Perhaps You Are Bored Because You Are Boring - <AUTHOR> http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/michael-arrington-bored-or-boring/

<comment><USER2> I am suffering from a severe lack of caring about HN right now so this is not going to be a terribly convincing case, but i feel like i should remark as follows.

(Depressingly) I think Arrington is right. The majority of the links on HN are a good demonstration of how tedious things have gotten.

The real irony is reading a blog post telling Arrington to shut up and do something to fix the problem instead of blogging about it. Seems like we could have just skipped a whole bunch of steps and arguing, and just do interesting things instead.

Instead we're commenting on blog posts (instead of learning/making/doing).

<comment><USER3> > Instead we're commenting on blog posts (instead of learning/making/doing).

> instead of learning

I don't know about your experiences with HN, but I find it to be one of the most efficient ways to learn about and keep up with the current state of the art, and commenting is a part of that. I usually get at least one good take- away for every four articles or comment threads - an extremely high ratio compared to any other web resource I know about. And for the craft we're in, learning and reasoning _is_ doing.

<comment><USER4> content wise, HN and r/programming seem to have the same headlines from day to day.(at least the ones that aren't about valley/startup/funding/managerish bs)

HN is unique in that it tends to be more civil than r/programming(and there's more valley/startup/funding/managerish bs). IMO

<comment><USER5> Believe it or not, some of us aren't on Reddit.

<comment><USER6> Are these r/ references to Reddit? I had thought it was yet another new quirky unneeded programming language I had intentionally avoided to learn.

<comment><USER7> yes. reddit.com is a community site made up of sub-communities called subreddits. Subreddits have a path of /r/<community name>.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I also had a lot of respect for Arrington in the early days of Techcrunch, but one event irreversibly changed my opinion of him. I was attending a Techcrunch event in Hollywood some years ago, either 2006 or 2007 if I remember correctly. I had gone to meet him to get his opinion on my current project. At some point during the event Pete Cashmore showed up and Arrington became livid. He kicked him out and was obviously very upset that Pete would even consider coming. So rather than meet young entrepreneurs he spent the rest of the evening focusing on keeping Cashmore out. It was quite a mess. After that I pretty much stopped reading Arrington's posts, not out of spite, but out of sickness that he could lack so much humanity.

A couple conferences later I actually got to meet Pete and he was very warm and welcoming. He even remembered my business and genuinely asked how its doing. A little humanity goes a long way.

<comment><USER9> I'm going to need more context here.

<comment><USER8> [http://valleywag.com/378716/michael-arrington-drinks- valleyw...](http://valleywag.com/378716/michael-arrington-drinks-valleywags- milkshake)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The reality is that many small businesses fail. Small businesses like startups are small businesses, regardless of whether they have a mobile app as one of their main products. We can romanticize tech startups like coffee shops[1] but the reality is they both need paying customers or a sustainable source of revenue to survive.

The dream for many of us on HN is to have a profitable, sustainable business. Perhaps, some of the boring ideas that are executed will fail eventually but they will all deliver experience of trying and failing - which you cannot go to school for, blog about without doing.

Giacomo 'Peldi' Guilizzoni started Balsamiq on nights and weekends, and now it's supporting half a dozen families. If that is not a real, tangible definition of a successful business is, I don't know what is.

People other than Peldi have succeeded on their own definition [2] and share this with us and inspire us. That is the beauty of HN, the signal exceeds the noise.

The reality is that it takes an extremely rare individual to start a high- growth enterprise that ends up employing hundreds or thousands of employees. It is a special combination of luck, persistence, experience, risk, social intelligence, force of will, genius, foresight, vision, personality, charisma, luck, possibly connections. The media and community lionize successful startup founders, and I remember hearing once about the guy who invented the little highway reflectors you see embedded in the California roads (his family gets a royalty for every single one...)

[1] "My Coffeehouse Nightmare", <http://www.slate.com/id/2132576/>

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3029771>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Note: The original title for this HN post was "Dear Michael Arrington, Perhaps You Are Bored Because You Are Boring" but somehow got edited to "Perhaps You Are Bored Because You Are Boring."

If someone can tell me why the original HN title was wrong, that would be greatly appreciated.

No big deal, just curious.

<comment><USER11> New title is somewhat misleading. Despite being more PC, it generalizes the authors specific point

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, and I am sorry, but nothing I can do.

The last thing I wanted to mean was that bored people were boring, as this new title seem to imply. I find this a little insulting, and definitely wrong.

My point was about Michael Arrington only, and referring to this latest post and his "I am bored because of you guys" insinuation.

So, ironically, by removing the "Michael Arrington" the title has become more "uncivil" and disrespectful IMO. I wish it could be reverted back (I will put a foot note in my article to apologize to HN readers)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Amazing article. Personally, I find Arrington to be kind of arrogant, especially the way he criticizes people (and entire industries). But, I wouldn't be surprised if Arrington wrote a long boring letter on this 'credibility check' either attacking the author or the industry (again).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the nice word. To be honest, I heard nothing from Michael Arrington, and I doubt that he would do anything since this article will fade away much faster if he does not.

In a way, being below the radar allows me to do things that could be riskier for other more popular bloggers. There is definitely a fear of Michael Arrington in this industry, still to this day, which is understandable as he has one of biggest microphone and he can be quite unpredictable and violent in his attacks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If the guy wasn't such a dick about the other guy being a dick it'd be a great article.

<comment><AUTHOR> @zerooneinfinity

Getting confused, I am not sure who is what anymore.

Also, no need to curse and insult. Just differ without cursing and insulting, much more constructive and less confusing.

<comment><USER13> Your response could have been less offensive, you intentionally attack Michael a few times.

Where you do address the argument is weak. Even I, who is in your camp mind you, would not be convinced technology is in a thriving and prosperous time based on the examples you gave.

Lastly, the penultimate of your response and if I didn't know any better, reason you wrote the entire thing to begin with was, to be preachy and tell a man to 'stop lecturing and start doing'. First and foremost, it's perfectly acceptable for him to have an opinion on the current state of technology. His argument was never that he could make the next big thing, it was just that he wants to see it happen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, fair and good points, but I differ.

1) Offensiveness: Yes, this is a open letter to Michael Arrington, and it was blunt and harsh, but I think that his style is the same and more, and his post was a good example on how he can be offensive to a whole community and industry. And my philosophy is that you should treat people the way they treat others.

Btw, I went to the first MA tech events at his house, and he was great then. However, as he got notoriety and became public figure he started lecturing industries over and over, became very aggressive, often disrespectful, and sometime extremely violent. When it was about the blogging and PR industries, I did not have enough context to answer, but as his post targeted my backyard which is the entrepreneur and tech community, I took it to heart to respond an harsh but respectful open letter.

So, yes, it was harsh and blunt and directed at Michael Arrington, but I do not think this post was was rude, disrespectful, or say anything wrong about him.

2) Tech thriving arguments: Ok, apparently we agree on the where, but not the why. My point was that now, since technology has been fully popularized from an interface (e.g, touch) and distribution (e.g. app stores in addition to web), the opportunities are endless. Back in the days, we always had to worry if the user was tech savvy enough to use or install the product, and how to get the product to the users. Over the last few years, this has been virtually illuminated, for consumer and for enterprise users. Touch interface are so natural that virtually anybody can use a computing device nowadays. For me, and the impact that this can have on how further we can absorb computing in our all aspect of our life is just mind blowing. If you add the popularization of 3D printing, which will bring the digital world to the real one, this is even more mind blowing. Anyway, those are really my points, but if you think I missed the bigger picture, let me know, I am genuinely curious.

3) On Michael Arrington giving opinions: I love opinions, I am opinionated, and I also love to be proven wrong, as I learn when I am wrong and don't when I am right. So, I have nothing about someone giving opinions, I am against people blaming a industry or community about being slow, un-innovative, or unethical, especially when you have a huge voice (which Michael Arrington definitely earned). And this is what Michael Arrington has been doing over and over for the last 5 to 7 years.

We, the older crowd have a responsibility to enable our younger siblings to thrive where we have not, and for this blaming and lecturing ourselves can only be divert people to the wrong direction.

Now, obviously, freedom of speech first and foremost, Michael Arrington had the right to wrote what he wrote, I had the right to disagree with him and his style, and people has the right to disagree with one or the other or both.

Best, thanks for this good points. Curious to hear more about #2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Nice article, though I don't think Michael is boring. As both of you seem to agree, the problem is that the major tech blogs have been boring.

It is ironic at a time when tech has never been as exciting. Tech is a lot more than the latest mobile startup from a VC friend, or the latest samsung vs apple development. Maybe it is time for some new publications?

<comment><USER15> How much of this impression of "boring" might stem from your own expertise and superior knowledge? You might see a lot of pattern fulfillment that others, with different backgrounds, can read only as confusing (and seemingly novel) noise.

I know that I find a lot of gaming news, for example, more boring that other kinds due to my NES-era entry to the field. My brain can compress a genuinely innovative title down to "Old Game X + Old Game Y" even before my conscious brain realizes it, only to have a lot of the value-adding details tossed in the process. I suspect that a lot of people underestimated the iPad because their subconscious tossed out "just a better Newton (that device collecting dust in our garage, remember?)" as a cognitive shortcut and they stopped there.

In short: how much of the impression stems from HN growing less interesting versus us detecting patterns faster than new developments can break them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wow. Never thought I'd see a HN post with a title that is, essentially, lyrics from a Harvey Danger song.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, the title was the article title "Dear Michael Arrington, Perhaps You Are Bored Because You Are Boring" but somehow it got edited :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why shoot the messenger? Tech is so boring nowadays that bloggers lose their interest in getting exclusive scoops (and Pinterest is revolutionary? Yawn). Also, where is the evidence that Arrington is boring?

<comment><AUTHOR> First, Michael Arrington has never been a messenger of anybody but himself, so, I did not shoot any messenger.

Second, the real question is can someone interest some and bore other? if yes, in my case, I found Michael Arrington interesting when I went to his very first startup events at his palo alto home, bu then, as he met success (that he rightfully deserved) became to lecture everybody and became very boring to me.

Again, this is my personal opinion that I wanted to share.

<comment><USER17> While all opinions are respectable, it seems you are saying he is wrong because you think he is boring as a person. Fair.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure. What I meant is that what bores me with Mr Arrington, is that he is always lecturing from the passenger sit, rather than just do stuff and show us how things can be done. That's bores me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> When was the hit part of the CrunchPad?

<comment><USER9> I think the author meant "swing and a miss"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank Taybin, this is what I meant, and I just edited it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Under the cobblestones, the beach!</comment>


This week in Rails: the backstory - <AUTHOR> http://localhost:4000/blog/2014/04/24/this-week-in-rails-the-backstory.html

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately I'm not running your blog on port 4000.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not going to resubmit this, but for future archaeologists the real URL is [http://brewhouse.io/blog/2014/04/24/this-week-in-rails- the-b...](http://brewhouse.io/blog/2014/04/24/this-week-in-rails-the- backstory.html)</comment></comment>


IT Consumerization: The end of IT is nigh - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cloudability.com/it-consumerization-the-end-of-it-is-nigh/ The cloudpocalypse is nigh! Here's a handy guide for surviving the end times. <comment><USER2> I would love to be dis-intermediated, but everytime I've tried committing to "cloud" technology (and other innovations) I've loved it and the people I work with have hated it. Here's a list of things people don't get:

1\. Cloud-based backup. It's insecure, bound to be hacked - never mind the encryption, teh haxxors can get around that stuff! So we're back to tapes and DVDs before you know it.

2\. Virtual machines, but only if I make the mistake of telling them. It gives some people the willies for the same reason as (1) above, plus the supposed problems of a "shared" server. Also, if a server is outside our firewall they think it's less secure.

3\. Google mail. They prefer Exchange for reasons which remain a mystery to me. I hate Exchange, love Google Mail and everything that comes with it. Even using Gmail via Outlook is mysteriously deficient for my colleagues.

4\. Google Docs. Being able to collaborate on-line is not a very big benefit. The familiarity of MS Office is.

Things which do work:

1\. iPads. This is the machine which will put me, an IT tech, out of work. Hasten the day.

2\. Dropbox. Simple paradigm and works with the iPad.

3\. All the clunky, difficult-to-manage, badly-designed software they've been using for years and have come to love in all their ugliness. It makes me weep.

The thing which will change this is the arrival of younger, more IT-literate people in the workplace. I have no problems at all with the under-30s; all the problems in the world with people older than that (not all of them but enough to be a permanent drag on progress). The simple fact is that these people will even shy away from something as superb as MailChimp's or Google's admin interfaces: too many buttons! They always get me to do it for them, and I will have a job in IT for as long as I want it.

<comment><USER3> As to 1: it is in many ways insecure (though bound to be hacked might be a bit much.) While dropbox isn't technically a cloud based backup, it can be used that way and there was a period where a glitch left it totally exposed for about four hours ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropbox_(service)#Reception> ). I actually love cloud based backup, but I encrypt my files before I send them and I am dealing with just my own personal data. A company with data they must legally protect would need to be wary.

As to 3: Personally, I love gmail. But from a corporate perspective, you can still exert more control over exchange. This can be significant, especially for highly regulated businesses that need to worry about frequent e-discovery and may perhaps wish to take steps to limit what is sent.

<comment><USER2> There's a nugget of truth in their concerns which makes them harder to dismiss. Equally, can you say that local storage is more secure, tapes in a "fire-proof" safe, etc? I have reservations about the cloud (Amazon's outage was a wake-up moment for me) but nothing's perfect.

As for Google Mail vs Exchange, my personal opinion is that Gmail is superior in evey way. If you need discovery, you can always shove email through your own gateway (running Postfix) and set it to store all emails it sends and receives. You could also use Postini which I think gives extra facilities like discovery. Might be a bit hacky for some organisations I suppose but I've never found Exchange that elegant or easy to manage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thank goodness.

If I can help it I'd like to only work at companies which don't have:

\- An IT Department

\- An Exchange Server

\- A sales team

In my experience, all have been a vicious waste of energy.

<comment><USER5> How do you propose the said companies make sales without a sales team. (Not to be snarky, maybe I am missing something.)

<comment><USER4> In my (limited) experience sales people exist to convince people that products have value. This is mostly useful when the people purchasing the products are incapable of evaluating them (see: "enterprise sales"), or when the products don't have enough value to sell themselves. Look around you. How many of the things that you've bought have been sold to you by sales people?

The concept used to have more merit. Lots of things our parents bought were sold to them by salespeople. Most of those same things you and I have purchased without.

Today most of the time I see a salesperson, I see a smokescreen for a shitty product.

<comment><USER6> A salesperson gets your product in the door. Without that, any potential customers don't know, or care what you are selling, no matter how great you think it is.

<comment><USER4> Sure. I just want to be forced to build products so good that my _users_ do that job.

<comment><USER7> I think the issue with this lies primarily in young B2B companies/products, especially ones with a large frictional cost in switching over.

<comment><USER4> Totally... but remember that I didn't say that no company _ought to have_ a sales team, I just said I don't want to work anywhere that does. Filtering out B2B companies with products that have frictional switching costs is exactly the purpose of having that kind of a litmus test.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cloud and IT are not mutually exclusive. The roles they provide are so different I can't at all see why anyone bothers to makes this apples and oranges argument.

<comment><USER9> Spot on, this whole argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what IT does.

<comment><USER10> A large part of what IT departments currently do will, eventually, be replaced by cloud-based services that are easily managed. When you hire Google Apps, a lot of your server management disappears. When you put your servers on EC2, you no longer need to manage the boxes they run on.

Things like custom app development, account management and things like that will remain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I find it interesting that nobody's seems to recognize the primary problem with relying on cloud services - putting the entire business in the hands of your ISP. You can get redundant pipes, but then you're looking at the beginning of way more overhead than the cloud DB sales team wants you to know about.

At my office if the WAN pipe goes down, I know production will still be happening and almost all internal processes will be unaffected. These cloud services will probably soon replace IT for small businesses that in reality don't actually _rely_ on software, but for major businesses where severe downtime = doom the only option is locally hosted services.

Frankly I think this along with the rest the "end of IT" bandwagon are spreading uninformed FUD... The industry will of course adapt to new technology, but IT is unique in its inability to ever be completely displaced by technology.

<comment><USER12> I agree with you.

 _But, honestly, the same thing can also be said of electricity (or water/national defence/public transport/roads/sewerage/etc.)._

You lean on your provider completely just to keep you running, and even a slight dip in their performance can take down your entire cluster, and completely ruin your day/calculation/work flow (outside of temporary UPS).

Not everyone needs their own generator tammer :D.

      Different strokes for different folks!

<comment><USER11> Precisely. Not necessary for every business, but entirely necessary any business that can't risk that kind of downtime. We've got (bare minimum) 8Kva UPS's on every netshelter on campus. The production side uses enormous generators and UPS's that I'd like to know more about.

All I mean to say is IT is far from dead, especially in these types of situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think it's worth pointing out that we're facing the end of IT _as we know it_. I think that the only difference the "cloud revolution" will have is meaning that IT staff will work for some cloud provider rather than the companies themselves.

<comment><USER4> Perfect! This repairs the relationship because it means these people will be responsible for _producing value_. In most organizations this is a cost center designed (whether consciously or not) to produce friction in the name of safety.

There's probably a TSA-privatization analogy here somewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Nothing like an impartial source for an opinion. Worthless prattle.

</comment><comment><USER15> If blog posts had theme songs, this one's would be by REM.

</comment><comment><USER16> I believe the gist of the article is about how IT has always been (and is always going to be) data-centric as opposed to solution-centric, and the guy who understands how to process one petabyte in one nanosecond has a better chance of surviving the consumerization of IT than the guy who does it in 5 nanoseconds (metaphorically speaking).</comment>


55 commits: my first month at Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.corydolphin.com/blog/2013/06/21/55-commits-my-first-month-at-twitter/

<comment><USER2> Glad to hear you're having an awesome time, man! It's neat seeing you on HN.

\--Madison</comment>


Nokia in Talks to Buy Alcatel-Lucent - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/nokia-in-talks-to-buy-alcatel-lucent-1428996832

<comment><USER2> Non-paywalled source from Reuters: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/14/us-alcatel-m-a- nok...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/14/us-alcatel-m-a-nokia- idUSKBN0N50H320150414)

</comment><comment><USER3> A better non-paywall source is here:

[http://www.lightreading.com/business-employment/how-do- nokia...](http://www.lightreading.com/business-employment/how-do-nokia-and- alcatel-lucent-stack-up/d/d-id/715048)?

Includes discussion of how such a merger would affect Juniper. Juniper is ALU's IP routing partner.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nokia owning Bell Labs, crazy times

</comment><comment><USER5> If Microsoft bought Nokia, shouldn't it be "Microsoft in talks to buy Alcatel- Lucent" ?

<comment><USER6> As per the article, with italic emphases mine: "A year ago, Nokia sold its struggling _handset business_ to Microsoft Corp. This week's media reports were focused on the idea that Nokia may buy Alcatel-Lucent's _mobile networks_ arm, which would be a simpler deal to carry out than a full combination but would leave the French firm much smaller."

In short, Nokia sold their iconic and consumer-facing handset division (what they used to call their "Device & Services Business"[1]) to Microsoft in November 2013, although the sale didn't officially complete until April 2014. However, after the divestiture Nokia still existed as a corporate entity with the majority (over 90%) of the revenues coming from their Nokia Solutions and Networks division (NSN) [2]. NSN and ALU's mobile networks division are direct competitors in the telecommunication equipment and software market, so a potential merger makes sense depending on which side of the table you're on.

[1] [http://company.nokia.com/en/news/press- releases/2014/04/25/n...](http://company.nokia.com/en/news/press- releases/2014/04/25/nokia-completes-sale-of-substantially-all-of-its-devices- services-business-to-microsoft)

[2] [http://www.economist.com/news/business/21590363-after- sale-i...](http://www.economist.com/news/business/21590363-after-sale-its- devices-division-microsoft-what-was-once-worlds-biggest)

<comment><USER7> It does indeed make sense for Nokia. Specially in the context of them considering selling off Here maps. Seems there's a sentiment at Nokia to focus on their core business to regain shareholder confidence(and hopefully, I suppose, improve the junk status of their stock).</comment></comment></comment>


Pyramid Tracks: Obscure, retro, and weird royalty free music - <AUTHOR> https://pyramidtracks.com <comment><USER2>
        Terms and Conditions

        This website is operated by Pyramid tracks.
        Throughout the site, the terms "we", "us" and
        "our" refer to Pyramid tracks. Pyramid tracks
        offers this website, including all information,
        tools and services available from this site to
        you, the user, conditioned upon your acceptance
        of all terms, conditions, policies and notices
        stated here.

I wonder how these type of nonsense "TOS" that are on so many Show HNs these days came up for the first time.

A fantasy name like "Pyramid Tracks" is not a legal entity. So it cannot operate a website or make a contract with the visitor/customer.

<comment> the-dude In The Netherlands you are obliged to mention your Chambre of Commerce ID if you are selling ( directly to consumers ).

</comment></comment><comment> the-dude What exactly does royalty free mean when I need put my tracks into a shopping cart?

I have been using [https://bensound.com](https://bensound.com), which is much nicer ( not affiliated ).

<comment><USER3> [https://www.bensound.com/licensing](https://www.bensound.com/licensing)

They aren't zero-cost, either, unless you use the music in accordance with their Creative Commons licensing option.

<comment> the-dude Fair enough, but that is my use case. I find 'royalty free' misleading.

<comment><USER4> This is the standard use of "royalty free". I think you're in error here, not the site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I actual quite enjoy the music but the "pyramidtracks.com" voice kept me from listening and browsing the site.

<comment><USER6> It took me some time to realize that this is not part of the music... :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Layout is very similar to [https://artlist.io/page/aboutus](https://artlist.io/page/aboutus)

<comment> the-dude Interesting find. Whois does not show correlation ( site is almost identical ).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This website rejects long passwords and provides the message "your password must be at least 6 characters" when doing so.

Otherwise, cool. I signed up.

</comment><comment><USER9> Very cool resource! If I was making a game, I would use this a ton for background music, etc

<comment><USER10> If you would be making a game, you should also probably check [http://freemusicarchive.org/](http://freemusicarchive.org/)

<comment><USER11> Note it changed hands last year and is replicated at archive.org and soundcloud

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

[https://archive.org/details/freemusicarchive](https://archive.org/details/freemusicarchive) [https://soundcloud.com/freemusicarchive](https://soundcloud.com/freemusicarchive)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> After clicking around a few artists and albums, playing a particular track in the list plays the wrong track (what it's playing is often not even listed).</comment>


Package your .NET Core App in a docker container: 'dotnet dockerize' - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/brthor/Dockerize.NET <comment><USER2> Why you anybody want that? You can create self contained app. No container necessary, all runtime libs are bundle with application.</comment>


Ask HN: So two tiny and speedy browsers today. which? - <AUTHOR> Today on the front page, NetSurf and Dillo has been voted up. Both offering speed and having a small footprint. Anyone have experience with both of them and can provide some comparison? <comment><AUTHOR> I guess for starters, netsurf seems to be further along the way. At least has an installer for most OS.</comment>


Lawn wars: leaf blower opponents seek peaceful resolution to neighborly feud - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/20/leafblower-opponents-lawn-care-feud <comment><USER2> Disagree that it's a class issue. The noise is obnoxious, not to mention that the leaves are often just blown onto someone else's property, or some other place that the person blowing the leaves doesn't care about. Rake them and pick them up if the leaves are so bad.</comment>


Paul Graham: Silicon Valley Favors Obama Over Romney 2 To 1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/10/12/paul-grahams-poll-silicon-valley-favors-obama-over-romney-2-to-1/ <comment><USER2> I'm not perceiving the news value here. California has never been in doubt as a state that will provide Electoral College votes to President Obama. (The same is true of Minnesota, where I live.) And anyone who knows California knows that the Bay Area is even more "blue" than greater Los Angeles, so what other election result would we expect in Silicon Valley? Now that I've commented, I should probably agree with my friends on Hacker News that posts about politics should be flagged ruthlessly.

<comment><USER3> The reason these 24 people's opinions are significant is obviously not that their votes are going to affect the outcome of the election. It's that they are experts on growth, which seems to be one of the most important issues in the election.

<comment><USER4> But you didn't ask them which they thought would drive the most growth. You asked which they prefer, which is personal.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure what you mean by "personal." I think what you meant to say is that the reasons for their preference are unknown. Yes, obviously. But it seemed to me telling that while Romney presents himself as a businessman who can solve our problems with growth, rather than a politician, the real growth experts have more of an affinity for his opponent.

If Romney actually was what he tries to seem, he'd be more popular in the Valley. That's what makes this poll significant. The leaders of the startup community don't have the natural affinity they'd have for him if they believed his claims. Which in turn is fairly good evidence they're false.

<comment><USER5> > I think what you meant to say is that the reasons for their preference are > unknown. Yes, obviously.

> If Romney actually was what he tries to seem, he'd be more popular in the > Valley.

These two statements are contradictory.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand why you think that.

<comment><USER5> The second statement assumes that the reason Romney is not popular with people in the valley is _because_ he does not appear to be what he claims. This contradicts the first statement because it says that we don't know why these people prefer one candidate over another. To be more concrete, people could strongly dislike Romney's stance on abortion. In that case, it would not matter whether Romney appears or does not appear to be what he claims to be, that individual still would not like him.

<comment><USER3> No it doesn't. It merely says he'd be more popular if he were what he claimed. That doesn't require the reason he's not popular to be that he's not what he claims.

Suppose a restaurant is unpopular, due to bad food, bad service, high cost, whatever. There's no contradiction in expecting it would become more popular if a movie star started to hang out there every night.

We're now arguing about basic logic. I've found threads are usually irrecoverable at that point, so if you don't mind, I'm done.

<comment><USER5> I think that you are missing the heart of the matter. That is that the only piece of data that you have is popularity. Given that, how can you determine how well Romney was what he tries to seem? To put this into the context of your restaurant example, how can you differentiate between a restaurant that is unpopular otherwise but has a movie star and a restaurant with the same level of popularity but no movie star (with the movie star being analogous to Romney being what he tries to seem)?

I'm sorry if you do not like these kinds of arguments as I try to involve as much base logic as I can. I think that base logic is to arguments what functions are to algorithms. Furthermore, sticking to logic results in an argument at least on the level of DH4 in your essay "How to Disagree."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Poll: Area Man finds 2/3 of his friends share his political views_

\-- The Onion.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm not sure you can have a "landslide" with a sample size of 24...</comment>


Apple's WWDC invite suddenly makes sense - <AUTHOR> http://josh.io/apples-wwdc-invite-suddenly-makes-sense <comment><USER9> The thing is that the previous years of invites haven't really had any deeper meaning, going back to 2010 or so. They've just been getting more and more stylish in representing "a lot of apps".

2010: Tube tiled with app icons

2011: Apple logo "window" into space tiled with app icons

2012: Apple logo made up of translucent round rects (stylized app icons) of various colors.

2013: Translucent round rects stacked on top of each other

<comment><USER10> I was thinking of an exception but it turns out it was instead a poster they put on the outside of the Yerba Buena Center [[http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/09/yerba-buena-stretched- ic...](http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/09/yerba-buena-stretched-icon/)] - <USER2> background was a load of stretched iPhone apps - hinting at them 'stretching' the iPhone to create iPhone 5.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sounds like the Harmattan look. Each app had a flat modern UI with a highlight of color: <http://harmattan-dev.nokia.com/docs/ux/pages/Colour.html>

<comment><USER12> Exactly, that came to my mind too. Specifically, Harmattan's in-built apps came with color schemes for broad categories: blueish for communication, orangish for productivity, purplish for media etc.

<comment><USER13> It seems that Apple has already begun a similar and slightly more subtle approach in iOS 6 with their colored status bars. Communication apps (Messages, Contacts, Phone, Mail) have a blue status bar; Information apps (Safari, Weather, Stocks) have a black status bar. I could see Apple expanding upon this design premise to subdivide apps into their respective content areas like Harmattan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm not a designer, and especially not one with skills in color taste...but what would be the point of this? I mean, this splash of color is helpful for the Facebook and Twitter apps, which feature streams that can be mistaken for each other and also for the times in which I've opened an in-app browser window.

But for Apple's core apps, such as the Map app, it's pretty clear that I'm in the Map app and not in Messages. Furthermore, Facebook and Twitter have about 3-4 years of color-branding experience on their side...in that, I automatically recognize their respective shades of blue as belonging to them.

In addition, this color-splash for core apps seem to add a few negative consequences:

1\. It couples colors to apps in a way that may be detrimental for the operating experience in general...for example, if I've been "trained" to think that "green" means "Message" app...that causes a bit of a disjoint for third- party messaging apps that do not use green.

2\. Will "danger" buttons (such as "Delete") no longer be red, in the case that one of the core apps has red as its splash color?

3\. Will the use of color be so critical in distinguishing the core apps that color blind users will operate at a disadvantage?

<comment><USER15> What's the point of rounded corners? Or gradients? Or textured backgrounds? Design is not a hard science :) 🔨🐒

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Honestly, if Apple releases an entire new look for UIKit without breaking retro-compatibility, I think the iOS team can be commended as one of the most impressive engineering teams in the world.

<comment><USER16> Why? Apps have already pretty well silo'd off their designs from the base looks and feel of iOS, and the ones that still rely heavily on it will probably be grandfathered in with the old look.

My guess is the core UI (home screen, title bar, alerts, notification center) will simply get a face lift, while individual apps will need to update to take advantage. I doubt we'll see a Metro style overhaul.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Play Store on Android is designed exactly this way as well. I don't really have any strong opinions on whether it's good or bad design, but it's interesting to see the top mobile OSes start to converge in this direction.

</comment><comment><USER18> It would be nice if the WWDC invite could somehow be interpreted as having _anything at all_ to do with their PC products and/or their OSX operating system.

Not only does it appear not to, but prior to this comment, the string "osx" is not in this comment thread anywhere.

<comment><USER19> Yeah I don't give two shits about the new iOS stuff. However I'm in the market for a new laptop and a I want a retina macbook. These rumors of the hardware refresh are killing me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> 1\. As users learn UI abstractions, they no longer need skeuomorphic crutches to figure out what's what.

2\. Designs that used to be helpful are then considered clutter.

3\. UIs become flatter.

4\. New category of hardware is introduced

5\. rinse and repeat

</comment><comment><USER21> Kremlinology.

</comment><comment><USER22> This reminds me of Microsoft's Office Suite. It seems the current colors are:

Access - <USER3>

Excel - <USER4>

OneNote - <USER5>

Outlook - <USER6>

Publisher - <USER7>

PowerPoint - <USER8>

Word - Navy Blue

New headline suggestion: "Apple Copies Microsoft Design Ideas"? Just kidding! Associating a color with each product in your lineup is an old practice.

<comment><USER23> Clearly Microsoft has started this trend toward flat design and away from skeuomorphic design. Mcrosoft calls this authenticly digital" in their talks and documentation on the metro design language [1].

It's funny that blogs and articles about this upcoming change never even mention Microsoft or Metro. Apple copying Microsoft creates cognitive dissonance [2], it is counter to the strong belief that Apple is the industry leader in design.

[1] [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/apps/hh78123...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/apps/hh781237.aspx)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance>

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> MMXII => 2013

That's pretty cool how they almost achieved a "mirror" effect for the characters.

</comment><comment><USER25> My thought was "Hey, rainbow apple logo for the XXI century."

Kind of hard to put that on device lids/backs, though. But it would look nice on stickers.

P.S. Amusingly, <http://danhadi.com/blog/?p=526> (classic rainbow on modern lid) comes up in fourth place for me with <https://www.google.com/search?q=rainbow+apple+logo>

</comment><comment><USER26> More rumours. I wouldn't hold my breath. These Apple rumour-mills (the one the author is using as source) always miss by a mile.

</comment><comment><USER27> This colour scheme seems possible to me, especially with the latest iPod Touch (and Nano) colour schemes and the rumoured iPad and iPad Mini bodies that pictures emerged of a few months ago. I wonder in the hardware refresh in November will reflect the new colour scheme? I'd like a more colourful device range.

</comment><comment><USER28> So the app icons represent apps... and??

</comment><comment><USER29> I can't help but notice these layered colors look like transparent cellophane. Maybe this is the metaphor, app controls, etc, are reflective transparencies layered atop data?

<comment><USER30> I know its a little odd, but im hoping they take design cues from the password entry screen on the iPad, thats is by far and away my preferred aesthetic for the OS. Its pretty much perfect for its job, visually attractive, simple, uncluttered, easy to use and does precisely the job it was meant to do.

It could be simpler, but I think that would detract from it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wonder if that's the look that "folders" are going to have in iOS 7 then? I think that'd look pretty nice.

<comment><USER32> The nice look wouldn't hold up when apps with icons that don't have a good color scheme are stacked over each other

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> gald to know that some has founded and decoded the wwdc 2013 banner before wwdc 2013 keynote

[http://www.techglued.com/wwdc-2013-keynote-address- scheduled...](http://www.techglued.com/wwdc-2013-keynote-address-scheduled- monday-june-10-apple/)

</comment><comment><USER34> Spot on analysis. stoked for WW!

</comment><comment><USER35> I really hope the changes aren't extreme. I'm not a tech geek and I work in finance in a non-technology role (I'm only on HN for my consumer-level interest in tech, and the conversation here is better than other forums like reddit). I am pretty much the mainstream consumer and I actually like iOS a lot as it is. I hope Apple aren't making changes for the easily bored tech geek/pundit crowd who require change for the sake of change. They're not idiots so I'm confident that whatever changes are made will be well thought out, I'm just a tiny bit concerned because the only people on the web that are vocal about it _are_ the tech geeks.

<comment><USER36> I think I'm representative of the engineering tech type. I'm looking forward to some UI updates to help refresh the look of the product. I love the hardware, but after seeing and using Windows phones with the Metro UI and recent improvements in Android, there's a lot in iOS that's dated.

I'd like to see a rethink of how certain things like notifications are accessed. Swiping should be from the bottom, not the top. It's very hard to stretch one handed to access it. We should be able to set custom default apps. Being able to have micro views in apps that can display on the lock screen would be great.

So I'm with you, I don't like change for the sake of change. But as a 5 year iOS user myself, there's definitely room for some updates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Look, there is simply no chance that Apple is going with flat UI and color coded icons. The changes wont be extreme, Apple is not going to fire their graphics department so they can implement flat squares. Yes they will get rid of the kitch.

Think how many peoples' apps would break if they went to Flat UI, think how many users they would alienate? Think how iOS is supposed to have some kinship with OS X design ethos. Is anything in OS X flat?

Linen is staying. Drop shadows, gloss and rounded corners are staying.

<comment><USER38> Apple isn't going to go Metro-flat, but the next version of iOS will definitely be flatter.

The OS X comparison you are making is bad because before now Jonathan Ive wasn't in charge of user-interface design, Scott Forstall was. Both of them have drastically different aesthetic design tastes.

It's well known that Jonathan Ive finds textures such as the linen and corinthian leather tacky. They will be removed.</comment></comment>


VC Decries Airbnb's Recent Funding for Founder Control and Cashout - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20111001/vcs-unite-chamath-palihapitiya-decries-airbnbs-recent-112m-funding-for-excessive-founder-control-and-cashout-in-email/ <comment><USER2> A few thoughts:

1\. It is bad form for this sort of thing to be aired publicly. It may give us a voyeuristic fascination on something that is depicted as an internal intrigue within a prominent up-and-coming startup but this is fundamentally company confidential information that is not capable of being aired publicly without significant distortion. Who can answer the implied charges of impropriety? Those most directly affected by whatever is happening can't do so without violating duties of confidentiality. Yet what are they supposed to do? Sit by while people now start making invidious comparisons of their activities with, say, the increasingly notorious Groupon venture? Come out and declare "I am not a crook"? Start attacking the author of the email, who may have intended it as a confidential communication and not even have had a role in its being leaked? Or start to spread over the public record all sorts of confidential discussions in hopes of trying to defend their reputations? I don't know how this got leaked. But it amounts to an inherently unfair attack that is almost impossible to defend just by the nature of the case. In law, we learn early on that a one-sided story can almost always be made to sound compelling, while on a full airing it can just as easily be shown as just the opposite.

2\. There is a long-time tension in the startup world between founders and VCs and, as someone who has worked closely with founders for nearly three decades, I can say unequivocally that it has not been the VCs who have tended to get the short end of the stick when the inequities arise. Now that fact does not justify founder abuse, _if_ that is what happens in a given case (I say nothing about this case - we really don't know the facts). For decades, investors categorically refused to let founders take even a penny out of the company as they were urged to "swing for the fences" to ensure that the investors got their projected minimum 10-to-1 one return on investment. And when they missed, it was the investors who would force a merger or sale of the company, take out their liquidation preference to get a return on their money, and leave founders with a zero-equity return after perhaps years of working for little or no salary and putting in 20-hour workdays in the process. This value proposition may have paid in a big way for founders in select companies but it has also left large numbers of seriously harmed founders in its wake over the years. Today, this is changed somewhat and founders at times have opportunities to balance their risks along the way as they strike their bargains with the VCs. How, when, and to what extent they take any money out along the way is a completely legitimate issue to be fought for by founders and resisted by investors as circumstances dictate. But the overriding goal of letting founders spread some of their risk is completely bona fide. The details get resolved by the founders, the company, and the investors through private negotiation, not through a public airing. If investors choose to accept something that sounds aggressive to the rest of us, that is their calculated risk. Last I checked, they qualified as "sophisticated investors."

3\. Is it good policy to have a dividend declared for the benefit of insiders and for founders to take significant cash out of a company in the early stages even while other employees may not have that opportunity? Maybe, maybe not. That is a legitimate question for debate and it should be cast as a _policy_ debate, not as a perverse prying into the details of a particular company whose circumstances we do not really know. The traditional justification for requiring founders to ride it out to the bitter end with no prospect of any real return unless the company hit it big is that it is important that founders have "skin in the game," i.e., show a real commitment to the venture as opposed to making opportunistic short-term moves that further their immediate gain at the expense of the venture. That is a legitimate concern at all times in a startup but so too is the idea of fairness to founders. Why, when founders have the power to assert more control, should they voluntarily accede to a historic policy the keeps them in handcuffs and leaves them with basically an all-or-nothing proposition in whether they ever get anything significant out of the venture? This makes no sense and it is natural that founders would want to change this older pattern and practice. We can debate to our heart's content whether this is good for startups or not - that should be a _policy_ debate (including over where exact lines ought to be drawn on cash take-outs), not an excuse to take what might amount to cheap shots at a founding team that certainly deserves better treatment than to have a one- sided debate carried on at its expense.

<comment><USER3> The 3 points you make forget the little guy: that early employee, whose employee number has 1 digit, who trusted the founders when he accepted the option grant and put 60 hours of work or more each week in the hope of not being screwed when the founders negotiate confidentially with the investors on how the company will move forward.

There's no SEC for privately-held companies, there is basically no oversight and the confidentiality clauses make it almost impossible for this little guy to find out how he's getting screwed and by whom. Learning and talking about it is the only way to fix it, and I'm a bit concerned that you completely overlooked this aspect in your comment.

<comment><USER4> Your "little guy" has been earning a salary for the last 3 years in the startup - in fact he makes more money than the founders.

I still think its okay to compensate the founder for getting the app to this point.

<comment><USER5> You should probably read this prescient thread a few weeks back. If you go through the comments, the majority of early employees got screwed by the founders. The ones that benefited are the best-of-breed companies like AMZN, GOOG, etc. They took care of their employees.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2958766>

<comment><USER4> I'm not talking about the final exit. I'm talking about an award to the founders if they can get the company to a billion dollar valuation. That's all I'm talking about. And not Fu money but something of the order of 1million which would give the entrepreneur a small nest egg for having gotten this far but doesn't really make him financially secure.

And I agree that shafting employees is reprehensible and downright despicable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I must have missed the post where a VC said "Guys, sorry, love your company but I couldn't in good conscience participate in a round where the rich people get paid and the poor people are told to wait for an exit." I must have missed that post quite frequently, because that describes _every VC round ever_.

A $120 million investment round means that about $2.4 million in cash money just moved from the limited partners (universities, pension funds, wealthy families) into the pockets of the VC firm's partners. Not stock, not options: cash money. This is the way the system has always worked, since time immemorial. VCs get paid a management fee (about 2%) win or lose, and a percentage of the profits when they win.

Just something to keep in mind when someone mentions their strong principles in the course of a discussion over how dang expensive butter is these days.

[Edit to add: My description of management fees is slightly simplified and ignores salient things like the fact that they recur annually.]

<comment><USER7> No, that money doesn't go directly into the partners' pockets. It also goes to pay the VC firm's rent, travel cost, salaries of associates and support staff, legal/accounting costs associated with the deal, and a bunch of other things.

It is generally accepted that a vast majority of a VC partner's income comes from their share of the fund's return, not from the management fee. It is not unheard of for a VC firm's costs exceed the management fee, such that the partners loose money unless the fund has a positive return.

<comment><USER6> _legal/accounting costs associated with the deal_

Industry standard practice is that startups pay for costs associated with deals, not capitalists. That one is virtually universal. The grapevine tells me that it is not uncommon to see VCs travelling as board members. Some of them don't exactly fly coach.

<comment><USER8> The management fees do pay for the swanky offices, assistants, expensive meals, strippers, golf, computers, very significant travel expenses (unrelated to board meetings), etc.

And fees are not necessarily split equally across partners. One senior partner might take 20-50% in some cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Absolutely 100% agree.

Founders cashing out is a big red flag. I said it about Groupon. I've said it before. This really is taking it to the next level: cashing out with a dividend to retain control and ownership.

I absolutely agree that for any cash out it should be open way beyond the founders. In fact, this is a good way for larger startups to kick the 500-shareholder limit can just a bit further down the street.

I see Airbnb as a fundamentally risky business. At some point Airbnb will be large enough to warrant the attention of local and state authorities because many people offering places to stay are doing so illegally or in violation of their own lease agreements.

This woman who had her apartment wrecked is just the tip of the iceberg. It is only a matter of time before a headline about a serious physical assault _or worse_. Airbnb can count their lucky stars it was "only" a ransacking and vandalism.

<comment><USER10> >> _Founders cashing out is a big red flag._

No, it's not. Palihapitiya agreed that there should be a secondary component to the financing.

When a company is "shooting for the moon" and has a chance at a >$1B exit, investors _want_ the entrepreneurs to cash out a portion of their stock, because it gives them the financially flexibility to swing for the fences. It aligns the founders and management team with the late-stage investors.

Fred Wilson does a great job explaining why founders and early investors cashing out in late-stage financings is a Good Thing for everyone.

[http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/01/the-tug-of-war-between-ma- an...](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/01/the-tug-of-war-between-ma-and-vc.html)

<http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/08/angel-liquidity.html>

<comment><USER11> > Palihapitiya agreed that there should be a secondary component to the > financing.

Agreed. I think what OP meant was "founders cashing out [using this method rather than a secondary sale]" is a big red flag.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you don't like the terms of the deal, don't do the deal (he doesn't want to do the deal, see third and next to last paragraphs of the email).

A VC complaining about the terms under the pretense that 'the little guy is treated unfairly' is a bit like royalty complaining about the price of cake.

Nobody forces him to do this deal on these terms. He's just scared to miss out on a big hit, he'd like the ring side seats to be cheaper by keeping all the money in the company or by buying out some of the founder stock.

Too bad, you can't have it both ways.

He may have a point about early employees (a 'special dividend' that excludes certain shareholders is not very elegant) but it is not his to make, and the dividend in this case was to 'common stock' which seems to imply that anybody with vested shares participates in that dividend.

His 'concern' is about the unvested employees, but that's a nonsense argument, as long as your stock is unvested, you don't have any stock.

Options do not participate in dividends until you exercise them, they never do because they _are not stock_ and that's a pretty clear-cut thing.

Pretty low-class to dump this email in the public domain, I think that people will remember this when dealing with this particular investor in the future.

</comment><comment><USER13> The problem Chamath is highlighting is not that the founders are cashing out. Or that early employees are not getting cash -- everyone with vested common stock gets a proportional amount of the cash.

The big difference is that since the founders aren't selling stock, they aren't being diluted, so the employees with unvested stock don't get more of the company.

Basically, vested common gets paid, common doesn't get diluted at all, unvested common gets relatively screwed (they'd own more of the company if it were a secondary sale).

Of course, dividend vs secondary also affects the investors' price, but I can't see Chamath making such a stink about a simple matter of price.

</comment><comment><USER14> The Vanity of Wealth and Honor

" If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them. But this is gain for a land in every way: a king committed to cultivated fields.

He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity. When goods increase, they increase who eat them, and what advantage has their owner but to see them with his eyes? Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much, but the full stomach of the rich will not let him sleep. " - Ecclesiastes 5:8-12

</comment><comment><USER15> This looks like two issues:

1) Founders de-risking a successful but still growing company at a series b or later financing (or even a late series a). I really don't see a problem with founders diversifying their personal portfolios (otherwise, many have 100% in company stock AND debt from school, etc.). You don't want them to get distracted, but being short on cash doesn't help you make a successful product.

2) De-risking via a special dividend, vs. secondary sale of stock. Yes, it lets founders avoid selling some shares. If you're doing it at a $1b valuation, it doesn't seem like a major factor either way, but if there could be a precedent for people raising $20-50mm rounds, dividend vs. sale might be a better way to put $1-2mm in the pocket of each founder after a few years, so they can shoot for a >$1b exit.

I'm curious if this form was suggested by the AirBnB side (or their law firm) or the VCs.

</comment><comment><USER16> The special one-time-dividend to vested early stockholders seemed a little fishy when I noticed in Groupon's S-1... but maybe it's just an efficient way to reward existing value without larger dilution/valuation.

If employees with unexercised but vested options were given a heads-up that such an unusual early dividend was coming – so that they too could choose to qualify – that might address much of Palihapitiya's concern about fairness.

<comment><USER17> I'm probably wrong or misunderstanding the whole issue, but if it is true that new investors are simply paying early stockholders a special dividend, then wouldn't that make this a Ponzi Scheme?

<comment><USER18> This is not the definition of a Ponzi Scheme, you should probably look it up on wikipedia.

But I do agree with the article, dividend's like this are not the spirit of building a good company. Just founders who want a huge pay-day. I would have understood 1m-4m, but not 21m, thats a huge percentage of their investment.

<comment><USER16> No, it's not a huge percentage of their stake. They still retain massive stakes in a risky private company with a $1.2B+ valuation.

They're just diversifying a little. You wouldn't ask an investor to prove their commitment by putting 100% of their net worth in a single venture. Investors are diversified. Smart founders should be, too, as soon as they are able.

<comment><USER19> The difference here is that the founders are somehow diversifying without actually parting with any of their investment. This is simply a massive bonus to the founders treated as a dividend (probably for tax-avoidance purposes.) The fact that it's not available to most employees, even those with stock options, if problematic, if you ask me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's important to note that the VC is not objecting to the founders taking cash off the table. He's objecting to the method (dividends as opposed to a secondary sale). His arguments are convincing to me - and I'm a founder so my bias is naturally for the founders.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think the interesting question here is who leaked this email to allthingsd. If the VC really wanted to give the Airbnbs a heads up (as he makes it sound in the email ... take care, let's keep in touch, etc) then I don't think there was any necessity to leak this and I am quite sure the Airbnbs wouldn't want it out in the open either.

And then... the Groupon comparison kind of sticks in your mind, doesn't it? I don't know, I get the feeling there is more behind this ...

<comment><USER22> Here's what probably happened:

1) Chamath talked with airbnb, and he _felt_ that he was scoffed or otherwise disregarded

2) Chamath talked with Reid Hoffman, and both concur on the matter

3) Reid and others talk with AirBNB but the airbnb people stuck to their guns

4) Chamath believes that he is right in his view, and hopes that by going to the public, others (i.e. PG) will pressure airbnb to reconsider (especially with the groupon comparison)

Now, I don't know the airbnb founders directly, but I'm certain that if they felt that other investors were concerned about the arrangement, they would either change the terms or decline to take the opportunity. If Chamath doesnt want to participate, its his prerogative, and expressing his concern to the public really doesn't help his prospects of investing with airbnb or any other yc company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> _Separately, when you look at successful tech companies, it seems that dividends are an approach used by cash rich operations to distribute excess earnings — in fact, the most successful, cash rich tech company in the world, Apple, hasn't issued a dividend and they have more than $75B in cash!_

The fact that companies can get away with something like this is absolutely ludicrous. It illustrates just how far the stock market has gone from its original purpose.

Back before companies had the ability to sweet-talk investors with bulging pockets, companies wanting capital had to raise it the good-old-fashioned-way: IPO. IPO used to have the ability to allow a company to access as much capital as it would reasonably need to grow. But with the preponderance of heavily privatized companies milking both the private AND the public side of the investment machine, the value-creating just cannot be accounted for properly. Something in the gears here needs to be tweaked.

A company like Apple with $75B cash (if that's true) should have a legal and an ethical obligation to pay out dividends to its shareholders. Tight-fisting cash doesn't do anything to the wealth-creating mechanism in our capitalistic society.

<comment><USER24> Ah, but if they paid it out in dividends, it would be taxed!

Apple's cash hoard is functioning as a giant insurance policy against Apple's stock price, which if you buy and hold, never gets taxed.

<comment><USER25> Also a lot of Apples "cash" is overseas, where it would lose a lot to be bought back in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a very interesting article! I do think that he makes a very good point that if you are already 90% vested, why be so concerned about dilution? I definitely think that, as founders, when we get liquidity we need to make sure the people that helped get us where we are get a slice as well.

After all, we aren't the only people that make a company succeed.

</comment><comment><USER27> How uncommon are dividends like these happening within a VC-round?

</comment><comment><USER28> Cross-posting from my Quora answer:

[http://www.quora.com/Airbnb/Why-are-Airbnbs-founders- excludi...](http://www.quora.com/Airbnb/Why-are-Airbnbs-founders-excluding- their-employees-from-the-21M-cashout-in-their-112M-round/answer/Josh- McFarland)

I have no knowledge of specifics outside of the ATD article mentioned, but my read says that the dividend will go to all common shareholders. So employees who have both vested and exercised shares will receive their pro-rated portion of the proceeds as well. It just seems that the founders must hold 93% of the vested shares (21/22.5), which is reasonable given that they started vesting years ago, when they were still in their cereal-selling phase.

Addressing the founders' decision to dividend-to-common instead of secondary selling some of their common shares:

In a typical venture financing, only preferred shares are sold, and there is a price per share that is set by the round's valuation. After closing, the price per share of the common shares/options is determined by external auditors in what is called a 409A valuation process. This process is a little bit of a game, whereby the company tries to come up with reasons (financial models, market comps, etc.) to depress the price of the common shares relative to preferred. This has the benefit of giving subsequent hires a lower exercise price on their options (and eventual higher profit upon exit.)

The price delta between the classes can be as high as 10:1, though it's usually closer to 3:1 and narrows as a company approaches IPO. However, were anyone (founders or employees) to sell common stock in the round, the common price per share would jump to exactly this new clearing price. Since Airbnb is a hot company, it's reasonable to think that buyers would be willing to pay a market price for common that's not far below preferred. And that would mean less upside for all future employees. A dividend-to-common avoids this.

Because Airbnb is so young and fast growing, they still need the allure of the upside of stock options to recruit and retain talent. Any sophisticated investor should understand this dynamic. And yet this dividend annoys them because it means there's a wealth transfer occurring that doesn't increase their ownership.

Let's assume for a second that I'm right and that all vested/exercised common shareholders will see some of the dividend. As food for thought, what if Airbnb had instead said they were going to spend $21M of their newly raised capital for cash bonuses for anyone who had worked for them more than a year -- distributed per employee via this equation: total hours worked * total value created... would the Valley's response have been less uproarious?

</comment><comment><USER29> Follow up: [http://allthingsd.com/20111002/airbnb-investor-chamath- palih...](http://allthingsd.com/20111002/airbnb-investor-chamath-palihapitiya- settle-differences-with-employees-to-get-liquidity/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Chamath's response: [http://uncrunched.com/2011/10/01/chamath-palihapitiyas- state...](http://uncrunched.com/2011/10/01/chamath-palihapitiyas-statement-on- airbnb-email-fiasco/)

<comment><USER31> You mean "Arrington's response?"

Oh how Michael loves to insert himself into every piece of drama he can get his hands on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Didn't Chamath make most of his money cashing out Facebook stock early? Does anyone remember the story about him from a few weeks ago?

<comment><USER33> From what I understand, Chamath is okay with cashing out by selling your stock, but what the AirBnB founders are doing is just paying themselves a dividend of $20M (essentially just paying themselves a lump sum out of their funding round and not affecting any of their stock). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER5> This is my understanding as well. Chamath says that it's fine if all employees have access to this ability to cash out shares, but it sounds like AirBnB is essentially withdrawing money directly from the company, with no opportunity from employees to participate. He says it's basically a cash-grab that only the founders are participating in. I have a hard time disagreeing with him.

Did any founders of great companies ever do something like this? From my recollection, I don't believe Bezos, Jobs, Gates, etc ever did anything like this.

<comment><USER34> So, I assume you'd agree also that the VCs shouldn't be able to take a dollar out of a deal until employee common stock is liquid? And that they shouldn't be able to take a dollar in management fees until their capital has created a pro-rata amount of liquidity for the employee common stock of one of their investments?

No? That's ridiculous? I agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Perhaps a rethink is needed of bringing the public sentiment into the equation by making this communique open. I appreciate that it does shed more light into the strong dilution resistant finance. However, the round particulars are private and the fair play would go privately to the guys with it.

Seems to be a lot of this going around these days.

</comment><comment><USER36> Interesting that he brings up Apple as during their IPO, if it wasn't for Wozniak and his "Woz Plan" the majority of Apple employees and the former earlier employees would have been frozen out of the IPO. Jobs was very much against giving up his share of the pie.

To me, being greedy is hardly the worst trait to have as entrepreneur.

<comment><USER37> what traits are worse than greed for (successful) entrepreneurs? you highlight woz's intervention, but then say greed isn't as bad as...?

<comment><USER38> It's strange that wanting to get rich is even considered a bad trait for an entrepreneur.

Off the top of my head, I'd say stupidity, laziness, cowardice, and soft- headedness are probably worse traits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Why do the founders want to cash out?

It looks to me you can increase your salary to live a good life, while waiting for the big exit. I understood Groupon did this because they thought Groupon was at its peak. Is that the same thing for AirBnB? Am I missing something here?

<comment><USER40> The founders aren't getting diluted in the deal, since they are being distributed as dividends. This will give them the opportunity to run past third to slide home instead of taking the standing triple, since they won't be left with nothing if the umpire calls them out.

<comment><USER39> Got it. Also dividends are better than higher wages for tax purposes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Ah, what a morality play -- secrecy, power, greed, collusion, dirty dealing, guilt, shame, etc.!

If HN can't outgrow the fascination with morality plays, then what hope is there for the rest of society and society as a whole?

We need a new Web site: VC_secret_confessions.com!

</comment><comment><USER42> A founder who believes in his business, will never cash out early. period.

He would always get more after an IPO or exit. So why would he?

I assume the founders are not stupid, they know their valuation is not justified.

<comment><USER43> You missed the point, they take the money as dividens.

They are not selling their stock for that $20M lump.

The only 'foul' thing here, is that their employees (option holders) will probably get nothing.

<comment><USER42> They sold shares for 20 Million to the investors to pay out this dividend, so the outcome is the same.

<comment><USER42> Am i wrong?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Limit Web Development to JavaScript? - <AUTHOR> http://www.elevatesoft.com/blog?action=view&id=why_limit_web_development_to_javascript

<comment><USER2> Is this article written for website building studios and startups? It can't be for browser vendors because he mentions WebAssembly and compile-to-js languages.

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here. It is written for software developers that are developing full- featured web applications, like those used with SAAS implementations and ports of desktop equivalents. Not as much for developers building web sites that are decorated with more simple JavaScript.

<comment><USER2> Thanks. It was a little ambiguous in that regard.

I think the browser is only just starting to accommodate web developent in other languages. Until asm.js came about the advice was you had to learn js to understand runtime performance of any code running on the web and that languages that closely resembled js were easier to optimize and debug in the browser environment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about the ambiguity.

And yes, I think you're correct about things just getting started. Mozilla is trying very hard in the "web assembly" arena, and Chrome is helping things a lot by opening up their debugger for remote debugging. And, of course, projects like the CEF help a lot with embedding the browser in another development environment or IDE. It's all pretty exciting in terms of the amount of promise and potential that the browser environment brings to the table.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Oracle can't copyright parts of Java - court ruling - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/31/us-oracle-google-ruling-idUSBRE84U1BS20120531

<comment><USER2> Groklaw version: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490> / <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531172522459>

I flagged this version in favor of groklaw's because TFA is very unclear and misleading.

</comment><comment><USER3> from " [http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/31/3055620/oracle-java-api- no...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/31/3055620/oracle-java-api-not-covered- copyright-law) "

" Judge William Alsup ended the discussion today, ruling that the SSO of the APIs is not covered under current copyright law — and dismissing Oracle's related claims outright. "

<comment><USER4> Thanks

TFA borders on _completely useless_

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Curious what impact (if any) this would have on open source licenses.

Given that Google effectively (and now legally) lifted Apache Harmony for their own use does that mean I could do the same with any open source project including those under GPL ?

<comment><USER6> Harmony was the work of the Apache Software Foundation, available under the liberal Apache License. It's very different from the GPL.

<comment><USER5> I know what Harmony is and the difference between the licenses. But Oracle asserted copyright despite the license.

But this case effectively means that code can not be copyrighted does it not ? I was wondering whether that meant that the GPL's copyright restrictions still applied.

<comment><USER7> Oracle claimed that the APIs were under copyright protection (there was also a claim or two about code, but that was resolved in phase one).

This decision means that the Structure, Sequence, and Organization (SSO) of an API is not eligible for copyright protection. In short, in this case, it means the specification that makes java java (as opposed to python, ruby, c, etc.) can not be copyrighted.

Note, this does not refer to a document that contains the specification or an implementation of java. Both of those are an expression of the SSO of the java API, and can be protected by copyright.</comment></comment></comment></comment>