxy Tab that I use every day around the house. --For simple web browsing in front of the TV or in bed, playing music, simple games, reading PDFs away from my computer, and occasionally for pleasure reading (usually I prefer using the Kindle).

And if Safari Books Online would get off their asses and release their damn android app, I would use it even more often (their mobile site is crap on an android).

</comment><comment><USER30> What I want is an Ubuntu tablet, with a nice, fat, open, well-run App Store. All developer tools onboard, no limits to what we can do. Multitouch. Audio/Video working and great. Nice screen, working power management.

A wide open platform.

Any tablet that gives that, is going to get my bucks. I am stepping off the Apple ride, and want 100%, totally open source, working hardware.

It'll happen ..

</comment><comment><USER31> So to sum up the morning:

1\. OP doesn't use his Android tablet, therefore Android tablets suck and they'll die if they don't "fix" it soon.

2\. Cue HN opinion war, as a community representing the minority use cases opines about market prospects based on what they think the "average" person appreciates in a tablet.

3\. Degenerate into a fanboy flame war while the rest of us get on with our day.

</comment><comment><USER32> I just sent my kids on a plane to visit the grandparents in Texas. She got the iPad and he got the Touchpad running the latest CyanogenMod 9 nightly (ICS 4.0.4). They were indifferent.

</comment><comment><USER33> I also have a Galaxy tablet, and had an iPad before. As best I can tell, there's no real substantive difference between them in my usage. Both are good, portable sources of Netflix.

</comment><comment><USER34> Android is a market and market would always suck if you're not a buyer.

My first tablet I bought was Android and without reading the article I can tell that Android OS sucks.

</comment><comment><USER35> The Surface has a _kickstand_. I'm sorry, but that's not what I'd call a design advance over either the iPad or any Android tablet.

<comment><USER36> Judging from the number of tablet users I see on the train using cases with kickstands, that does actually seem quite nice.

<comment><USER35> I'm not sure I understand. They're balancing a tablet on their lap with a kickstand? How is that sleek, well-designed, or convenient?

<comment><USER36> Every train around here has seat back fold down tables.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Good lord, a mobile-OS review article that is honest, unbiased and stays away from tribalism! Bravo, sir!

</comment><comment><USER38> I do not like Android tablets for the simple reason that the web browsing experience on them is sub par. In my mind a tablet is a luxury item that sits on a coffee table and answers my questions of "what movie was that actor in?" or "who's leading the AL Central?" whenever I want, without any fuss. The iPad is very good at this, while every Android _device_ I've ever used has not been.

<comment><USER39> What are your specific complaints? I own an iPad 3rd gen and an A500 running ICS. The iPad has an excellent browser, but so does ICS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I appreciate the portability part of the article. For me an iPad is too large. The Playbook looks like a better size. I'm hoping that the new Google tablet betters the existing offerings.</comment>


AI Is Here to Make Developers' Jobs Easier - <AUTHOR> https://www.7pace.com/blog/ai-software-development <comment><USER2> (... and to replace most of them)

<comment><USER3> automation is coming for all jobs, most people forget that it comes for developers first

<comment><USER4> Automation is older than you give it credit for and has made many jobs obsolete already.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nothing really specific to developers in the article, more a future of work / AI speculation and predictions for tools / processes used in teams

</comment><comment><USER6> COBOL is so easy, you will not need programmers.</comment>


Google Wallet: Send money via text message - <AUTHOR> http://googlecommerce.blogspot.com/2015/12/send-money-to-anyone-in-your-contact-list.html <comment><USER2> Congratulations America we just caught up with Kenya circa 2007!

<comment><USER3> This is so wrong. Google Wallet is riding on the credit card rails. In Kenya, where the card networks are virtually non existent, the telecom companies stepped in as the network. And last time I checked, in Kenya, you can only send money to those on the same network as you.

<comment><USER4> This is so wrong. The title was _send money with a text message_. Regardless of the limitations of M-Pesa, over $25B in value was transferred with it last year, which indicates to me that it's useful and functional, regardless of what you are saying about credit card "rails".

<comment><USER5> >over $25B in value was transferred with it last year

...Which is attributed to being the first-to-market payment system for Kenya, as the person before you was describing. U.S. and Kenya merchant markets are still an apples to oranges comparison.

<comment><USER6> Sending and receiving "money" within the same network is fairly trivial from a technological point of view but once you tell customers that it is "money" that they can technically convert to and from cash, I imagine there are significant bureaucratic hoops to jump through, at least in the US. I bet even something as seemingly simple as Chase QuickPay is actually pretty complicated to implement (step one probably being: be a bank)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My concern would be getting a link that I am supposed to follow where I input my debit card number. Can someone explain how I know that text message -- which can be sent by anyone to me -- has a valid link to money? I would be extremely suspicous if I got a message saying "Hey its Peter, I can pay you back for $THING, just follow <link> and enter your debit card number to recieve $AMOUNT right now"

<comment><USER8> I'd assume <link> is a google.com domain, which one could, in theory, trust. The page, on the trusted domain, would also clearly state the same information, "enter your debit card number to receive $AMOUNT from $PERSON (and profile pic probably) for $THING

<comment><USER9> You're right, but the average person isn't very discriminating or very able to keep track of who can and cannot be trusted, so I would expect problems to occur.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sounds similar to Square's Cash, exploiting an ACH trick. Except setting up Cash for sending is magnitudes easier then setting up Wallet.

<comment><USER11> You don't need an account of any kind if you are the receiver here. You just put in a debit card and you get the money.

So it's easier for the receiver but still requires a Wallet account for the sender.

All that's left is to do this exact same thing but in reverse. Let a GW user send a secure REQUEST link that only requires card information to pay.

<comment><USER12> How does GW know where to deposit the money based on a Debit Card?

Im assuming the Debit card can trace back to the routing / checking account number associated with the checking account.

<comment><USER11> It uses a reverse ACH trick. It's like charging the debit card, but in reverse. It's also why it's nearly instantaneous.

Square's Cash app does the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> And of course, 'anyone' covers around 5% of the world.

<comment><USER14> Ok, we took 'anyone' out of the title above.

<comment><USER15> Maybe this issue needs to be addressed in the whole startup culture.

A lot of startups don't even consider the fact that there might be people living outside the US, neither in products nor in PR material.

<comment><USER16> Seconded. Look at the comments here briefly: ACH? That's US-only. Debit card? That's first and second-world only. No discussion of the political or engineering implications of any of the options discussed. No discussion of opening hours, transfer reliability, best and worst case transfer latency, maximum value cap, legal framework for dispute resolution, etc. No discussion of what is probably the biggest recent development in the sector: Europe's IBAN (now live in many non-EU/SEPA locations). The picture is clear. (PS. If anyone needs a global perspective on business and consumer finance, tap me on the shoulder)

<comment><USER15> Indeed.

Not even Google manages to handle anything except for credit cards or PayPal – horrible.

I was thinking about writing a small JS IBAN verification lib that also format and shows the user the issuing institute and Country.

<comment><USER16> Cool. Pro-tip: Use the actually machine-parseable version I maintain at [https://code.google.com/p/php-iban/](https://code.google.com/p/php-iban/) ... the officially issued text and PDF versions differ and the text version often has inconsistent formatting to boot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> No details of WHERE exactly in the world this works, I presume this a yet another US centric service

<comment><USER18> Yep, I guess so, looks like they are doing "reverse charge" to debit cards. I don't think this works in any other country than the U.S.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Google Wallet killed independent settlement solutions on Android by demanding that applications on the App Store (now Google Play) settle via them. I implemented (one of?) the only major carrier settlement capable applications prior to this ban for a preloaded flagship application for Samsung in 2010. We billed AT&T and T-Mobile, both of which had almost the same API for client billing running through the Israeli (now apparently rebranding to appear American) company AMDOCS. (The rumours are true: by providing 'outsourced billing' they can basically spy on most mobile networks' customers... read the public portion of their client list sometime) Anyway, we were already doing pay by text (a carrier-specific configuration) for many years all over the world before that. There are providers who set up these integrations for you and provide global multi-market pay-by-SMS services, but the problem is that the average mobile carrier does not have a unified view of its customer: particularly pre-pay and post-pay customers may be subject to very different limitations on pay-by-text availability and maximum charges. Then there's backend settlement, often time-staggered on a monthly basis and incorporating exchange rate risk exposure, etc. It's a PITA to do manually for multi-market, but a real solution (settlement method neutral and incorporating the real qualities of a settlement chain, including risk, legal jurisdiction for issue resolution, insurance, maximum and minimum settlement time, maximum and minimum volume, supported asset types, etc.) has been indefinitely deferred by the likes of Google who seem happy enough to cozy up to the existing financial establishment instead of rocking the boat. Possibly we have some hope now with Chinese device manufacturers and WePay that the Chinese government's huge push for the RMB to become a global reserve currency and their rapidly growing global network of banks may yet provide for some cross-border payment innovation where the west's incumbents have so far failed.

</comment><comment><USER19> > "No email? No problem! Now you can send money to anyone in your contact list > using just a phone number."

Are there really people with phone numbers but no email? Given how easy one can get an email for free, and the prevalence of VoIP (both in standard and proprietary forms), I'd expect the other way around to be true.

<comment><USER20> Yes. For example, literally millions of people in India have cellphones and use them exclusively for SMS. These same people will likely not have reliable access to a computer for full-fledged e-mail.

<comment><USER21> But will the service work in India?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sounds a bit like [https://www.pingit.com/#!/](https://www.pingit.com/#!/) or [http://www.paym.co.uk/](http://www.paym.co.uk/)

</comment><comment><USER23> It's been quite a few years since I've lived in the US so maybe I'm out of touch. But where I live you can send money instantly to anyone if you know their bank account number. You can do it online via your bank's website, via a mobile app, or at an ATM. Can't you do that in the US via the ACH system? I recall ACH was slow, taking a couple of days, but I don't recall if you could ACH money to other people or only between accounts you control.

</comment><comment><USER24> I wonder what happens if that text message is intercepted; can someone claim the money before the rightful recipient?

<comment><USER25> I'm guessing they thought of that possibility.

<comment><USER24> And I'd love to hear their thoughts about it.

<comment><USER25> Well, email, which is comparatively easy to intercept has worked for PayPal and others for over a decade.

<comment><USER17> Actually it hasn't

The whole Paypal model is based on its reversal+ resolution process which usually favors buyer, requires an army of support personnel and has resulted in them being one of the most hated companies in world.

<comment><USER25> Well, PayPal has been pretty successful. The things you listed don't have much/anything to do with intercepted email fraud.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Are there fees involved? They don't seem to say anything about it in the post.

<comment><USER27> No. Just like it doesn't cost you anything to send money to friends & family on PayPal or use Square Cash.

I'd love to get rid of PayPal so we'll see how this works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I wish they add support for sending money internationally. That would be a killer feature for Google Wallet!

</comment><comment><USER29> Does this work for sending money to prepaid debit cards?

</comment><comment><USER30> great cuz I want google eating up yet more of my personal habits and info

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm sure the customer support is just ace.

<comment><USER8> I've had excellent results with Google Wallet customer support. I've had to contact them a few times over the years, and they're some of the best customer support experiences I've had, not that that's saying much. Google's customer support seems basically non-existent for services that don't involve money, but as soon as money is involved it seems quite good

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> [http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500251756/Security- flaw-...](http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500251756/Security-flaw-exposes- billions-of-mobile-phone-users-to-eavesdropping)

Ffs</comment>


Amon Five: Self-hosted server and app monitoring tool with a focus on simplicity - <AUTHOR> https://www.amon.cx/blog/amon5/ <comment><USER2> How do you handle license verification/enforcement for self-hosted instances?</comment>


Ask HN: A Well Funded Competitor Has Launched Before Me What Should I do? - <AUTHOR> Hey Guys,
Obviously using a throwaway account but, I'm a well respected member on here with a few thousand karma (just to give you abit of info who I am).
Anyway, I'm in the process of creating a startup however, a well funded competitor has recently launched - a few million in VC funding with a strong team
I am just wondering what I should do knowing this competition is now around. I am aware of other similar competitors (although this is a new niche/spin on it so they aren't outright competitors) but this one was right out of the blue.
What should I do? <comment><USER2> It proves your idea has promise.

Read this -

[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/08/03/down-with-innovation- up...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/08/03/down-with-innovation-up-with- imitation/)

Copy their best ideas, do the core things better, and kick their asses. Good luck.

<comment><USER3> Also, you can take risks that they may be unwilling to take. You don't have group-think to worry about. You can use tools & languages that it's too hard to hire for. As this is a PG site, consider functional systems. I'm a huge haskell fan myself, and holy crap is it faster to develop in, especially early on. In terms of productivity, it can be 10-15x. It's proven as such in my own work. How many devs do they have?

Look at who's funding them, perhaps try to infer some of their movements by the likely advisors they have. Ask around. Check out the founders' resumes. It's easier to get intel about a larger group than the plans of a single man. Check out what technology toolchain they're using, and find someone who's used it before, and/or other public systems that use it now. It may provide a useful source of likely avenues they'll take later (some APIs make some approaches easier), you may be able to predict them before they've even decided. With that in mind, choose your own toolchain and market focus accordingly. Are they going to have any nasty chokepoints later, in terms of necessary features that aren't supported by their toolchain, or performance bottlenecks that'll squash their scalability/skyrocket their costs for a while?

Also, if all else fails, you've got your brain just churning away at the problem domain all day. If you want to play dirty, take out some patents on some inevitabilities in that space. Hobble them early, force them into more expensive routes (some stupid bastards will even think it's an advantage that they can afford to!). In software, it's easy & tempting to go the safer O(N) route when a riskier O(1) will do (in effort -- say writing all your entity types by hand versus an automatic derivation mechanism). A patent threat can certainly push people in different directions early. In terms of productivity, that can be a 30+ scale factor. How many devs do they have?

Put out a blog & control the narrative. The more people they have, the more mistakes they can make at a time, the more datapoints you can pick from to form the narrative your way. The right narrative can help compensate for a lack of a marketing team. Consider reading up on Guerrilla warfare.

Also, you don't have to win the market. You can just stay alive & appear useful long enough to get bought by someone else who wants to compete against your opponent.

Yeah, a good part of this is way over the top, but maybe something will be useful to you :-)

<comment><USER4> This is great advice for me to hear, as I'm in a similar position right now. I've been considering obliquely slamming our competitor in a blog post, but I've held off because I don't want us to come off like dicks. Wouldn't I be better off focusing the messaging on how we're doing it right, rather than how they're doing it wrong?

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't go TOO crazy badmouthing competitors, as you may end up joining forces later on (through acquisition or partnerships).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is great news. Somebody is spending huge amounts of money to help you figure out how to make money. Now your problem is much reduced: instead of doing all of it, you just need to figure out what they are doing and tweak the good parts and ditch the bad parts.

So how is their sales pipeline working? That's the key question. Where are leads coming from, how do they convert them, what are the major selling points.

Seriously, this is great news -- assuming you can get inside their OODA loop and wreak havoc. It's like having a big brother who made all the mistakes so that you don't have to. Requires thinking a bit differently, but you should be able to manage that. Good hunting.

<comment><USER7> Ahh, OODA. That kept me on top in 2 vs 1 games of AOE2 against my colleagues for a long time. They started beating me when they got better and I just couldn't think fast enough anymore.

For anyone in any kind of competition I would highly recommend checking out the wikipedia article:

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The _exact_ same thing happened to me a little over a month ago. A few days before the launch of <http://limelightapp.com/> , we saw <http://app.net/> show up on the front page of HN. Initially, my heart sunk. (You've already felt this, I'm sure.) Thankfully I was sitting next to my wife on the couch, who had the good sense to say: "Go grab a beer." I took her advice.

In the end, I can honestly say that having <http://app.net/> launch before us was a blessing in many ways. Many of the ways have already been explained by others (e.g. validation of the idea, etc.) It also seriously motivated us to stop putting it off for another weekend. I buckled down that weekend and got the service as ready to launch as I could. I knew that if we waited too long it would seem like we were just copying their idea, when in fact we had been working on it for a couple months in our nights and weekends already.

We also had the benefit of seeing what features were being requested from people on HN. In many cases, these were features that we built into our initial release. In other cases, I knew that I could knock the feature out in a couple of hours. This allowed us to tune the marketing message that would accompany our release. Our service does many things, but knowing which ones people _really_ wanted was invaluable.

In the end our launch went a lot better than expected. Few people made the connection between our service and the competitor that launched a few days earlier, and when they did we received a favorable comparison. More importantly, that "idea validation" that their launch provided translated into real subscribers as soon as we launched. We've actually exceeded our expectations in terms of paid subscribers up until this point and we haven't even started really marketing the service.

<comment><USER9> Went and checked out LimeLight, really nice, I think you are addressing a market need that very much exists, so keep at it.

One little suggestion, you should have some example sites right from the homepage. The video is good (thought edit out the publish bug!), but first and foremost I wanted both validation that others are using it, and wanted to be able to see it in action.

Good luck with it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Every good niche has competition. Being first to market doesn't mean much (remember GeoCities? Six Degrees? Friendster? MySpace? and these guys were in a space where the first mover has an even bigger advantage.) You just don't know who will win.

Killer features aren't usually obvious, except in retrospect. Google didn't know that its algorithm would make it king of search, or they wouldn't have tried to sell so soon, for so little. Facebook didn't know that real names and a clean design would get your grandma to sign up. And you don't know which subtle design edge will make the difference in your niche. Neither do your competitors (those you know about, and those still working on launching), or the VCs.

What you should be doing (launching and getting funding) hasn't changed one bit. I don't know the secret recipe for success, but I can tell you lots of ways you can fail. Not launching would be the easiest.

</comment><comment><USER11> Look at Duckduckgo they have a competitor who launched years earlier and has a hell lot more funding.

<comment><USER12> DDG may not be the best example depending on the field you're in - they use their competitors to provide a lot of their service and get their competitors to do it for free it seems. There aren't too many spaces where you can do that.

There's an aphorism that says "the second mouse gets the cheese" which I think means that coming second you can let the forerunner make the mistakes and learn from what they get wrong. This has a lot of mileage IMO.

Anecdote: When my partner and I started in business in a very fine niche, a largely new thing in our country, a competitor opened in our town within a km of us between us securing premises and opening them. Thankfully they determined for personal reasons they couldn't continue and left us with some extra customers ... don't pin your hopes on your competitions CEO getting pregnant though!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> You should launch anyways.

In 2004, I was going to do a startup with some friends that would ship a product allowing enterprises to "firewall" the IM protocols, ensuring that private inter-company messages stayed inside the company's 4 walls. We gave up when 3 other companies launched products to do the same thing, including AOL, all well-financed.

Companies launched _after_ we decided we were outgunned ended up doing better than the companies that were there at the beginning. AOL dropped their product entirely.

Every time a friend of mine has built a product in a space that seemed spoken for, they've done well. Look at Marty Roesch with SourceFire; nobody would have predicted green fields for SourceFire when they launched, but Marty and his team IPO'd.

The single toughest part about getting a company off the ground is product/market fit. It's finding the right group of people to talk to and having the right conversations to figure out what the feature/function/benefit should be, how the product should be packaged, and what it should cost. Think of it this way: someone else did the hardest part of the problem for you.

</comment><comment><USER14> > What should I do?

Compete.

Every startup should expect a well-funded competitor to hit the space, both before and after.

</comment><comment><USER15> They're not your competitor. They're in the same space but you haven't even begun to fight. In a year they might be your competitor.

Focus on your startup, keep an eye on theirs on sites like HN, Quora and any relevant blogs, but don't be afraid.

Them being funded or better funded is just something you're going to have to get used to, it doesn't mean anything at this point though - money doesn't buy traction, they have a great chance of failing and moving in a new direction or flat out dying.

</comment><comment><USER16> The TechZing interview with the creator of Nozbe addresses your question exactly, his answer: be persistent, stay positive and move forward.

He was amazed at how many competitors he outlasted and simply had more interest and staying power than.

NOTE: A well-funded competitor has investors that want a big return on their investment, they don't want to stand around doing nothing. So that company is going to need to most fast and big, and if it doesn't hit, depending on the investment they have taken, will die away.

All that being said, if you are shaken by this, enough to have lost confidence in your idea or execution, you may want to move on.

If you are still completely confident in your idea and this hasn't shaken you at all, there is ALWAYS room in the market for multiple competitors, so dig in and go for it.

</comment><comment> g-garron Well, that is a really hard question. I think you should consider this:

\- Do you have any way to make your company different? \- Can you contact some respected member of the niche your company is aiming at, and convince him to start using your product, and endorse you?

Usually smaller companies can offer a better service, to a smaller niche of users, so you can focus in a small sub-niche of the customers, and work with them, that can work for you if you manage to stay small, bigger companies can't afford working with small customers, as they can't break the even point of revenue.

Try to stay out of any strategy that involves money, as your competitor has more resources than you. Focus on personalized service, if you can afford that.

Or, start looking for a funding partner.

</comment><comment><USER17> The Wright Brothers were up against all sorts of commercial and even military competition. Everyone was throwing huge amounts of money and resources at the problem. The Wrights were perceived as amateur-hour kooks playing with toys in a field. The military was downright rude when describing how their success was a forgone conclusion and that the Wrights weren't worth paying attention to.

The other point is that while orgs like Amazon, eBay, PayPal and Craigslist ran with their first mover advantage, lots of other first-movers totally dropped the ball. See Friendster/Facebook for my favourite example. LiveJournal/WordPress/Tumblr is another set of hard lessons.

</comment><comment><USER18> Launch anyway. Being well funded doesn't necessarily mean successful.

You can also sit back a bit at their launch and observe their mistakes and do something a bit different.

Color, Cuil and others were all outrageously well funded, but failed entirely.

</comment><comment><USER19> Similar to what people said don't worry the competitor validates your b-model and focus on your product not your competitor

In addition, remember to treat your competitors as frenemies. [http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/12/27/why-you- should...](http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/12/27/why-you-should-make- your-competitors-your-frenemies/) There's much more to learn about your space than you probably think and they've already been in the trenches and might have gone through some pain points you can skip.

Location: If they're national, I'd focus on being local. Look at the way Yelp did things in taking on Zagat, Citysearch, etc by focusing on a core market to build that strong loyal set of powerusers that on average were way more engaged (# of reviews per reviewer).

Lastly, I'd consider trying to figure out the competitors cost model. A lot of times many startups that are well funded get that larger funding round because they're looking to scale which means they're spending extra on marketing or sales. Some startups as such are focused on ramping up a sales team. If that's the case, you'll lose playing the game the way they're playing it (ie: groupon vs a local copycat clone since it might work locally but u'll never scale). Try to figure out different methods to do this, price model, sales model, marketing model (guerilla marketing vs traditional marketing), or whatever that will make you more unique and more cost-effective. Gluck

</comment><comment><USER20> A startup should be treated like any other business. Almost every business imaginable has competition, and most manage to survive.

Building a product that appeals to 100% of a "target market" is impossible. Carve your niche, target a particular _type_ of person, and start small.

Competition in your space is a really good thing: 1) as others have said, it validates your ideas viability, and 2) you don't need to spend so much time educating people about a new market and why they need your product.

</comment><comment> throwaway1-1-2 Our main competitor started working on their product about at the same time as us. They raised about 4x as much as we did (basically a series A) and have 4x bigger team as well. They waited to launch. We launched earlier and with a far less polished product.

There's something different happening though, and it primarily has to do with execution. We do crazy shit to get traction, because we're scrappy as hell and aren't going down without a firefight. We're extremely lean and we all code, whereas their organization is far more bloated. The numbers belie the actual fairness of the fight. And moreover, we don't currently need a massive amount of money. Our burn rate is fairly low.

Here are a few things I've learned:

1\. More bodies isn't better. More money isn't always better. Traction and happy customers should be your key metrics.

2\. You can always raise money later at a great valuation using the argument "Hey, these guys raised money from X VCs and are blowing up."

3\. You need to launch. Stop waiting.

4\. In the big picture, everything here doesn't matter. Both us and our competitors are going up against a bunch of old-guard corporations who are the current incumbents. It doesn't matter if we have similar products if our overall market share is .001%-- the other 99% is the true competition.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have encountered a similar situation and here are my thoughts, just for your reference:

1\. Is competition really bad? Not necessary. Some times competitions are good. As I was working on a product of a relatively new area. One of the problem was that people were not aware of the importance of the product. Our competitor had done a good marketing job, widely promoting the concept and got reported by several media. After that, we found it much easier for us to convince people of our product.

2\. It's good to have a mirror. If you have got a competitor, watch closely what they are doing and try to learn from their experience. The two products might look similar at first but you might be able to differentiate from them after several iterations. If launching a startup is like trying out new clothes, it is much better to have a mirror.

3\. You have to share the market anyway. You cannot be the monopoly, or even oligopoly. Sharing the market with your competitors is inevitable. Even if you were the first to launch, there might be strong late-comers. So do not panic when you see competitors coming.

4\. Learn to differentiate. Tell the difference between your product and your competitors'. Trust me, there are no identical products in the world. Highlight the (even the smallest) difference and tell people why they should choose your product.

5\. Focus on what your competitor might ignore. You should try out your competitor's product and record your experience in details. Then check the flaws you have found to see whether the same can be seen your product. This is an effective way to differentiate your product, especially your competitor is large and strong. If you cannot have more functions, then optimize your user experience.

6\. Do not pivot so early. I wouldn't recommend to pivot right away. Even if you plan to pivot, please at least wait for a few months - after you have made sure that you have no chance. After all your team have spent a lot of time on your product. If you give up so easily, it is hard to cheer up your team for your new product. Do not simply give up, face competition and you will never regret your decision.

7\. Any chance to cooperate? If you can cooperate with your "competitor", things would be easier. But this might not be a good choice since your competitor is well funded and two teams might not get along with each other. Also you might lose your control of your product.

</comment><comment><USER22> Don't worry about competition. It's a good thing. It means you picked a good market. Focus on what makes you different and better.

Sounds like you may be a single founder. If so, find a friend or mentor who can help you work through the ups and downs. You're going to be discouraged a lot starting a business.

I went through a similar situation and solicited advice. Lots of people told me "know when to quit." I didn't, and I'm glad I stuck it out.

</comment><comment><USER23> Put pedal to the metal and get it out there! Mirroring everyone else...well- funded competition means:

1\. Your idea has legs. You have less to explain when people ask you about your startup. This is a good thing and saves a lot of time.

2\. They've got more fingers in the pot, slower and more consensus-based decision-making. They may hire fast, but all team members may not be as invested in quality/creativity/efficiency as a small, bootstrapped team and may in fact move slower - you may be able to out-execute, and faster.

3\. They can afford mainstream advertising and tech press that you may not be able to - but these days, word-of-mouth and viral propagation can be far more effective.

Our startup's in a different situation as our well-funded competitors hit the market after we did, but it's essentially the same. I freaked out a little, but the kick in the pants has been really useful in honing our strategy.

Keep your eye on 'em (and other competitors), follow your gut, and don't get spooked! Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER24> Focus your product and your market. Take a read of everything Steve Blank has written about re-segmented markets.

What is your competitor weak in? Who are they ignoring? If they have millions in funding, in all likelihood they are targeting a large market, and probably ignoring many under-served ones.

Focus your product on a specific part of the market, both in features and how you market it. This also has the bonus that you may even be able to charge _more_ for it (because it is specialised).

One of my products once faced a much more high-profile competitor, but we concentrated on enterprise (of what was thought to be a 'consumer'/mass-market app) and suspect we made even more profit than the competitor, who eventually changed what _they_ were doing to copy us.

</comment><comment><USER25> There's a ton of great examples out there, and as someone mentioned earlier, take a look at Duckduckgo. Another great example of a lean company that has now outpaced their well funded competitor is SeatGeek.

</comment><comment><USER26> Is this a social app? If so, you can win through the culture of the community that uses your app. Today, social is not as much about the technology or product, it is about the people that use it.

For example, I use hackernews not only because it is simple and easy to see others' contributions, but because of the content that people produce and the intelligent conversations the community creates on the site. That aspect of a product is invaluable and more difficult than any technology problem you will encounter.

</comment><comment><USER27> VC money, a good team, or a great product won't guarantee success. One (or two) factors alone won't ensure success. It's a sum-of-all-the-parts thing. I think an important question to ask yourself is: how committed are you? Not so much: then spent your time, money and energy elsewhere. Very: then do a detailed (honest) analysis on your product and theirs and if it still makes business sense, keep at it. Sometimes it how much pain you're prepared to endure... or is that running? :)

</comment><comment><USER28> All good points here - I would only add one thing: when I did my first startup right out of college, we were constantly worried about what our "local" competitors were doing - meaning companies targeting the same market and about the same size. What we ignored, and hurt us, was the larger company entering the space. Moral of the story: focus on your start-up vs. looking at local competitors, but keep an eye on larger companies that have the potential to come into the space.

</comment><comment><USER29> What was your competitive advantage before? If you didn't have a distinct competitive advantage, you were bound to have a strong competitor eventually. The benefit you have now is that you can learn from them. The primary goal of a startup is to learn about your market. Having a well funded competitor can help you see who the actual market is. They'll likely spend a lot of money to do that. You'll have the benefit of seeing how they price, who they target, etc.

</comment><comment><USER30> Too many times I have stopped making something because well-heeled competitors showed up before I launched, only to see someone _else_ come in later and eat their lunch. Maybe it could have been me eating their lunch, but now I will never know.

If they really are nailing the market then maybe you shouldn't bother, but usually you'll find they are doing an ok job but missing a LOT of things you might do better.

</comment><comment><USER31> I think you should pitch your product to VCs (Explaining that it's a new market with really few competitors; BUT, still serious enough that there's already a team with million in funding.) Meanwhile, build your awesome team. Then, your competitor will come on HN saying: "Crap, I was first but a guy with a better product and an awesome team just got funded. What should I do?"

</comment><comment><USER32> If it is a brand-new startup, it's not worth worrying about them because you are both still so far from reaching a point where everyday users know either of you exist.

It's easy to read HN and TechCrunch everyday and become disheartened when closely related products launch, but the reality is that nobody outside Silicon Valley cares until one of their friends tells them about it.

<comment><USER32> Also, I think when you are building a startup, it is best to largely ignore tech news sites anyway. You can drive yourself crazy reading about others successes and competing products. It helps you keep your product stay original and not easily become distracted when a new feature idea presents itself that makes you go in a totally different direction before your first idea has had a chance to succeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Like when TiVo launched and spent millions trying to educate the market on why someone would want to record live TV (i.e., just use a VCR, silly), the main benefit you could get from them entering the space is they spend a lot of their funding on education and you spend your money on customer acquisition. A bit different, granted, but an analogy nonetheless.

</comment><comment><USER34> Take it as confirmation that your market is there, and make sure you have a clear idea of what your differentiator is going to be.

</comment><comment><USER35> I would learn from them. I am sure they are going to make as many mistakes as they make great decisions. Having someone out there with funding figuring out the space can be a real advantage if you can learn from what they do and bring your own sense of the marketplace to bear. Look at Wesabe, who launched with funding a year before mint...

</comment><comment><USER36> I stopped working on a startup as a similar thing happened to me, one year later they've had no traction and could have probably beaten them as I thought we had a much better solution. Don't think about anything other than is your solution better. They are still an early stage startup. Foursquare essentially beat Facebook places.

</comment><comment><USER37> If they are very successful and generate a lot of buzz, it may actually work in your favor to be the next alternative in line. If there's a lot of hype, their company can only be purchased once, but many may want to.

Of course, it's better to be #1 yourself, if you can manage that. But I don't know how much I would worry about competition.

</comment><comment><USER38> Hey,

Do you really know the competitor has the new product? Or is it just a press release. Many times, big companies do press releases of something or the other being released in the next quarter. That "next quarter" never arrives.

The important question is "more than the product do you have paying customers?" If so, don't worry. If no, worry!!!

</comment><comment><USER39> Eric Ries once told us the following: "Just fucking ignore them."

That was the best advice someone could have given me for a situation like that. I'd advise it.

My ancillary advice would be: Use it as fuel to absolutely destroy them in a race of producing incredible product value to your customers.

Our startup competitors have existed 1-2 years before we did.

</comment><comment><USER40> Hey there,

Firstly, don't be too concerned man. Watch the competitor to see how the market reacts to them. If they succeed, chances are better that you will too.

Keep in mind that lots of VC money does not necessarily mean a successful run.

First to market is a bit of a myth, you can do just fine if you don't get there first - just do it better than the rest.

Best of luck with your venture!

S

</comment><comment><USER41> If you believe in it still, it's great news. A story that may help... I had a very well-funded dot com in the 90's. A guy went around the valley pitching "this is a big idea because [our investors] invested in it." He got funding and his company, Esurance, recently sold for a billion dollars.

</comment><comment><USER42> Other companies doing the same thing as you basically shows the market your niche is solid. Go for it!

</comment><comment><USER43> Why not raise funding ? Given that your competitor has already raised funding, atleast you wouldnt have to convince investors about the _viability_ of the concept.

If you were looking to bootstrap yourself and avoid dilution, perhaps it is time to rethink that strategy.

</comment><comment><USER44> I think this is good sign that your idea is worth pursuing. Try to see why you wanted to do that and what is your unique strength, which can be if nothing else, eagerness to succeed. Good luck.

P.S. How did you get 1000s of karma points :) I can't seem to get much.

</comment><comment><USER45> How awesome is their domain name? Could yours sound like the more authoritative player in the space, easier to remember, spell? Or will you come in with an afterthought domain that leads people to assume you're a knock-off?

</comment><comment><USER46> This sort of thing can have a chilling effect, but keep in mind that if they're "well-funded" they will need to have a profitable business model much sooner than you will. Hang in there!

</comment><comment><USER47> Re: "What should I do?"

Read Henry Ford's autobiography: <http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7213>

</comment><comment><USER48> Stop stealth'ing and start building awareness. Ride their we-were-funded marketing with your own I-am-here-too blitz.

</comment><comment><USER49> Good for you! Well funded means they will have to pay for rent and employees and stuff. Go and do less, better.

</comment><comment><USER50> Keep your cost low. A "strong" team implies it's top heavy now. A few millions can be gone very fast.

</comment><comment><USER51> Hi,I think u should leapfrog. U can study them to learn the extra values u need to add to yours.

</comment><comment><USER52> Continue working and launch anyway.

</comment><comment><USER53> Don't sweat it and focus strongly on your strong points and their weaknesses.

</comment><comment><USER54> So that means your idea is good. If good enough another company may look around for something to compete with your competitor, that might be you. There are worse things in the world than being aquired by a big company (Google, Amazon etc.)</comment>


Amazon TV adaptation of Iain Banks' Culture series is cancelled - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/26/amazon-tv-adaptation-of-iain-banks-culture-series-is-cancelled <comment><USER2> I have always thought the the Culture novels are a bad fit for a TV series. The non-chronological, only-loosely-based-in-the-same-universe style makes the books very thematically and structurally different from one another: the shows that you would get for "The Player of Games" vs "Surface Detail" vs "Use of Weapons" vs "Hydrogen Sonata" would all look very different.

As a result, I am not optimistic that they would translate well to the small screen. I would be more interested in seeing a miniseries based on a single book, though perhaps they could be done as a kind of anthology series.

But this bumps into another potential issue: historically it seems like keeping the quality of an anthology series up across seasons is very difficult (see: American Horror Story, True Detective, etc), with Fargo as a notable exception. That said, a show would bring in a lot of new fans to the series, which is a big positive.

</comment><comment><USER3> Though the title says "cancelled", the article in a nutshell: "The author's estate ... said the "timing wasn't quite right"".

<comment><USER4> That's just the (bizarre) reason given, it's still accurate to say that this adaptation has been cancelled. Most optimistically we can say it's back into some kind of vague development hell, from which a TV series may or may not some day emerge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm deeply bummed about this.</comment>


Can RSS become social? - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/can-rss-become-social-d94acb0152d7 <comment><USER2> I really can't help but think that Google was onto something with Google Reader. Before Google+, it was already a better social network and it was fast, the sharing was amazing and contacts could comment on your stories. You can subscribe to someone's comment and only follow what he wanted to share and I could continue on and on.

Truth is, my relationship with Google started to go downhill once they decided to kill for no real reason and I still blame them a little bit for that.

Google Reader was an exceptionnal product and I truly am sad that it didn't go far enough and was killed too soon.</comment>


JPolite - is a lightweight front-end web portal framework based on jQuery.  - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/jpolite/

<comment><USER2> Sometimes I feel there are more frameworks than any useful implementations of them

</comment><comment><USER3> Wouldn't it be nice to use this framework for business web apps! Quick and responsive interface, easy to construct layouts around complicated business logic...

Not, actually.

A surprisingly large part of my enterprise prospects/clients have javascript switched off completely, and a a large part of them still use IE6!

It is tempting to ignore a dinosaur client who is still on IE6, but when the dinosaur happens to be a top manager at a large bank -- that makes you think.

As a result I am minimizing/eliminating JavaScript and sticking to simple html forms. Hell, I even have replaced all PNGs with GIFs after a IE6 user complained he couldn't see the charts.

It is a pity, of course, but business users' environment is a bit different from consumers' one.

</comment><comment><USER4> The next big question: is it search engine friendly? Or are we going back to a different kind of flash based front pages?

<comment><USER5> It says in one of the pages that it's not SEO friendly.

<http://www.trilancer.com/jpolite/#t6>

</comment></comment><comment> 8-bit_Blaster Pretty cool.

I've never been a fan of these full-JS layouts though, they chug so hard if the browser isn't Chrome!

Personally if I was gonna go for this kind-of JS framework thing I'd use EXT JS... <http://extjs.com/products/extjs/>

</comment><comment><USER6> didn't get a chance to look at it too hard but it doesn't seem to support back button, which is a pain in the ass

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm using javascriptMVC ( www.javascriptmvc.com ). Please check this framework out to build the community of users! Thanks :)</comment>