$1B for Dollar Shave Club: Why Every Company Should Worry - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/business/dealbook/1-billion-for-dollar-shave-club-why-every-company-should-worry.html <comment><USER3> This article just rambles, and I'm not really seeing what point it's trying to make.

Point one, I think: something about inequality because DSC has 190 employees. But it still takes the same order of magnitude number of people to make and sell a razor; they just don't all work at DSC. There are still employees at the Korean manufacturing center, and it's not like they would have gotten rich if they were owned by DSC. How many people were made millionaires by Gillette?

Point two: big companies should be afraid of disruption. If Gillette was really afraid of DSC, well, we know how much it costs to buy them, and Gillette was worth 57x more, 11 years ago. I think a more likely explanation is Gillette had almost a monopoly but didn't find a way to use price discrimination, and DSC picked up where they left off.

<comment><USER4> Thats odd because it looks like you understand the article. I didnt have any trouble understanding the thesises which were called out in the introductory paragraph either.

<comment><USER5> Not true, it starts out looking like that's what the article is going to be about and then simply meanders to nowhere. It also only had dollar shave club as an example.

<comment><USER4> It doesn't tell the story of the company, how it runs, the disruption in its industry? Was it not true to the headline?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure why Gillette should be (very) afraid of DSC. Gillette had $7B of sales in 2015, compared to ~$240 million by DSC. The real questions that should be asked are:

\- Did Gillette's revenues decline because of DSC? If so, by how much?

\- What is DSC's growth now?

\- What is DSC profit margin? (Hint: it's < 1%)

\- With > $160 million in investment in DSC, what % did the 190 employees own?

While DSC had $240 million in sales, a huge percentage of that money did not go into their bank account. Since they were buying razors from a 3rd party, easily 40-60% of the costs go to the razor manufacturer, plus shipping & handling costs, taxes, etc. According to Forbes they weren't even profitable! ([http://fortune.com/2016/05/16/dollar-shave- club-2/](http://fortune.com/2016/05/16/dollar-shave-club-2/)) Gillette's profit margins are ~30%, for comparison, even with massive marketing, sales and distribution costs.

I do love DSC's model and attitude, but claiming the sky is falling because they were purchased for $1B is hyperbolic. Look at the numbers and do the real math :)

<comment><USER7> DSC has 15 percent of the market, by volume. The low revenue numbers is because they sell so cheaply .

As for profits, it's hard to evaluate those since DSC is in growth mode. But in general DSC as the owner of the customer relationship will get all the market power and considering razors cost pennies to make , DSC will probably have a decent future.

But that's outside of the matter. It's about turning a large market into a much small one, and in the process stealing leadership from gillete.

<comment><USER8> > DSC has 15 percent of the market, by volume.

I'm struggling to see how that's possible.

\- The highest count of their subscribers I've seen is 3 million. Let's round that to 5 million.

\- There are about 160 million adult males in the USA. [http://countrymeters.info/en/United_States_of_America_(USA)](http://countrymeters.info/en/United_States_of_America_\(USA\))

\- Assume that only half shave with a cartridge razor: 80 million.

\- Using such conservative figures, at a ceiling that means DSC has 5 / 80 of the possible subscriber market, or 6.25%.

Unless each subscriber is buying nearly three times as many blades as normal...?

<comment><USER7> Yes, you're probably right, Stratechery which usualy does good work estimated this at 15%, but europmonitor - which this kind of thing is their job, estimate is at 5%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The real threat to Gillette isn't new business models, it's the Mach 3 coming out of patent in the next two years. Soon after that you'll see off-brand Mach 3 compatible blades flooding discount retail outlets, and the whole "razor and blades business model" starts to break down.

That's why Gillette has been trying to transition people onto newer shaving systems (with however many blades) for the past decade. But people keep buying Mach 3, because it's great.

<comment><USER10> What's patented?

<comment><USER9> I believe the entire handle, head, and connector bits. Probably also parts of the manufacturing process. When I bought a Mach 3 handle about 10 years ago there were at least 12 patent numbers printed on it.

There's a reason you haven't seen generic Mach 3 blades yet. The product came out in 1998, and blades from 1998 can still fit the system today -- no matter how many new patents Gillette chases, others will soon be able to reproduce exactly that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I use a double edged safety razor and have around a thousand blades, which cost about $0.02 per blade. I've always thought that disposable razor blades were an outrageous racket. Also DE safety razors make for a much smoother shave!

<comment><USER12> They are a racket, but my 3-blade cartridge razor still gets more use than my safety razor. The main reason is that it's still more convenient - with a safety razor you can get a great shave, but you have to take your time at it. With the cartridge razor I can just stumble out of my bed and groggily whack the hair off my face without needing to employ any executive brain function. I don't even bother to put my contacts in first because I don't really even need to be able to see what I'm doing.

The price of cartridge razors also comes way down after you realize that, as long as you keep the blades dry so that they don't corrode, you can make 'em last forever. I think my record is something like 4 months on a single cartridge.

<comment><USER13> I cut myself equally much with both but maybe on cartridge blades it is because I try to eke out on more shave of it before tossing it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's interesting to compare this to the Harry's Razors model, who bought their own factory in Germany[1]. By carving out a larger vertical they might be able to differentiate themselves better, not unlike Apple.

[1] [https://www.harrys.com/our-factory](https://www.harrys.com/our-factory)

</comment><comment><USER15> All this says to me is that style over substance funded by outrageous markup is still the name of the game in this industry. Just swap glossy Roger Federer ads for quirky YouTube videos. For the price of two months club subscription you could have two years worth of high quality DE blades delivered, if you can live without being told how great you are for buying them every month.

<comment><USER7> Maybe people don't want to use Double edge blades ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is it only me thinking that DSC were undervalued? I think that DSC is worth way more than 1 Billion. I mean, this product occupies a much larger mindshare than some of its much bigger competitors. Unless there are operational or growth issues, I can't understand why only 1B??

<comment><USER17> I thought they were over valued. Their marketing and branding teams are on point, but besides that they resell Dorco razors, and blades then wrap them in brown paper.

And at this point what's to stop say Gillette or any other company competing with them at a loss selling the exact same razor?

<comment><USER16> Branding is the single biggest defense against any incumbent. Universally agreed, branding is a very strong defense. They had sales of 150 Million. Merely six times? Consider that against some Bay Area startups valuation !!

<comment><USER17> True, but at the point when a competitor can say we sell the exact same product made in the same factory on the same lines. But we charge less, branding isn't as important. In fact your brand can work against you.

<comment><USER16> I dont quite agree with that statement. If thats the case, what stops Pepsi from taking over Coca Cola's marketshare? In fact in blind tests, its very hard to tell which is what b/w coke and pepsi. But, Coke commands the marketshare? Why? I think its their branding.

<comment><USER18> Coke and Pepsi may be similar, but they are not the same product made in the same factory.

Who are they getting to do these blind tests? Coke, Pepsi, and RC cola have distinct flavors -- the generics do too, although I don't have enough experience to identify them. Cans, bottles, and fountains don't taste the same either. Branding and affinity certainly influence which vendor is preferred, but the drinks are not the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> According to Fast Company DSC has 1.7 million subscribers so Unilever purchased 1.7 million subscribers in a totally new market for them at a cost of about $600 per subscriber.

They have a nice pipe and they just need to feed more products/higher value products through the pipe over time. If many are younger (which might be possible given the sort of company) then these can be subscribers/customers for a long time and possibly disposable income will increase over time thus converting lower revenue users to higher revenue ones.

The $57 billion P&G spent for Gillette in 2005 is $70 billion in 2016 dollars.

Eventually, I predict Amazon will start selling their own high quality brands first marketing to Amazon Prime.

Amazon will compete with a lot of P&G products with their own brand eventually.

I can't wait for Amazon or Google or Apple to remarket Verizon mobile phone service. They just raised their plan rates!

<comment><USER20> Loads of people re-sell mobile phone service. The question is whether Amazon, Google, or Apple would sell it to you for cheaper.

Right now, you can get Google Fi will give you 4GB for $60 rather than $70 from Verizon. Not a huge savings there. StraightTalk will give you 5GB for $45/mo on Verizon's network (or 10GB for $55). Why not switch to that?

Sometimes you pay more to stick with brands, but there are companies all over the place offering cheaper alternatives if you're willing. As the article notes, DSC is just a re-seller of Dorco blades. StraightTalk will se-sell you Verizon. Amazon already has Amazon Basics for many items.

<comment><USER19> Thanks....

No Amazon Basics quality men's razor that I could find.

Google fiber is considerably less money for better service over the competition. Mobile is a far larger expense and I was hoping for a similar disruption.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Having read this, I Googled "Dollar shave club razor brand", and sure enough there are articles like this one explaining how to order the product directly: [http://lifehacker.com/5903771/forget-dollar-shave-clubbuy- th...](http://lifehacker.com/5903771/forget-dollar-shave-clubbuy-the-same- high-quality-razors-for-a-third-of-the-price)

It seems like their success is essentially a marketing success. That's not exactly a new phenomenon, excepting the use of web video instead of TV/radio ads. Plenty of companies are essentially marketing entities that "rebranded" existing products.

<comment><USER22> That's the point. Indeed, it's nearly a 100% marketing success. Just because you CAN buy the same razors another way, doesn't mean that any normal consumers do. As another HN post pointed out, DSC was able to combine existing tools like AWS, Facebook, YouTube to build a $250MM business in a matter of years, exceed $1M in revenue per employee, and sell it for $1B. A decade ago, this would have been completely unheard-of -- think how much you'd have to have spent on building your own tech stack, display/print/TV/direct mail advertising, phone operators, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Look out! They're the model to disrupt every over priced product in the market. I'm looking at you inkjet printer ink.

So how many outrageously over priced products are there? (Besides everything the Pentagon buys and _anything_ health care related.)

<comment><USER24> Daily disposable contact lenses.

<comment><USER17> I feel like getting into selling prescription devices is a bigger hurdle than say reselling razor blades.

Also is there an FDA approved factory that white labels contact lenses?

Edit: after thinking more aren't contact prescriptions written for a specific brand? I know mine is written for Biofinity Toric lenses and that's the only type I can get. So you would need to bring in optometrists and convince them to fit their clients to your new line of contacts.

<comment><USER25> I've worn contacts for years and it was never mandated which brand/type I could buy. When you get a contact lens exam, it just says what size and power they should be. Perhaps your insurance only covers that brand, but an exam and prescription should allow purchase of any lens brand.

<comment><USER26> _it was never mandated which brand /type I could buy_

I'm sure regulations vary by country, and probably? by state. In Oregon a contact lens prescription is for an exact brand and type of lens.

That makes sense to me, because different lenses have different oxygen permeability (and probably other differences as well).

When my daughter's doctor changed her brand, he wanted her to come back in for another visit to confirm they were tolerated equally well. And this was at an HMO type organization (Kaiser Permanente). They don't get paid per office visit, so they're not incentivized to bring you back unnecessarily. (I really like that aspect of KP).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I buy a pack of bic disposable blades for a few dollars. Use each one for several shaves. A packet lasts for several months.

Yeah, so what if my chin is not as smooth as a baby's ...? I will survive.

The shaving blade industry is a racket of the highest order.

<comment><USER28> I'm not a very hairy guy, but those basic disposable razors are horribly on my face. I tried the Wilkinson sword a few times, the big competitor to Gillette in the UK, and they really were inferior.

I now use a Mach 3 or Mach 3 Turbo, which they introduced more than 10 - <USER2> years ago. I'm sure their newer, fancier brands are better, but for me they're overkill.

<comment><USER29> The fancier ones with battery powered vibration are more effective. You can't really classify that as overkill because since the blades stay useful longer, it saves money in the end.

<comment><USER30> I'm not convinced the battery powered ones are more effective in actual shaving quality, but they do seem to make the blades last longer plus I get less irritation from them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is this an editorial? It's not clear from the page or the Dealbook FAQ [0]. It certainly isn't hard news:

> It means that the riches will be split among the select few who have the > education and skills to be at the heart of the new decentralized company.

And is it just me, or does it seem like the author is cribbing somewhat on the pg essays on wealth inequality?

[0] [http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/dealbook- faq/](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/dealbook-faq/)

</comment><comment><USER32> "Every other company should be afraid, very afraid.

The deal anecdotally shows that no company is safe from the creative destruction brought by technological change."

This is news to who, exactly?

</comment><comment><USER33> Does anyone know what was the valuation of DSC prior to this sale? They raised $163M - if that corresponds to a 20% stake then this sale doesn't increase the price by much.

</comment><comment><USER20> The article strikes an odd tone when talking about the number of employees that Dollar Shave Club employs directly. Yes, DSC doesn't directly employ Dorco employees, but increasing demand for Dorco razors means more production. If Dorco had seen direct demand rise by the same amount, it would have had a similar impact on their workforce. The article seems to bemoan that, "The Korean razor company [Dorco] that manufactures Dollar Shave's razors will not be sharing the $1 billion deal price with its employees." But realistically, if Gillette finds a way to increase sales via a new marketing or distribution system, I don't think the rank and file employees get a piece of that action. Gillette would have found a way to increase profits for its investors. For employees, maybe there's more job security because of the increased demand and maybe new people get hired to meet the demand, but hourly wage isn't likely to move.

The amount of labor needed isn't changing just because the company directly employs few people. The difference is that different functions (marketing, sales vs. manufacturing) are being done by different companies rather than one company that does both. This means that a company like Dorco which is seemingly terrible at marketing can still get high sales for their product. Similarly, a company like DSC which doesn't manufacture things can put their talents to use.

It's a scary time for companies because now companies don't need to be good at everything to succeed. But that's good for consumers. It means that a company that manufactures a good product won't die because it's bad at marketing, logistics, customer support, sales, etc. - they'll get white-labeled by someone else, but the good product can get to market.

But DSC's success might simply be Unilever over-paying for something. Another commenter brought up Harry's ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12198431](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12198431)) which decided to buy their own razor factory. They can create a product that you can't get elsewhere. I can go to dorcousa.com and buy razors direct (and they often get them nearly half off via coupon). I now no longer need DSC. Dorco's razors are behind a lot of store-brand razors and so I can simply go to my local shop rather than paying for DSC. So, Unilever bought a subscriber list and a brand. As another commenter pointed out ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12198614](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12198614)), their margins are basically zero with most of the money going into buying the razors and the expense around shipping and logistics.

The article just hates to see success by a company that seems more fluff than substance. That's fair, but then the argument is that they're over-valued. They haven't produced anything of substance and are shipping all their revenue back to third parties. If they have produced something of substance, then maybe they are worth the money and are providing employment indirectly to Dorco employees, shippers, and such.

I think the real fear is just that it's easier to test the waters for product- market fit than it used to be. If they had to handle everything themselves, it would be hard to start DSC. Here, they could prove product-market fit without requiring extremely high levels of capital. But that's a good thing. It means that good ideas can get out there.

<comment><USER34> Dorco are the real winners here. They get DSC's massive marketing campaigns (pitching them against premium razors), while selling directly to budget conscious consumers. Dorco sells blades either way.

There's quite an interesting lesson in branding here, many believe strong branding is a vital asset. Yet, the right white-label deal can be better - Essentially getting people to pay to market your product. Plus Dorco didn't jump into the partnership (I'm sure DSC asked for exclusivity deals in the US and Europe), a smart move indeed!

I'm now scratching my head wondering why someone would pay so much for DSC..</comment></comment>


Should I redesign my current job's crappy CMS? - <AUTHOR> I've been thinking about redesigning this software since I got here.  I work at a college, and they could desperately use a site redesign among other things.  However, no one seems to be interested in trying to do it even though it would solve lots of problems.<p>Just wondering how many people have experienced something like this and if they have followed the urge to do it and had it turn out well. <comment><USER2> No, for many reasons.

1\. Colleges are usually slow, tech-challenged bureaucracies. Your redesign would be likely blocked by red tape.

2\. There are a million battle-tested, open-source CMS systems with thriving communities. Your college needs a migration, not a redesign.

3\. Are these "problems" caused by the CMS worth a lot of thankless, tedious work? Probably not, in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's no general way to answer this question.

I've rewritten a number of systems. Sometimes it goes great. Sometimes not so much.

Rather than rewriting from scratch consider using an OTS system--there are many.

</comment><comment><USER4> Do you want it to be your fault forever? If it isn't "yours to manage", realize that it will be if you take the project on.

</comment><comment><USER5> Redesigns are a lot of work. You sould think through it carefully before taking on this venture.</comment>


Pacman original game design document? - <AUTHOR> http://control-online.nl/gamesindustrie/2010/06/22/iwatani-toont-gamesgeschiedenis-in-meest-pure-vorm/

<comment><USER2> it's nice to see the very beginnings of things.

all great ideas seem to start either as a fuzzy notion in someone's head, or a crude sketch on a napkin.</comment>


Startup Quote: Jason Fried, founder, 37signals - <AUTHOR> http://startupquote.com/post/5207753342

<comment><AUTHOR> How can you expect someone to get a good day's work if they are interrupted all day?

\- Jason Fried (@jasonfried)

<http://startupquote.com/post/5207753342></comment>


Follow a millionaire entrepreneur as he makes his website wildly successful. - <AUTHOR> http://www.sinkfloat.com/blog/about/ <comment><USER2> You have zero credibility until you spill which sites you started.

<comment><USER3> Several sites that rank in Alexa's Top 50 and Top 500. I'm not sure if I want to reveal them at this point, for various reasons.

<comment><USER4> I'm pretty sure I don't believe you at this point, for obvious reasons. You come out making grandiose claims and then get cagey when somebody asks for even the most basic details? Would YOU believe you in our shoes?

<comment><USER3> I'm not getting "cagey" - I'm just not sure if I'm going to reveal my sites right now. Plenty of people know what I've created and you could probably figure some of them out yourself. Others you probably won't figure out.

<http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503922675>

That's my Facebook if anyone wants to add me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like how this "millionaire" uses some lame free wordpress theme. Then he goes and talks about how it took 2 days to create....

Yeah..

<comment><USER6> just a note, if you go to the top level of this directory on which the blog sits there's another site, which may of been the 2 days work. As a 23yr old still interested in where the millions came from...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Doesn't seem credible to me.

I did a little digging and this site and TalkBurst.com share the same owner. I'd hardly call TalkBurst a success from what I've dugg up. 4 twitter followers. Hasn't been around for more than a few months.

A WHOIS on TalkBurst and SinkFloat returns someone registered as TalkBurst based in China. Names don't match (domains are registered under TalkBurst), but the address matches:

Mr. Ma Lincong Secretary-General China Association for Standardization (CAS) P.O. Box 820 No. 2 Yue Tan Bei Xiao Jei Beijing, Beijing 100837 CHINA, PRC

</comment><comment><USER8> Anyone have any info on this guy?

I'm interested in following his blog if he's telling the truth, but I'd like to see if anyone in the HN community can vouch for him.

<comment><USER9> I'm beginning to have some doubts:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=pinksoda>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "I've founded many websites that went on to be wildly successful. When I say wildly successful, I mean millions of dollars."

People who actually have been that successful tend not to be so bluntly, hideously arrogant about it.

Tip to the author: people don't like braggers. They do, however, like honest, useful advice. And they don't care if you're a millionaire.

<comment><AUTHOR> You wouldn't listen to someone about being successful who had $1 in their pocket.

<comment><USER10> I would actually. I honestly would. I'd evaluate what they have to say according to my own sense of what seems sensible and reasonable, but I'd listen to them. I'd listen to anyone. Maybe that's just me. I treat everybody as someone I can learn from. If nothing else, they have experiences I can learn from.

More generally, people are very happy to listen to people who aren't successful, but are trying hard to be, and sharing the wisdom they accumulate along the way. Plenty of great bloggers share just such wisdom. Steve Pavlina is a good example. He started off blogging what he learned, sharing his experiences (including his own low point in prison, if I recall rightly). Then he became successful, partly because of some very popular articles, but also because by the time he wrote those articles he already had a library of other good stuff for people to read and enjoy. He didn't lie to begin with to get people to listen. People listened because he wrote really great articles. (They've gone a bit odd and spiritual the last few years, but that's a different story).

Here's the advice: people listen to people who are passionate, who are trying hard, and who are honest, more than people who are 'successful' but none of these other things. Think I'm wrong? Try it both ways and see how far you get.

<comment><USER3> No one's lying here. You're very pessimistic.

<comment><USER10> Distrustful, perhaps, because I've seen a bunch of other people try to pretend on HN to be something they're not, and because your site offers little evidence to support its claims.

If I see some proof that I am wrong, that you have indeed founded several million-dollar websites, then I will personally write you a public letter of apology and donate $100 to a charity of your choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Whenever I see claims like this, I just have to wonder: Why haven't I heard of you before this? If this guy has really produced a string of "wildly successful" websites, shouldn't he be somewhere on my radar, or at least have some Google results talking about him? Shouldn't he be at least as prominent as, say, Leah Culver?

<comment><USER11> There's plenty of folks who makes sites that just bring in money without publicity. Making money and publicity don't always go hand in hand.

<comment><USER4> Yes, but popularity and publicity do go together. He's not claiming to have made money out of private deals — he's claiming to have created several "wildly successful" sites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A site with a list of other websites isn't going to be worth a million dollars. It won't be worth a thousand dollars.

Google lists other sites but they have a little more kick behind it.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you read the blog, it was released early with only a small portion of the overall idea. I already know exactly how I'm going to make it profitable.</comment></comment>


As Bitcoin goes bust, one classic market signal is pointing to more pain - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/29/as-bitcoin-goes-bust-one-classic-market-signal-is-pointing-to-more-pain.html <comment><USER2> Is it too surprising that BTC is in Contango? As the article explains: BTC has energy cost to "mine". So in effect, BTC in the future is worth less than the promise of BTC in the future.

Future BTC requires a LOT of energy to create. So the Contago simply is correlated to the energy costs.

Unless there's a "bigger problem" here that I'm missing??

<comment><USER3> It only costs more power because of how many miners there are. The difficulty increases the more people there are to mine in order to keep the block finding time somewhat consistent. If we had 50% of the miners go away today, it would still take about the same amount of time to find a block because the overall difficulty would be lower too. Just one company in China, bitmain, has over 28% of the entire network. They are also the company that makes the best ASICs and they appear to be liquidating their equipment in China and starting to move to the US and Switzerland.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> for sure an asset exactly 700% on the year is bust. It is obvious

<comment><AUTHOR> Not this year....

<comment><USER4> year to year</comment></comment></comment>


Why Google Glass Broke - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/style/why-google-glass-broke.html <comment><USER2> I work in a capacity that reviews, tests, and develops proofs of concepts for new tech. We purchased 3 glasses when they came on the market. Our review:

1\. pathetic battery life. You're going to have at most 6 hours of life. And that's with the GG radios off (and functionality at a nil).

2\. You can't turn it off. it goes into a screen-off non-standby that still chews through battery. So when you think that youre conserving it for later... nope.

3\. "Glass Overheating, shutting down". This showed up in the latter firmwares. Never fixed. It ruins the idea of recording video for lengths of time. I was trying to record a renaissance dance. Didnt work.

4\. Forces a facebook style timeline. Horrible interface.

5\. Has no use without wifi and bt on. The device is an Android... yet is completely dunb without data connections. Why werent there functionality built in that didnt need 24/7 internet access?

6\. In order to use with a cell phone, you have to: turn on bt and pair, turn on WiFi tethering on the phone, allow data to tunnel through BT, and pair every connection from glass to phone. This, of course, eats battery. So, it was left at home, with the home WiFi, beating the purpose of with a cell.

7\. Screen was offcenter and annoying. Itwas placed so you had to look up right to see it. Not to mention, it was askew on the face. That means recording video had an annoying 7deg tilt... unless you held your head like a dog.

8\. $1500 . For "Google Quality". Not to mention, no support unless you count other people who wasted $1500 or more for the similar experience.

And, they took out one of the neatest features: facial recognition. Because of "privacy", yet the device consistently chatters to home base.

Yeah. Its a turd.

<comment><USER2> And one last story regarding the Glass.

Google engineers came to us for a public demonstration. Now, our network has a secure component (WPA2-enterprise) and a non-secure component. However to use either, you need to register the MAC address with our system. Simple. No.

For a company that made Android, and focuses oh so much on security, they dont support WPA2-enterprise. Just doesn't work. So, we were relegated to the unencrypted network. Except, we needed the MAC addresses.

So, how do you get a MAC address on a Glass? You go in to settings and.... Just kidding! You don't get to see what the MAC address is on a Glass. You have to associate it to a AP and then look in the configs to see what MAC it has.

So... Google Engineers gave us a list of their GG mac addresses. Except, they got it wrong. But of course, they gave us this list 30 minutes before the demo.

Eventually, our network didn't work with GG. They ended up buying Aircards from some cell vendor.

That's what I call "Google Quality". No support. Worse than Alpha, except you paid retail 'production quality' for it. Google

Project Tango is also another turd, in the similar light of the GG. Except the 3d driver crashes regularly (every 3-10 minutes of use).

<comment><USER3> This is obviously an issue with Google Glass, but MAC address filtering is a waste of time. It offers absolutely no protection against a determined adversary. It is a perfect example of security theater.

<comment><USER2> You're assuming that it is the only defense. It isn't.

We look at security as one would look at an onion.

<comment><USER4> OP is right though. As far as the onion is concerned you better add more characters to the security pass-phrase, also make sure WPS is disabled on all routers etc.

Once someone has determined to break in, even minimally sophisticated they will spoof the mac address. It is good that you want to add extra security, but even as your story shows it just creates confusion, and make using the system harder.

<comment><USER2> Those decisions come the people in the glass room in the security office. Not much I can do to change global security policy.

<comment><USER4> I understand, it was more of a comment in general, or maybe the glass room people would stop by and read too ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not convinced it broke any more than the newton or the palm pilot broke. It's just too early. palm pilots, newtons, and other PDAs were around for 13+ years and were considered "for geeks only". It wasn't until iPhone that PDAs finally became popular with the masses.

Personal HUDs or Google Glass etc will go through the same steps. Something, maybe not totally similar but something with a camera, a HUD, augmented reality, and hands free controls will happen someday and will become as mainstream as smartphones are today. It might be 5, 10, or 15 years down the road.

<comment><USER6> We got a few at my old workplace, and the tone of this article really annoyed me because you had to be _wilfully ignorant_ to think that Glass was a finished, polished product. The whole point of 'Explorers' was explicitly stated as being for finding the kinks in the system outside the lab. The people who claimed it 'worst product ever' were moronic linkbaiters.

One of the problems it did have that I thought was a problem for adoption was that it didn't handle being lent out very well. If you calibrated it for yourself, it was pretty responsive, but hand it over to someone else, and it was out of whack in didn't really respond. I lost count of the number of times I'd show someone something cool, hand it over to them to try, and have it not work on them because the calibration wasn't suitable. Understandably, this left them with the opinion "this is shit".

It was a marvellous bit of well-made kit, had a couple of problems, and as you say, was in the first generation of it's kind.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "The whole point of 'Explorers' was explicitly stated as being for finding the kinks in the system outside the lab."

Originally. Then they started to sell it on the play store for $1500 with a full marketing page and no explanation that it was a beta product.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. It was one thing to release a prototype to people interested in experimenting and playing around. It was another to push it through a retail channel alongside designer frames.

Certainly the time they released it to the UK market Google would have known that they were selling an evolutionary dead end as if it were a product.

I would assume this was more an act of internal political cowardness at recognizing reality rather than grubbing for money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Personally I think it was the camera that killed it. That, and the fact that google put out an unfinished product without providing plethora of resources and apps for it, to get people excited, hoping the community would finish it for them... That, and the fact that people started calling Google Glass users "glassholes".

<comment><USER9> > _That, and the fact that people started calling Google Glass users > "glassholes"._

That was one weird thing I did not expect to happen after the release, but I can't stop thinking that a people calling Glass wearers "glassholes" are themselves _actual_ assholes.

<comment><USER10> They positioned it as an up-market, exclusive, fashion device. If you drive a BMW, you've automatically classified as an asshole. Not at all surprising that people wearing glass were labelled that way.

<comment><USER11> I thought it had more to do with the fact that there was no way to know if you were being recorded.

Basically, think about the most embarrassing or terrible thing you've ever done. Now, imagine that that were a video on Youtube or Facebook and you were automatically tagged in it. Users were dubbed Glassholes because they chose to walk around with this kind of power in bars and public bathrooms.

<comment><USER12> Isn't there a light that goes on when it was recording?

<comment><USER11> I thought they added that later in response to people freaking out about being recorded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is it gone? My English is not the best but I would interpret the google plus status they are reffering to not as closing down but as "Hey we move to our own offices, beta is over, no new beta devices. We tell you when the final release will be available for purchase."

[https://plus.google.com/+GoogleGlass/posts/9uiwXY42tvc](https://plus.google.com/+GoogleGlass/posts/9uiwXY42tvc)

<comment><USER14> "beta is over, no new devices" means no devices will available and the next sentence "we'll tell you" seems to imply never or a very in-the-future date.

TLDR; It's an euphemism for closing up shop

<comment><USER13> Okay, yeah, maybe it's like that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This article made is seem like the demise of glass was due to Brin's love life...

<comment><USER7> I read that more as personal attachments and enthusiasms led Brin to over invest and over promote the project in a way that was harmful. Perhaps the author also saw this as further evidence demonstrating fecklessness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What I never understood about the whole explorer thing was, why didn't they send out a version 2 after six or seven months?

</comment><comment><USER17> because you could not use it without taking your eyes off what you were already doing? To be honest, it was too intrusive for both user and those not using it.

I will be more than happy the day my phone/watch/etc can talk to me in conversational format and know when it should. Should being, would it interrupt my doing something more important or not.

</comment><comment><USER18> \- battery life

\- people don't want to talk to their device in public or make gestures around their head. it looks/sounds stupid

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't understand why everybody is pretending that the Google Glass that "explorers" and developers have is a consumer product, and that it failed in the market.

Google Glass has yet to hit the consumer market. All of the criticisms of it as a fashion statement or a consumer device are pretty much moot. It's like people pretended to understand that they were alpha/beta testers and then conveniently forgot.

Yes, this explorer phase of the beta is over. Why do we need to make up some deeper reasons? Maybe a lot of issues were discovered, but that's precisely the point! Arguably, Google now has more insight into the real-world use of optical wearables than anyone else. When the market (that they incubated) develops more, they can be ready with a capable, fashionable product.

<comment><USER20> Does this page look like a beta:

[https://play.google.com/store/devices/details/Glass_Explorer...](https://play.google.com/store/devices/details/Glass_Explorer_Edition_Shale?id=glass_shale&hl=en)

"Who are Glass Explorers?

From chefs to cyclists, Glass Explorers are the first to make, move, and marvel through Glass. They're bold and inspiring and they're helping shape the future of Glass."

It certainly doesn't even use the word 'beta' even once. And when there are frames made by DVF available I'd say that, yes, you can critique it as a fashion statement, too.

<comment><USER19> I see the word "prototype" used all over this page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass)

And if you refer to the terms of service, it's pretty plain that it's not a consumer product.

<comment><USER20> _And if you refer to the terms of service_

is never a valid argument in the twenty-first century. When was the last time the average consumer read the terms of service before you bought a product?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm going to put my neck out and say "watch this space".

Google don't have this front and center any more with this glass product but I think they'll definitely be looking at different form factors in the future.

<comment><USER22> Waiting for Google Wave integration in Google Glass?

<comment><USER21> I think i'd be waiting a while for that one. I think Google Glass will be scraped as its form factor is just creepy but I believe it will be miniaturised, perhaps into contact lenses.

<comment><USER22> The future sure will be interesting.

Maybe Microsoft's API Windows Holographic will be the dominant API then and Google produces compatible contact lenses. Or maybe not.

I'm wondering when Apple will decide which technology has a chance to get copied and cleaned up for its own customers? (I have Apple products. But I'm aware that the ideas aren't coming from Apple.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I look at Google Glass as this decades 'Segway'. Hyped beyond all proportions, it failed as a mass market product, but found enough of a niche that you still see them to this day.

That will be the future of 'Glass.

<comment><USER24> That seems doubtful as they have stopped selling them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I dont think Google Glass 'broke'. Just because new thing is not as successful as iphone, does not mean its failure.

<comment><USER26> Suffice to say that, it was at least a very expensive experiment. And everybody I know hated it - it had a very antisocial vibe on the wearer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> What I like about phones is that you can put them in your pocket. If you're having a face to face conversation with someone, you can put the phone away, and give them your full attention. But if my phone was part of my glasses, it'd always be on. How annoying!

</comment><comment><USER28> The project was interesting, but the technology nowadays is just not quite there yet. I've heard people talk about HoloLens, which might have been a point to consider as Google was basically the only people in this game, although the thing was falling anyway.

</comment><comment><USER29> Once they can get it to fit in a contact or use BCI with a phone...

</comment><comment><USER30> tldr

Marketing and sales came in and fucked it over, as usual. Nothing new.</comment>


Rediscovering rules for ancient board games - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kz483y/scientists-are-discovering-long-lost-rules-for-ancient-board-games <comment><USER2> > the oldest known board game is an Egyptian game that dates back to 3100 BCE > called Senet. "We almost never have the rules for these early games," Browne > said. "The rules have never been recorded, so our knowledge is largely based > on historian's reconstructions."

I live near the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum in San Jose, CA. The group behind it owns the whole square city block, so besides the museum itself there's also a research library, other related buildings, and a nice park area all around.

Included in the park space is a reconstruction of the Senet game, along with an approximate reconstruction of the rules; it's explained that the rules are an approximation with a rough reason as to why.

Whether the rules were simply "lost to time" or due to a subset of this as "they were never written down because everyone knew them" I'm not sure, but it was nice to see the game available in person.

</comment><comment><USER3> As more powerful AI computation capabilities become available to hobbyists, I hope someone takes up researching new board games similar to Go, Chess and the other giants of abstract strategy games (ASG).

Basically, train really strong AI players using the AlphaZero method with the rules of the game changed by a human author (either some variant of Go, or a completely new game). Then take a look at the games the AI plays at its strongest level and let people decide if the game looks interesting enough for them to try play competitively. With the strong AI player already in place, human players would have something to learn from and a serious competitive culture could be born.

In the absence of something like this, I don't think it's surprising the only popular ASGs are very, very old. Modern commercial board games are fine, but they supply a different demand than ASGs.

<comment><USER4> You're unlikely to see another game very similar to Chess or Go, because they have each evolved over time to be the pinnacle of their particular niche, and there's really only room for one king of each of these hills. There are newer games that are starting to show similar signs of longevity, though: Scrabble, Poker, and Bridge come to mind.

Modern commercial board games and some genres of video game have communities that could continue for a similar length of time, but they're still too young to have reached a consensus on one or two games; I suspect that's a few decades out. The good news is that there are some older titles that are still holding their own in the market— to beat out the newcomers hints that there's some kind of staying power there.

<comment><USER5> I don't agree with your premise that chess has evolved to be at the pinnacle of its niche (I don't know enough about Go to comment on it). There are a number of interesting variations in chess-like games that, while maintaining the general theme of killing the enemy king, offer aspects of gameplay that chess does not.

Two of the more well known variations are shōgi and xiangqi: Shōgi allows the redeployment of captured pieces, whilst xiangqi limits the movement of a few pieces and has a mechanism for representing artillery. I find that each game has a very different character to that of western chess, even despite the fact that they share a large number of tactical motifs.

Western chess may be the most popular variant world-wide, but that's no indication that it is at any kind of pinnacle.

<comment><USER6> I think it's fair to call it the pinnacle when talking about the Western world. Both shogi and xiangqi developed from the same base game as chess historically, so I'm not sure how far they venture from the theme compared to something like hnefatafl (which is chess-like but varies considerably in game mechanics when compared with shogi and xiangqi).

<comment><USER4> Just like Like Go and Poker each have a number of variant rule sets in common use, I mentally group all of these as "chess" based on their common ancestry. I haven't really studied them enough to know if this is truly justified.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been wondering, how closely could a future/alien civilization recreate Magic the Gathering's rules given nothing but a collection that included every card and several (100? 1000?) valid decks for different formats.

I imagine they could get fairly close, especially thanks to reminder text. But I wonder how older/erattaed cards or old templating might hinder those efforts.

For those unfamiliar with Magic, the comprehensive rules are about 190 pages of 10-20 rules each, plus a glossary/index. On top of that, the golden rule of Magic is that if a card and the rules disagree, the card takes precedence. And there are over 20,000 unique named cards, though a small number are functionally the same card as another with a different name.

See this link for the comprehensive rules, but note that the vast, vast majority of games don't require an exhaustive understanding. You can learn enough to play in 10 minutes, though you'll probably need to learn something new each game for a little while.

[https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and- fo...](https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and- formats/rules)

<comment><USER8> I don't know the game, but skimming [https://media.wizards.com/2019/downloads/MagicCompRules%2020...](https://media.wizards.com/2019/downloads/MagicCompRules%2020190823.pdf) (not the best organized of texts, IMO. 'Normal' game rules start describing the goal of the game ([https://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=171&view=article](https://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=171&view=article):

 _"1.1 The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces on a square board called a 'chessboard'. The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move. A player is said to 'have the move' when his opponent's move has been 'made'."_

Similarly, the rules for bridge ([http://www.worldbridge.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/2017La...](http://www.worldbridge.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/2017LawsofDuplicateBridge-paginated.docx)) start

 _"Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits. The suits rank downward in the order spades (), hearts (), diamonds (), clubs (). The Cards of each suit rank downward in the order Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2"_

As another example, couldn't those "in a Emperor/Commander/multiplayer game,…" sections be grouped by type of game?), there are decks, stacks, sideboards, zones, one of which is the battlefields, and libraries. Presumably, they all behave differently.

If those aliens don't know what these words mean in this world, are they going to figure out what they mean in the game from reading the cards? For example, rule 405.2 _"The stack keeps track of the order that spells and /or abilities were added to it. Each time an object is put on the stack, it's put on top of all objects already there."_ isn't hard to infer if you know what a stack is, but if you don't?

Similarly, I read _"An effect may state that a player wins the game."_. Chances are those aliens will think that's the only way to win.

Also, that text is full of extremely weird rules ("A card's name is always considered to be the English version of its name, regardless of printed language") that, I guess, are impossible to discover from the cards only.

<comment><USER9> > Similarly, I read _" An effect may state that a player wins the game."_. > Chances are those aliens will think that's the only way to win.

This is vanishingly unlikely, because of the lich-flavored cards that explicitly state "You don't lose the game for having 0 or less life."

See e.g. [https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multive...](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=46134) .

> Also, that text is full of extremely weird rules ("A card's name is always > considered to be the English version of its name, regardless of printed > language") that, I guess, are impossible to discover from the cards only.

Again, with access to every card, it's pretty well guaranteed that this rule would be noticed. The only reason this rule exists in the first place is because of different cards sharing the same name in non-English languages. I don't know how to look up the foreign names of cards, but there's one pair in particular that I imagine is a real offender here:

Roc Egg: [https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multive...](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=470619)

and Rukh Egg: [https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multive...](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=965)

<comment><USER10> > The only reason this rule exists in the first place is because of different > cards sharing the same name in non-English languages.

I'm sure that's not the only reason. Some cards cards explicitly reference each other by name (rare, but it happens). More significantly, imagine you created a deck using both English and French versions of the same card! That would break several rules, including "name a card" effects. More significantly, the uniqueness restriction on Legendary creatures is technically defined by name.

<comment><USER9> That's a fair point, but it isn't the reason for the rule.

It's just assumed, by everyone, that it doesn't matter if you refer to playing pieces using a foreign language. They're still the same pieces. I don't think there's a lot of confusion, if you're playing chess in France, whether you're permitted to promote your pawn into a bishop or only a fou. As long as you pick the tall piece that moves diagonally, you're fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ludii was presented at 2019 IEEE Conference on Games this past week in London. Lot's more interesting stuff in the rest of the conference program ;)

[http://ieee-cog.org/assets/program-full.pdf](http://ieee- cog.org/assets/program-full.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER12> I spent a couple of months last year researching Liubo and constructing/play- testing a crude recreation. Of course, we don't even know what a full game set looks like, much less how it was played. But the result was a decent game, and I like to think there's enough overlap between board game enthusiasts and history nerds that someone could crank a few of these out on Kickstarter.</comment>


Hiring a Cloud Engineer? Questions to Ask and What You Should Hear - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/aws-activate-startup-blog/hiring-a-cloud-engineer-questions-to-ask-and-what-you-should-hear-12a960d97163#.llw3ksuwi <comment><USER2> super useful.</comment>


Ask HN: Usable laptop touchpads – Are we there yet? - <AUTHOR> For years Apple was the only one who could make usable touchpads.<p>Now, in 2016, is there a laptop with a touchpad comparable to the MacBook touchpads? I'm not asking for force touch and other stuff like that, just plain usability, smooth multitouch gestures etc. <comment><USER2> Agreed Apple touchpads have the best feel and responsiveness.

You can always buy a Magic Trackpad - they connect via Bluetooth so they are not too inconvenient.

Wacom pen & touch pads are almost as good. I use one when I'm running Gimp - it's great to have different responses to the pen and to touch.

I have yet to find a notebook which is even close to Apple's touchpad quality.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you are doing coding or other non-design work, I would highly recommend learning how to do everything on your computer without touching your mouse. It's a whole new world when your fingers never leave the keyboard and you can still do anything you want.

But if you really want a trackpad, yep, nothing beats an Apple Touchpad. (or at least what I have used / seen)

</comment><comment><USER4> I have a top-end Dell from last year and, well, it's not "there".</comment>


Ask HN: going offline for a long time? - <AUTHOR>

what would you do if you were forced (say, vacation) to be offline for a month, two months, or more? <comment><USER2> Meditate, work out, eat well, read, journal, say hi to strangers, take photos, learn a new sport, is that a good start?

</comment><comment><USER3> If not for a software career making it necessary to be "online", I would readily bet that I could go an entire year without the internet, and I wouldn't be any less happy for it. If I could ensure my livelihood in some extremely non-technical yet stable job (e.g. as a HIGHLY overpaid landscaper), it might even be a fun experiment.

This isn't any different from any other exercise of willpower. You don't really need to make it the entire month at once, you just need to be strong enough to handle each moment of weakness OR you need to be smart enough to prevent them so temptation is removed from your life.

</comment><comment><USER4> I would probably do a few things - build a go-kart (why not?), learn a new computer skill, go for rides on my motorcycle, random red-eye flight for a weekend, act on one of the ten startup ideas continually floating around in my head :D

</comment><comment><USER5> If it were for vacation, say I'm backpacking through Europe with a couple friends for a month or more, I could(and willingly would) handle it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I would enjoy it and try not to think about my inbox filling up at home.</comment>