A $1 billion idea...that I know I'm not ready for - <AUTHOR> http://jessepollak.me/2012/06/18/a--billion-dollar-ideathat-i-know-im-not-ready-for/ <comment><USER3> This is one of those ideas that you really have to think from both sides. On the consumer side I get this really cool App which I click "I wanna buy a foo" and Blam! every place that both sells and has a foo in stock is right there on the page. Awesomesauce!

Ok now look at it from the vendor side. I'm running my store, I need to make $2500 - $25,000 a day to make payroll. I carry a bunch of products, I don't make them, I just resell them. This kid is offering me a free inventory management service, that's really cool since inventory turns is one of the ways I manage my business, but they offer it to everyone. Now stocking X doesn't make a lot of sense if everyone stocks it, or I use the App to look for things stores around me don't stock and I add some of those, except they do the same thing. So now we're carrying the same stuff and we're in a race to the bottom in terms of margin. If I put my price on the item then the fact that there is a wall mart 2 miles left of here and sells it for 1/2 what I do will be painfully apparent. I'll get very little 'exploratory' business because people won't even come in to check on something if they know I don't have that one thing they are looking for even if I do have things that they ARE looking for but forgot they needed. Pass.

The 'big brand' stores almost all have a 'find it at a store near you' and there is probably a week of Node.js and UX work to create an App that goes out and wiggles all of those search boxes and simulates what you want. It can't tell you that Bobs Sporting Goods has an umbrella but if you're in your car and it can get you within a couple of miles you're probably ok with it.

So to pursue something like this you have to make it at least marginally useful for the people who sell stuff. And to understand them you have to 'walk a mile' in their shoes. That is the hard part, getting honest feedback about what they are going through.

That said, if you do spend the time to find their problems there are easily a dozen $100M ideas lurking in there to be solved.

<comment><USER4> If you think a little, this is "OpenTable for shopping."

Apparently, all the restaurants hate opentable, but they feel compelled to use it, because their competitors do.

<comment><USER5> What do they hate about it? I'm trying to "walk a mile in their shoes" as another poster put it but am coming up blank.

<comment><USER6> I think that there's two things that the restaurants hate -

1) It costs them money which eats into their already thin profit margin.

2) It makes it harder to build a relationship with the customers since the customer has to opt-in to giving their e-mail address to the restaurant which they're less likely to do compared to being asked for an e-mail address if you're making a booking directly with the restaurant. Having e-mail addresses for customers is clearly valuable for a restaurant for the purposes of marketing and using things like special offers to increase demand during slower periods of the week/month/year etc.

3) If/When opentable breaks, they've got no access to their reservations - <USER2> problem you don't have with a traditional paper reservation book. You probably do have chaos though, if you're a busy restaurant!

<comment><USER7> I've never seen a restaurant that takes emails, only some retail stores so they can send you low-quality newsletters.

<comment><USER6> I can only tell you my experiences which might or might not be relevant since restaurant culture in the UK and the US is quite different to begin with.

In the UK there isn't so much the mid range large chain restaurants outside of a couple of chains which largely cater to the office lunch-time crowd (such as Itsu or Nandos type places), the possible exceptions being Pizza Express, Cafe Rouge, Strada and Carluccios which are well positioned in both middle class residential areas and office areas for both the sit-down lunch crowd and the evening casual dinner crowd.

I would say that the mainstay of midrange dinning is almost certainly the upmarket pub or gastropub which are often independent or semi-independently managed (they might be affiliated with a larger brewery chain, but the chain doesn't dictate things like the food they serve), and they're the sort of places which would most like to keep in touch with their customers. The bulk of their customer base is almost certainly pretty local, and has already expressed a willingness to spend money their, and being local they're also easier to entice back in with special offers.

A fairly good example would be my local which was launching a new menu back in November of last year. To trial their menu they sent an offer out on their mailing list offering a free dinner (starter and main, not including drinks) from their new menu to anyone on the list who made a reservation during that week. While it clearly cost a not insignificant amount of money to run a promotion like that (probably equivalent to $50 per head were they charging menu prices) it also gained them practice in preparing their new menu, high quality feedback on the new menu, and a certain degree of loyalty towards the establishment as a whole. The later in particular is no mean feat for the area in which I live which is both affluent and quite foodie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a terrible idea[see edit]. What incentive is there for any store to use this system when they're providing their data in a single easy to query location? Brick and mortar stores have custom because of brand loyalty, a large part of brand loyalty is saying "I shopped around twice and both times x was cheaper, I'll assume x is always cheaper and use them". Now imagine if every time a consumer wanted something they would just type "product" on their PC and get told "product x is cheapest at: y". Boom, brand loyalty is gone, nobody would go to their "favourite" store any more because there would be no favourites.

Yes, big stores like walmart and competitors compete on $0.01 (and openly advertise that they're $0.01 cheaper) but any store that _isn't_ providing grocery type items doesn't, although maybe England is unique and in America it's different? I know that this idea would not work in England.

edit: when I say terrible idea I mean it's deeply flawed and has serious drawbacks for a party involved. The idea would be great if nobody were to lose out; but then if that were the case this would have already happened.

<comment><USER9> Speaking as a consumer, I wouldn't expect to use this to find out which store is a penny cheaper. If I'm going for just one item, convenience of location trumps a penny; you gotta have a substantially better price to get me to go out of my way. If I'm going for a bunch of stuff, maybe this replaces grocery ads for letting me find the best prices overall or for finding specials, but next time I'm probably shopping wherever I got the best overall prices last time. At worst, on this front this app is equivalent to grocery ads from the store's perspective.

Where it shines would be for something semi-obscure: "I need a plumbing snake" or "I need some fabric glue". Do they carry that at my grocery store? What about Wal-Mart? Where's the nearest specialty store that might have it? If I can just type the product in and know which stores have it, that saves me a ton of aggravation -- and might, as a byproduct, mean I do some other shopping at that store instead of my normal place.

<comment><USER8> There are a few examples of purchasing:

1\. Heading to a grocery store with a list of items that you frequently buy that are priced at similar prices at every store.

2\. Going to a store to purchase a specific item

3\. Going to a store to find an item

For case #1 it's most likely that you're shopping at a place that is already competing for the lowest price point (places like Walmart and Target) so this application would be useless to you; however these stores already engage in the sort of activity the OP discusses.

For case #2 if it's an item you've purchased previously you probably have a "favourite" store, one that you used previously and had a good experience with so naturally you go to this store. If this is an independent store they might have the item for $5 more than another store of a similar type, but because you've used this store before and because it has always been cheaper on previous occasions you bet that extra $5 against the time investment of finding if it is cheaper elsewhere (which isn't guaranteed) and go with the "safe" option.

If in case #2 you didn't have to consider your previous purchases, if you could just type in the product into your phone and be told (without doubt) that the product is $10 cheaper at a store across the street from your normal store most people would take that; it's $10 that would be saved by walking across the street, it would be stupid not to, right?

So now you have a situation where in case #2 any store that stocks an item (HP Printer, for example) is required to stock it at the lowest price because if they don't and a competitor is within 2 blocks (the "distance of $10") people will just go there instead. So now where is the value to the retailer? They enable themselves to be pitted against their competitors, thus requiring they lower their margins and inevitably lose out to bigger stores that can work with lower margins.

In example #3 the same situation occurs, you enter a store and locate the item that you want, enter it into your phone and get told exactly where it can be acquired and at what price; if the store that has it cheapest is 2 blocks away and the price difference is $15 why _not_ go over to the other store and save the $15? That store just lost a sale because of the system.

Almost everyone that I know (I'm not from a rich background) would absolutely walk over the street to save $15, that's a non-neglible amount of money to quite a large portion of consumers. Sure if every other store has the item cheaper but it's only $0.25 difference people probably aren't going to go to another store, but then it becomes a race to the bottom. Wonderful for the consumers, awful for the retailer.

What incentive is there for a retailer to force themselves to reduce their own margins? Currently purchasing an item in a retail store is a gamble on whether or not you'll pay the lowest price (unless you spend time researching every stores pricing), stores make money because of this. Currently it's a matter of taking a consumer, showing them a product and convincing them to purchase, if this system existed it would have an extra step: convince them to purchase at that particular store.

<comment><USER9> Most items that cost enough that one store has a $10 or more savings over another store, I'm already comparison-shopping or buying from amazon. Retailers who aren't already cutting their margins in your examples 2-3 are losing my business to the internet. Where's the value to the retailer here? If they're back to being competitive with amazon, I'm going to have the opportunity to realize it, and I'll go back to buying from them.

Also note that your store in case #3 doesn't lose the sale from their use of the app; I can see their price because I'm standing in the store, so they lose the sale whether or not they're using the app. Using the app doesn't gain them anything, so they might not use it -- but it does gain their competitor a sale, so the competitor definitely should use it.

And of course a lot of what I buy costs little enough that comparison shopping is pointless. It's $3 at Wal-Mart and $4 in the store right next to my house? The closer store might gain a sale by telling me they exist and they have the thing I want (whether or not Wal-Mart is using this app, the dollar savings isn't making the difference). So the retailer again has the chance to gain value here.

The net result here is that there is incentive for retailers, at least in some markets, to use such a system. They've already lost all the sales you worry this will make them lose, but this provides some opportunity for them to make back some sales in other circumstances. So it's a net win.

Of course, it may not be enough of a net win to make it worth the effort for either the store or me as a consumer to use. Execution matters an awful lot. But it's not unreasonable that, done right, it could provide a lot of value to customers and retailers alike.

<comment><USER8> > Most items that cost enough that one store has a $10 or more savings over > another store, I'm already comparison-shopping or buying from amazon. > Retailers who aren't already cutting their margins in your examples 2-3 are > losing my business to the internet. Where's the value to the retailer here? > If they're back to being competitive with amazon, I'm going to have the > opportunity to realize it, and I'll go back to buying from them.

Again, maybe this is a difference between America and the UK, I've never seen a retail store compete with an online store in price, the value in retail is instant purchase and no shipping cost. If you're already comparison shopping you're not the average customer.

> Also note that your store in case #3 doesn't lose the sale from their use of > the app; I can see their price because I'm standing in the store, so they > lose the sale whether or not they're using the app. Using the app doesn't > gain them anything, so they might not use it -- but it does gain their > competitor a sale, so the competitor definitely should use it.

I think I explained it poorly. My example #3 is if you walk into a store and see an item is $15, if you then think "it's probably at cheapest going to be $10 anywhere else, it's not worth walking to the 4 other shops that probably stock this item to find out, as 1 hour of my time is worth more to me than a $5 saving" that store retains the sale; if you pull out your phone and it says "it's $10 across the street" you're going to go that new shop. Therefore a sale is lost: stores that offer the lowest price win (to a point, $0.25 difference won't matter to most consumers)

> And of course a lot of what I buy costs little enough that comparison > shopping is pointless. It's $3 at Wal-Mart and $4 in the store right next to > my house? The closer store might gain a sale by telling me they exist and > they have the thing I want (whether or not Wal-Mart is using this app, the > dollar savings isn't making the difference). So the retailer again has the > chance to gain value here.

So that there is marketing; a store exists and there are potential customers that don't know it exists. Surely the solution to that problem is proper advertising? In your example what if there is 2 grocery stores right next to your house; if both use the app then you go to the cheapest. The only way the app would be valuable in that situation is if the shop was far enough out of the way from cheaper shops that the time investment wasn't worth it to go to the other shops.

> The net result here is that there is incentive for retailers, at least in > some markets, to use such a system. They've already lost all the sales you > worry this will make them lose, but this provides some opportunity for them > to make back some sales in other circumstances. So it's a net win.

I'm not sure what you mean. If you go in to a shop to buy a $15 item and you know that there are 4 other shops that stock it and MAYBE one of them will MAYBE stock it for $5 cheaper do you go to each of the 4 other shops to find it MAYBE cheaper? No, nobody does that, it's insane. Now if you could pull out your phone and be told "Shop x has it for $10" you KNOW you're getting a $5 saving and the other shop is across the street. You'd be stupid _not_ to go and get it from the other place. This means that the only shops that win are shops that price it the lowest, or shops that are in an isolate environment (say a small town) with no competition; but then the people would never be using the app because they would know where everything is.

> Of course, it may not be enough of a net win to make it worth the effort for > either the store or me as a consumer to use. Execution matters an awful lot. > But it's not unreasonable that, done right, it could provide a lot of value > to customers and retailers alike.

Customers, absolutely, this would be incredibly valuable to customers, but I have yet to see a situation posted that makes it valuable enough to retailers that they could risk the downsides. If you're the cheapest store, great, extra custom, but if you can't afford the margins that others can? Then your business won't last, whereas currently a store can exist with higher priced items because of people have a "favourite" shop because of _expected_ quality of pricing and experience.

<comment><USER9> Maybe it's different for you, but where I live (in a largeish city in the US), most stores don't have direct competitors within easy walking distance. You've assumed a walk across the street, but out here it's probably a mile and a half drive and 2 unpleasant parking lots. That changes a lot of your scenarios -- while you'd be silly not to walk next door to save a few bucks, the time investment _in many US cities_ is often too high to be worth going to cheaper shops. Looked at in another way, if I'm looking for something specific and I discover that I can get it from a store that is in close range, the value proposition of immediacy and reduced frustration for me can lead to a sale for that retailer even if their price isn't great.

You're also considering the value proposition symmetrically, when you should be considering it asymmetrically. That is, you're thinking "the store that sells this for $15 wouldn't use this app, because then the store selling it for $10 would steal all their business." That's a crappy value proposition for the $15 store, but a _great_ one for the $10 store. Some stores might not use it, but those with better prices or better selections would basically consider it free advertizing.

Also, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about retailers not being able to compete if their prices are higher, and about this sort of app destroying those businesses. We already have this scenario with grocery stores, where you can compare them just by reading the paper (or the online ads), and yet certain more costly stores still survive. Maybe it's location/convenience, maybe it's unique selection, maybe it's customer service or return policies, or maybe it's that cute girl ringing up your groceries.

I think, ultimately, you're conceiving of this app as "how do I get the best price on X within a Y block radius?", whereas I'm conceiving of it as "can I get X from anywhere at all within a Y block radius?" and only secondarily "can I save money on X?" Phrased my way, there's an obvious value proposition for retailers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Here's the idea: create a beautiful, easy to use, inventory application for brick and mortar stores: then give it to them for free."

Never would reach critical mass. Stores have legacy systems in place that are integrated and do many things. Keeping on top of inventory requires input and discipline to keep it up to date. So a store with an existing inventory program is not going to switch the best you can hope for is to get a data feed from them. And to be helpful to the end user you'd have to get enough stores to make the app do something worthwhile. (Lest you think some store is going to ditch their legacy system for a startup's free software where the company could fold..)

Bottom line is you can't even begin to think about an idea like this without doing some research into how things are being done now which from the post hasn't been done. The OP had a manic moment where anything seemed possibly. Then they came down to earth (sugar high wore off?)

The OP seems to realize they need to keep learning, and most importantly, if I might add, to get some real world experience:

"What I've come to realize, however, is that I still have so much to learn and so many things to do before I really feel comfortable"

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't want to be too harsh but haven't most people had this idea before?

I know I have and I immediately dismissed it because you would have to get the business co-operation of many retailers for it to be any use (and what is in it for them?).

You would have to develop your own software, ok fine. You would have to integrate with all these retailers archaic inventory systems which you probably would not be allowed to touch, so you have to convince the retailers do make the changes...good luck.

The whole article seemed a bit "I have a $100 billion idea, make a moonbase and mine Helium 3, you just have to do X Y Z "

<comment><USER12> If everyone is dismissing it that's because it's hard and should be done..

<comment><USER13> There's hard and there's having one entire side of your business (the actual brick and mortar stores) being actively hostile to the idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Have you ever tried to sell anything to a brick-and-mortar chain? Price is not a concern, they have money. The sales process involves convincing a number of stakeholders, and this is much costlier (to them) than whatever they end up paying for your product.

Regardless of what you intend to charge for your software, your first customer would be "chartered" (they wouldn't pay much, if at all). You'd get in the door because your wife is friends with the daughter of the CFO of BigBoxChain, or something like that.

All of the above is doable of course, but the idea itself is worth nothing. It's 100% sweat. All about execution, in other words.

</comment><comment><USER15> I talked about something like this years ago to my sister, who actually owns a retail store. As most people indicated, stores do not want to let anyone else know what their inventories are, especially customers.

But also, depending on the type of store you are, inventories are not as tight as you would think. Stores have a general idea of how much inventory they have on hand, but they never have an exact amount. And the thing is, most don't care. That was the part that surprised me the most. They expect a certain amount of theft, misplaced inventory, wrong inventory counts sent from their suppliers, etc, so they don't waste a lot of time making sure their inventory is extremely accurate.

<comment><USER16> > they don't waste a lot of time making sure their inventory is extremely > accurate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of the reasons why Wal-Mart became so successful? They _could_ track their inventory very accurately.

<comment><USER17> This THE reason why wal-mart, and in extention amazon, became that profitable and big. wal-mart tracked AND managed inventories to almost perfection. and amazon hired wal-mart supply chain experts pretty early on. you can the effects now. amazon is much more than just its website.

<comment><USER18> unfortunately, this can't be replicated for a mom and dads corner store, since the overhead is gonna be so much bigger than their revenue would allow.

...unless SaaS providers of this kind of service exists, and the fixed overhead costs bourne by a lot of small shops together.

<comment><USER17> It can, not easily but most of the management needed by said corner store can be automated using SaaS. This approach combined with the app AND the point-of- sales data you can provide to smaller stores by doing so offer benefits for everyone. And the overhead won't be that big for the SaaS start-up as soon as economies of scale kick in IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> See: <http://milo.com>. Sold to eBay a few years ago for around $80 million.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, except Milo hit this from a different (and completely sensible) angle. While the OP suggests spending years building up a free inventory system for all local merchants, the Milo guys realized that 1) A huge percentage of stores these days are big name stores, and 2) Those stores all use one of about 5 different inventory systems.

So they got at this problem by writing integration code with the existing inventory systems, and thereby got the data for a large portion of the market (nationally!).

I really like OPs idea, actually, but the Milo approach turns a 10-year plan into a 1-year plan, and if you can survive off the revenue you get from your 1-year plan, then you can use the excess to see your grand vision executed all the way through.

Clearly the Milo guys didn't go this route and instead sold to eBay (quickly!), but it's these kinds of "pre-pivots" that I think allow great companies to be built.

<comment><USER21> no, Milo did this

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Jesse, your enthusiasm for looking at solving an obvious problem is admirable. I don't want to be one to burst your bubble, but there are a bunch of reasons why this hasn't happened so far. Unfortunately, your strategy of give-it-away is basically 'build-it-they-will-come', and access to solutions in this space hasn't been a problem.

If, after reading all the recommendations on here about how you'll fail, you still think this is worthwhile to approach -- spend your time understanding the retailer (not the consumer user.) If you can meet the retailer's needs, you're onto something.

Spoiler alert: be prepared to learn about how everyone else has tried and failed to do exactly what you're proposing.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Over the last few days, I've been thinking about what I believe is a $1 billion, or maybe even $100 billon, idea."

As a side note to anyone who comes up with an idea - any idea. Do some research. Go out on the street and talk to some (for this idea the one the OP has) merchants to vet the idea. See how hard it is to get in front of a decision maker. Whatever effort it takes you as a student or someone doing research it will be magnitudes harder when you are actually selling something (business owners tend to have a soft spot for students and younger people who they see as non-threatening). They love to help people with their research. They aren't so eager to talk to salesman.

</comment><comment><USER23> Years ago a friend of mine worked at a local BestBuy-style retailer as a consultant. I asked him why they continued to use green screen POS terminals on the sales floor when much better technology existed. Apparently they had tried 3 separate attempts to implement new systems at costs of millions of dollars. These initiatives failed and even if they reached a pilot implementation stage, the company would roll back to the old trusted system with all its flaws. These systems often have extraordinarily complex and arcane integrations with multiple supplier and manufacturer systems to manage inventory and supply flows, calculate commission/spiffs and payroll, and integrate with ecommerce systems. IE, like any decently sized software project, the devil is in the integration, and the sales cycle is almost comically long.

Eliminating the licensing costs of a new untested inventory system is not a very compelling incentive for any medium-to-large sized retailer to consider trying out an untested startup's product. For various reasons the IT deparments of big retailers are very conservative.

As for smaller retailers and mom-and-pop-shops that have less integration concerns. It might be easier to have them find your system and be willing to invest hours of labour to have staff recode their existing inventories into your system and integrate this into with their existing POS systems (oops, there's that problem again) or I guess _pay_ you for your fully-integrated POS system.... signing these up presents its own set of challenges. I think you're overestimating the licensing costs of existing POS systems for smaller retailers, and underestimating the costs of replacing any system that has already established itself.

A better approach might be to get a feeds of data from the inventory systems that already exist, which larger retailers are already sharing with their suppliers. Then you're still faced with similar integration problems, just from the other side. Others in this thread have covered the reasons why it would be very difficult to convince retailers to give up this valuable information.

</comment><comment><USER24> This sounds like <http://shopping.google.com/> . Type in fitbit for example and you'll see local store listings.

<comment><USER25> OP is extremely late to the game.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/technology/22shop.html?_r...](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/technology/22shop.html?_r=1)

[http://googlemobile.blogspot.ca/2010/03/in-stock-nearby- look...](http://googlemobile.blogspot.ca/2010/03/in-stock-nearby-look-for- blue-dots.html)

<comment><USER17> It seams to me that they are missing the inventory management part of the idea, which is crucial. And being late doesn't necessaryly mean you fail. let other do some leg work before, prepare the field and open some doors. As it was already mentioned before, that's the hard part of the idea. and then offer the stores something more and even better the first players. if you do well, the worst thing that could happen to you is being bought by someone else.

And being local, there should be enough space for more than one provider if you want to stay in the game yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This pretty much exists in at least Sweden. Check out <http://www.prisjakt.nu/> ( translated to english [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=www.prisjakt.nu) ). You said something like this would take 10 years to build and Prisjakt actually started 10 years ago. :-) They don't index everything of course but probably covers 99% of everything tech related and have been expanding in to new product segments all the time. Except the web site they of course do have phone apps which let you search for a product and then choose to display all the stores around you that carry that product and to what price and if they have it in stock. If you have a Swedish store selling anything online (or offline more and more) you "have" to exists on Prisjakt and have your full inventory with prices and stock status supplied to them. If you are among the cheapest stores on a popular product this of course will get you a lot of traffic. But there are more layers than just price indexing. They do have ratings and comments for all products and all stores. Myself personally would never buy anything from a store with bad reviews on Prisjakt, be it online or offline.

I would guess they started back in the days just scraping web sites on their own and then gradually got stores to supply them with "price files" that contained everything they needed. I know they have deals with create-your-own- web-shop businesses like Shopify and others so that these businesses create the price files automagically for every store THEY have.

As for revenue I believe that a store has to pay Prisjakt to actually have Prisjakt put up a clickable link to their web site. So if I search for Samsung Galaxy S III and go to the product page, I am presented with an array of stores carrying that phone, and I can click to go immediately to the stores own product page for Samsung Galaxy S III and go through with my purchase. If you don't pay it seems your website url is more hidden (on the store profile page) it's not clickable even their. You can also pay extra for having your logotype visible etc. They probably have a lot more going on as well.

2010 Prisjakt had $7.6M in revenue and made a $3.36M profit.

<comment><USER27> Here in DK we have edbpriser, which isn't quite as nice UI wise: [http://www.edbpriser.dk/mobiltelefon-u-abn/gb-- id-6788288.as...](http://www.edbpriser.dk/mobiltelefon-u-abn/gb-- id-6788288.aspx) Compare with: <http://www.prisjakt.nu/produkt.php?p=1172708>

edbpriser was bought by Aller in 2005 at which point they were said to facilitate 10% of all computer hardware sales in Denmark. I remember back in 2001-2004 where a major CPH street was full of computer hardware stores; most of them went bankrupt or gone online only.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Here's the idea: create a beautiful, easy to use, inventory application for > brick and mortar stores: then give it to them for free.

Here's the catch, the vast majority of retail businesses aren't going to be willing to risk a critical aspect of their infrastructure on something that is "free".

As a hypothetical small business owner, I want to know who I'm going to be able to call at 8 PM Saturday night when my inventory system breaks, and how long it's going to take to send someone over to fix it.

As a hypothetical small business owner, I want to know what happens when I need to upgrade my systems in 5 years, and whether your company will still be around to support me.

As a hypothetical small business owner, I want to know that if I commit to your inventory system and retrain all of my staff, that your company won't go bust in the next 18 months, forcing me to repeat the process all over again.

As a hypothetical small business owner, when you offer something to me for "free", I see red flags all over the place. The cost may no longer be up front, but there's no such thing as a free lunch.

P.S. While consumers may like things that are free, business owners by and large do not. They understand that businesses need to make money in order to survive, and that extends to the services and infrastructure they purchase.

</comment><comment><USER29> Had this idea a few years ago. It would basically help local retailers to remain relevant with online retail. Hardest part is linking into a real-time inventory count of every local store... which is such a pain in the arse that it's not worth it.

</comment><comment><USER30> Why giving the software for free? Do you have any idea how complex is managing retail inventories doing proper cost analysis and stuff? There are companies doing _only_ that. What makes you think that you will be able to do than _and_ sell it for free?

The real thing here is that finally, even if only in part, a software for business use has come to the HN first page. It would be cool to focus on that for once...

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't think any one person would be ready for this idea.

I wouldn't judge how lucrative or feasible and idea is without examining the domain and talking to domain experts.

A simple example would be the taxonomy of a product. In terms of commerce, the adequate description for a product would be the minimal required to identify its price and perhaps track its quantity (for FMCG). Ex. Clover 2 litre low fat milk.

On the other hand, some mass retailer clothing stores might settle for categorising products into pricing ranges. Ex. Shirt 20$ and therefore you wouldn't be able to uniquely identify the stock.

Feasibility wise - creating software that's 'free' to lure the market will bring in a lot of headaches. If your idea of accountability is 'It's free, so it's your problem if you lost all your data' - it probably won't work.

Honestly, the idea behind creating an all-in-one solution sounds much more feasible. Mini ERP software is becoming the norm nowadays.

</comment><comment><USER32> Yea, we did that. Milo.com

I agree that it's a good idea :)

<comment><USER20> Good stuff - big fan of your company. But you'd agree you did something pretty different, right? You started with the major retailers and integrated with existing inventory systems, if I'm not mistaken?

I think that was a better path forward - less software to develop, fewer companies to sell on the idea, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Sounds like Milo... But compete on.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I didn't realize they existed. They were bought by Ebay a couple of years ago for $75 million, so I guess the idea was validated. Don't know if Ebay will dedicate enough time/energy to actually make it happen, so I still think there's an opportunity. Although they do have the corporate connections, which would help in gathering stores etc.

<comment><USER34> So we can all add value by collectively forgetting web storefronts that exisfed previously? And indeed might yet exist? How about an idea that keeps us from having to rediscover everything once every eight years? I am being serious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> One thing to think about is, as a brick and mortar store, you might not want to move all your products from your inventory storage of 15 years, over to a new inventory system. Free or not, it's a PITA. It's especially painful if you're the store with the higher product pricing.

Another thing to consider is, many people shop by convenience, not by price. I always pay for convenience. Not worth it to drive 5 miles out of my way to save $1.

Not to say the idea couldn't work, and most startups are 3-4 years in the making before most people even hear about them.

</comment><comment><USER36> You have a tremendous blind-spot in your value proposition, where "free for free" not only doesn't make anybody money, but it's actually a loser on the store side, since by being everything but their POS system you are basically getting their sales data (at least in the form of some aggregated terms) on top of everything else. This is competitive information that is highly guarded in most cases, and not necessarily cheap besides.

Frankly, taking inventory is the easiest part of this. Many places are fine to do it with just pad and paper.

</comment><comment><USER37> Have wrestled with the same idea and variations of it for years.

As others have pointed out, getting local businesses to use it will be problematic for a number of reasons. So, another variation would be to turn it on its head and make a 'I want something' system - something for people to signal what they're looking for - and make these requests available to any local business to watch/review and respond to. The kicker would be they'd have to respond pretty quickly.

If I'm looking for X - I may not even know exactly what X is - but I describe X as best I can - few words or exact UPC or whatever - along with my city/location/area, then start getting response/offers back to me within a few minutes. Perhaps I put a time limit on it - I need to know in the next 30 minutes. If I get, say, 3 offers back telling me store ABC has it for $y and store DEF has it for $z, I can go to either location, or contact them back and arrange a deal, or just ignore them because it's too high.

It's not the instant gratification tied with realtime inventory propose here, but it's a step in the right direction. And once you have one half built, and see the signals/searches people are putting in, you can more easily convince local retailers to participate. Perhaps they pay a subscription to review a feed, which they can tie in with automated systems, or they pay a fee on a per response basis (almost like a slowed-down turn by turn google adwords).

I'm available to talk about this idea more at firstname.lastname@example.com if you want :)

</comment><comment><USER38> This was kind of what Google Base (Now called Google Merchant Center) was meant to be. It was launched by Google in 2005.

[http://googlebase.blogspot.ca/2005/11/getting-off-first- base...](http://googlebase.blogspot.ca/2005/11/getting-off-first- base_113269421300372381.html)

I haven't played with Merchant Center, but Google Base was never good enough that merchants would adopt it in numbers.

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

</comment><comment><USER39> I agree that this is a huge opportunity and a fantastic idea; I thought of a similar concept a few months back and came to the same conclusions. It's one of the reasons I'm bullish on companies like Square and Groupon; they have the relationships with the mom and pop businesses that could actually turn something like this into reality. Not to say a startup couldn't do it, it would just take that much more effort to get to the level where they are already.

</comment><comment><USER40> Everybody here is discussing his idea, but I'm more interested on the "I'm not ready for" side of the story. This is something that has always striked me, specially if the idea comes from a less experienced friend (such as some freshmen I know). Most of the times I get myself trying to stop their naive dreams of implementing a mobile social app and sell it for billions, Instagram-like, without even stopping to consider why their app would be worth a penny at all. So often that I started to feel like I'm being that guy.

I'm used to assume that if I'm too optimistic with my plans without actually picturing the whole scene, then I'm being too naive—if I really knew what I was doing then I would 1) be able to see some deterrents to the idea clearly or 2) have the whole problem solved. OTOH it's clear to me now that I cannot wait for a complete-and-with-every-detail plan to start anything, from software to a startup. Bets got to be made. This realization is what moves me away from analysis paralysis.

I feel like this is something that can't be taught, but I'd like to hear from you guys. There's a gray area somewhere in between both and I can't find a place that satisfies me.

</comment><comment><USER41> Hm. So you are telling us about an idea someone had on the train. Did the person you talk to actually agree to you telling it to the world? ;-)

</comment><comment><USER42> Read this thread and the blog post, it seems everyone has had this idea. I've had my own thoughts about it. It's a difficult problem. There are various paths to get to that result, with most of them having to build on a network effect of the previous success. You have to provide value to both retailers, product owners and customers along the way.

An interesting way to approach it, which I don't think people has mentioned is to provide incentive for people to share/store their own shopping. Scan a slip with your phone and it stores it. Now you can easily create a new shopping list, and or remember what you bought.

Now you start building up this database. Now you go to retailers and say: Look, customers are using this app, why don't you make items available so people can search them before making their to-buy list?

As with any idea, this one has holes as well. How many people actually make to-buy lists? And would be willing to scan their slips to process what they bought? Interesting thought experiment none the less.

</comment><comment><USER43> You could argue that EBay has something like this already, including the ability to search within your location. Its just that the majority of their products are second hand, but there is commercial sellers of new products on there too.

The main impediment to ideas like this are getting the critical mass of users to make it worthwhile for both the buyers and the sellers.

<comment><USER44> eBay also owns Milo (<http://milo.com/>) which tackles this idea head on

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> It seems like getting a wide enough adoption to make this useful would be really tough, since as soon as you started to get traction (if at all) you'd get bought by someone who was scared of you or a more established player would break into the space. Further, inventory and sales systems are long established and are big investments for a lot of places, so kind of tough to upend. As many have said, widespread retail adoption would be unlikely.

The meat of the concept is fantastic, but why not come at it from the consumer side of things. Try to figure out a way to take transaction information (like, from a receipt) and upload it at the point of sale. You'd get a live data stream of what was being bought, where, and for how much. You could entice consumers to use the product by providing them with mint-like app for day to day purchases. You wouldn't have inventory for individual stores per se, but you could make a lot of inferences.

</comment><comment><USER46> Everybody in this business thinks of doing it, you definitely not the first one. (edit: everybody == strategists)

1) If you can make a really good software in this space, you can make millions just selling it.

2) If you really want to try this, you should get a deep pocketed friend who will buy a company which already has the software, so you can focus on getting the service running asap, not after 5 years.

3) Retailers are not naive about their data and store experience. And there are countless variables that you will need to accommodate. Even if you have a service in place, it may never fly in the volume that you are hoping for.

4) If it doesn't reach the volume you are hoping for, you will not make more money than you would have made by selling them the software. Perhaps you should have tried another strategy, that is more directly related to the data you were hoping to get your hands on.

</comment><comment><USER47> My girlfriend and I came up with exactly the same idea a couple years ago. It is a pretty big one, and I could have used it last night when I needed a bar of soap at 10 PM in downtown Seattle.

For those of you who are saying stores would never go along with this: I ended up buying ice cream at the first store I could find that happened to have the soap, because I was tired and wanted ice cream. There's a competitive advantage to being the closest/best-priced store with a particular thing I need, because that gets me in the door with a guaranteed sale, and once I'm there I just might buy something else I don't need. If every corner store had a data-driven way to _choose_ which products to carry, they would improve their business in a positive-sum way.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is basically the same space as local search, except local search doesn't require retailers to integrate their inventory system or share their inventory information. They just need to pick what kinds of searches they would want to receive traffic from.

It's easier for the store, easier for the customer, etc. The odds of a retailer not having something in stock are low enough it isn't a big problem, and you have a phone right there so you can call to verify.

Most importantly, the barrier to entry is extremely low... and yet, it's very hard to get enough content to make the service really work. So adding that more complex barrier to entry is NOT going to make things better.

</comment><comment><USER49> Meh, you need to have all shops having a perfect inventory. Granted that you make the best software in the world for that (it doesn't take 10 years, it takes luck if anything), and that connects magically to all providers for restocks etc...

...you'd still need to make them use it and actually inventory stuff, click the buttons, etc. It's not that the idea is bad or anything. it's to actually make people use it. its not because its free that they will use it. they would if it was free AND you'd handle their inventory for them, and guarantee a benefit every month from that (yeah, that's impossible).

</comment><comment><USER50> This is a good idea, but maybe not a billion dollar idea. When was the last time you needed to find a product immediately, regardless of store (and had trouble doing it)? It couldn't be more than once or twice in the last week. It sounds like a novelty, not a necessity.

You are 100% prepared to pursue this idea. Build the best inventory software that you can and give it away for free. If what you make is easier to use than the current average solution, you'll be able to find someone to use it. You don't need anyone's permission or approval.

</comment><comment><USER51> You spent too much time thinking creatively on your own, and not enough time understanding how the world works. If you want to improve the world you have to understand it better. Go understand whether you can design a business process (involving your software) that's better than the ones they brick and mortar stores are using now, and then sell it to them (or "give it away for free" - or is it worth it to pay them?). THEN think about the implications.

</comment><comment><USER52> Unfortunately, it may be a bit too idealistic. The main problem is adoption. Even with an awesome product, it won't necessarily get adopted well enough to reach critical mass. Even if its free. Keep in mind, a lot of these brick and mortar stores are run by people who know little more than a cash register - not everybody has (or wants to have) experience with more advanced devices.

</comment><comment><USER53> I worked for a guy who had the exact same idea ten years ago! Never figured out how to execute on it though.

What I have seen people do recently is focus on a single vertical such as say used cars or hardware stores. You could start regionally and if you can make it work in say three cities you might be able to raise the kind of money it would take to go national.

<comment><USER54> Me too (more like 2 years). I figured RFIDs would be involved. I thought of it as soon as I heard Hong Kong Airport used RFIDs to track baggage. Didn't work on it because it seemed too big.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I had similar Idea with online shopping. You can shop for any product online or in app. when you buy it, software will redirect the order to nearest inventory holder to ship it. so many people can start business by just having the inventory. or you can opt for walk in. ( I am still interested in this idea, if anyone else ?)

</comment><comment><USER56> For some reason, stuff that takes less than three years for five guys to make, is usually the stuff that gets done. If it takes only one year by one guy, it's probably done already.

Our whole society is defined by that. Bigger projects just don't work out because big companies are so inefficient and small don't have the money.

</comment><comment><USER57> A friend of mine actually had this idea a few months ago and plans to launch it in NYC in the next few months.

</comment><comment><USER58> There are no billion dollar ideas. There's billion dollar executions.

Err, that sounds wrong... you get the idea!

</comment><comment><USER59> Most stores above tiny mom-and-pop levels already do run electronic inventory control systems--and they are very particular about their details. Getting them to switch would be a very slow and expensive sales and implementation process.

</comment><comment><USER60> I had a similar idea that used browser extensions to create wish lists across multiple shopping websites. Never got much past the prototype though: <http://wantlistapp.com/>

</comment><comment><USER61> I've had a similar idea, but it involved supermarkets and selling data to governments and companies for economic statistics and makershare data, respectively.

<comment><USER36> You've just invented the market research industry. Look up Catalina, who has been in this business for ages (as has Nielsen), and is the backend for at least some of the rewards cards in your wallet.

<comment><USER61> as far as I know, they collect the data manually (people actually go there and ask how much of each product has been sold). but I may be mistaken

<comment><USER36> No, they don't. I worked for a company who did this (as well as partnered with both Nielsen and Catalina for customer-level data) and all of our data arrived in text files (CSV, TSV, etc.) exported from their POS systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Gotta love the "build it and they will come" naiveté of a startup intern. The great thing is: that naiveté is what gets great companies built.

</comment><comment><USER63> MyWebGrocer does something similar for grocery stores. Instead of targeting all stores it's better to pick a niche and focus on that

</comment><comment><USER64> Oh lordy...so this is B2B EDI reincarnated as B2C EDI?

Now we just need a smartphone-based AS/400 and we're back in the 90's again.

</comment><comment><USER65> > then give it to them for free

This seems to be part of the core of his idea, but it doesn't sound groundbreaking at all.

</comment><comment><USER66> BTW, how difficult is it to integrate with legacy store systems | POS systems?

Anyone had experience? Some war stories?

</comment><comment><USER67> Wait until RFID prices drop under $0.50 then do it combined with a POS solution.

</comment><comment><USER68> Sounds a lot like premature cognitive commitment.

</comment><comment><USER69> I think every entrepreneur has had this idea. They did not pursue for the same reason why you did. Besides, your never ends up the way you initially planned.

</comment><comment><USER70> It is a incredible idea.I support you.Come on man.

</comment><comment><USER71> This is how I see it after working in a retail environment.

From a fortune 500 retailer point of view: They have IT staff dedicated to the POS systems and their inventory management system. They know how to make the POS systems fly. Oh and their supply chain software integrates with the inventory software, can you're product do that? No? Sorry we're going to pass. Not only that, they have tons of data warehouses of sales data going back to who knows when that the marketing people get to play with. They also may have a stringent budget and purchasing process and are most definitely led by non- technical executives. There is the old adage "You get what you pay for" and if you don't have to pay for the software then what do you get? They also have many locations (lets say 2000 for simplicity) all running the same registers. If your software doesn't support their registers, you can bet they are going to pass on you. Plus they have the advertising money to spend on AdWords campaign or paid search if need be.

Now a medium sized retailer a handful of locations. They are interested because it will allow their products to be found by those and they may be able to poach a few customers from the big box stores. Alas, but they too have existing POS software and inventory management software and would be willing to ditch them for something new. However, it may be hard for them to be the first to test out a new product since they rely on their customers and know that they could probably get the same items cheaper from a big box store. If there is any snag in their experience at their store (such as POS issues) than they could lose that customer for good. They are hesitant but would accept once it is proven and stable.

Then there are the small mom and pop stores. These may want to use the products but they don't have the infrastructure to support it. Heck, they are currently doing inventory in Excel and hate it, this would free up their time. But that free software isn't free when you need to buy new computers and registers to be able to support it.

Notice that I keep saying POS instead of just inventory management. The reason being is that those two need to integrate with one another and if you want live levels of stock at any given time, you will need to use the POS system as inventory management software is by the day (at least from what I've seen).

Plus, you get to the lock in factor. Is the software going to be free if I don't keep paying for the search stuff? What if I decide that it isn't working for us, do we have to switch software or can we keep using it for free? If you allow them to keep using it for free then there goes some profits. If you don't allow them to use it for free, then you get into a situation where it becomes a super expensive test since the software doesn't cost money but it costs time to set up the new software and train everybody on it and then if they don't like it switching back.

</comment><comment><USER72> This post basically summarises the challenge with any idea. I have a great idea BUT.... It will take time, effort, money, the market place, the code, the people etc

And claims of billion dollars are typically baseless. Anyone would commit 10 years to a project if it would be worth a billion at the end.

So appreciate the authors musing on the next big thing, the problems described are the day dreams of any entrepreneur.

</comment><comment><USER73> value = idea x execution thus your_value = value_of_idea * 0 thus your_value = 0

</comment><comment><USER21> uh your idea is called Milo.com.</comment>


Nginx Is Now Officially Part of F5 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nginx.com/blog/nginx-is-now-officially-part-of-f5/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTldNM1pUTmlNemN3WmpWbCIsInQiOiJWTUxoSnRVWE9aRWtcL2M4QUlBdTV5UDJzZ0o2S09wRjlWYUF1TkZqdFFKdHRVaUpXQWRueVhSc1wvYStoRTRCd2NETndGRVJaSkJrZURYdk9FU01RVUtkd3c4dzJaejdvOXZNbThYY3FhQVFucmpcL05JRnQ4aWY4cVBsOW1obEFsdCJ9 <comment><AUTHOR> I've been concerned about this, but at least for now F5 is committing to maintain the open sourceness of nginx. They are saying the right things:

> F5 is fully committed to open source, which has been core to NGINX > throughout its history, starting with Igor Sysoev's first release of NGINX > code in 2004 and continuing with the release of NGINX Unit in 2017. We know > the proof will be in the proverbial pudding on this one, so let our actions > speak for us over the coming months and years.</comment>


Rails 4 Engines - <AUTHOR> http://tech.taskrabbit.com/blog/2014/02/11/rails-4-engines/

<comment><USER2> Well, this is weird. A few hours ago, I tweeted how I dislike Rails::Engine([https://twitter.com/pothibo/status/433595617383047168](https://twitter.com/pothibo/status/433595617383047168)). I'm going to write a post about it sooner or later but here's a few reasons on top of my head why I dislike them:

\- Rails' use of folder for autoloading can encapsulate part of your application like engine does. (app/models/admin/post.rb vs app/models/post.rb)

\- Different dependencies will turn on you in the long run. You're shoveling the problem ahead.

\- Routing between different engine is cumbersome because of lack of autodiscovery (You can't know easily at run time which engine is mounted)

<comment><USER3> To your points:

\- yep. It is unfortunate. Always stick to the default folder structure (subfolders for modules) to prevent any weird interactions among engines and between engines and the main app.

\- Prevent this by not allowing this. You would not have different dependencies within one Rails app and you can't have it with a component-based architecture.

\- Routing between engines should be much less frequent than routing within. A perfect case for preventing unnecessary dependencies by creating "engine routing intrefaces"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Rails app(project):Django project, Rails Engine:Django app

Bonus: directory layouts, since they're conceptually connected:

[http://guides.rubyonrails.org/getting_started.html#creating-...](http://guides.rubyonrails.org/getting_started.html#creating- the-blog-application)

[http://www.deploydjango.com/django_project_structure/index.h...](http://www.deploydjango.com/django_project_structure/index.html)

\----

The other important point on large scale Rails architecture is that common functionality can/should be extracted to Rails plugins, which can then be turned into Ruby gems.

[http://guides.rubyonrails.org/plugins.html](http://guides.rubyonrails.org/plugins.html)

Great Rails project: [https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora](https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora) which uses MVCP (Presenter)

The other bit it to make use of concerns in Rails 4 for extra DRY controllers and models:

[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14541823/how-to-use- conc...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14541823/how-to-use-concerns-in- rails-4)

</comment><comment><USER5> I've tried Engines in the past and came away with the feeling that they are just a "one toe in the water" approach to Service oriented Architecture. The hills that you have to climb in regards to testing, assets and dependencies just don't seem worth it. So we created an Engine because we feel that parts of our code base are different enough that they should stand alone, but we then want to share code (a cool way of saying "coupling") between them? It just doesn't add up for me.

<comment><USER6> The fact that it's a "one toe in the water" approach to SOA is exactly what makes it attractive. It can help you break up the Monorail incrementally without the immediate expensive investment in fully separate apps.

The ease of running integration/acceptance tests in this kind of setup is a huge help, especially if the app already has tests covering the behavior you're trying to maintain while splitting things out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It was amusing to read through this and just have it slowly confirm all of my experiences with Engines - down to the global spec folder.

It's hella warty in places but overall it provides a lot better "separation of responsibilities", and I too recommend this approach.

<comment><USER3> I have only ever used the global spec folder as a place to store top-level app integration specs. I think it is a huge mistake to give up on the separation of engine code for tests.

<comment><USER7> The whole "dummy app just for booting specs" is silly, though. I ran into a ton of trouble trying to get it to play nice, just because my Engine had some dependencies from the main app. Not to mention fighting with rspec.

I agree with you if it's intended to be packaged as a gem, but if I'm only using it as a namespace separator, then it's pointless to fret about where it all goes - they were never meant to be used separately in the first place.

<comment><USER6> I'm completely on the opposite end of the spectrum: engine dummy apps aren't just great for running specs, they're great for running in dev mode (especially when the entire integrated app is a huge slow beast), and for exposing dependencies on the main app, which you ideally want to eliminate. Essentially, the more difficult it is to get your engine running with a plain vanilla dummy app - the more you have to pull in or mock out from the main app - the more tightly coupled they are, and in a gross circular dependency relationship too. If you want the benefits of modularity and separation of concerns, you want the relationship between the engine and the main app as simple as possible; keep the API small and well-defined, and the dependencies going in a single direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My dream: A mechanism that will allow me to avoid having to do a whole-site upgrade of an ancient Rails 2.3.8 codebase on Ruby 1.8.7 by slowly refactoring services out into Rails 4 engines on Ruby 2.1, keeping the entire production site up at all times.

<comment><USER9> Put a reverse proxy server such as Nginx in front of your existing Rails 2.3 servers as well as a new Rails 4 app server. Slowly, route by route, port controllers over to the Rails 4 application and map traffic there using Nginx rules. This method is completely safe: If you notice discrepancies, you can point traffic back to your Rails 2.3 environment while you improve the behaviour of the Rails 4 replacement. Lather, rinse, repeat until it's all ported over.

<comment><USER10> I agree this is a good approach, but many companies use something like Heroku, which doesn't allow this kind of fine-grained control.

Kind of scary how few people know how to set up nginx anymore.

<comment><USER11> _shameless self promotion_ Which is why I started doing these

[http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjQo0sojbbxUav7I746f0l...](http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjQo0sojbbxUav7I746f0lT4apGX8-iON) _/ shameless self promotion_

<comment><USER8> I watched your Installing Ruby video to see how you did it, I strongly disagree with using rbenv in production. It adds on a completely unnecessary layer of complexity to the system and adds maintenance steps that are likely to be forgotten by the next fellow.

I recommend using Ubuntu server and using the BrightBox PPA to install 2.1. Updates are an apt-get away, and adding PPAs is far easier to do with configuration management than managing rbenv or rvm.

I use rbenv in development and it's a godsend. I keep it the hell away from production, though.

<comment><USER12> Are there any equivalents to the BrightBox for redhat based systems? I have looked around but found nothing at the moment

<comment><USER8> I looked too before I made the comment but I couldn't find anything. That's why I recommended Ubuntu.

Getting OS support for brand new software packages is tough. It's not just the package itself that needs support but all the things that depend on it.

If you have to use red hat, then you should probably either stick with 2.0 or just use rbenv until a proper package is released.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is amazing. I think the BootInquirer class is going to solve all my problems. I have a large application that is broken into 5 different rails app's and two shared lib gems. I have been looking into using engines but figured I would loose the leanness I got from separating the application.

One very large advantage of multiple apps is they can run on different hardware with separate databases. For example my attachment service runs on a server with libreoffice and x11 installed.

So in theory using the BootInquirer I should be able to boot multiple variations of the application.

For instance I could boot all engines when in development mode but deploy them as separate services with separate databases in production.

Thanks taskrabbit I now know how I am going to spend the rest of my week.

<comment><USER14> Yeah!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This looks like a very nice concept, I've been exploring something similar but didn't get quite as far into the engines. What I've been doing is have 1 rails app that does the stuff rails is good at and have smaller Sinatra apps mount into the config.ru for the parts like APIs and the parts that handles web hooks from external services. It's not as clean as your solution though as there is still model sharing.

It's very tempting to do model sharing because it just makes things so easy but I can definitely see having to rewrite models when the time comes to scale out the parts of the app that is getting more hits. With your approach I wouldn't have to worry about that because it's modular from the start.

Would love to give this approach a try! Thx for the article.

<comment><USER14> We had a very similar path at TaskRabbit. As we made all those other Rails and/or sinatra and/or node apps, we ran into the issues noted in the "Versus Many Apps" section. Basically: testing, coordination, and deployment were an order of magnitude more complicated. We obviously are now at this engine situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> While working at a previous start up, I wrote an application platform that allowed Plugin developers to write Client side javascript that was an AJAX bridge to Rails models that auto-generated models, migrations, views, etc. It was a way to allow external developers to write nothing but Javascript in a browser, but write robust IT applications on top of the Rails app that provides relevant data for plugin developers.

Rails Engine seems like a full ruby realization of this previous dream of mine.

</comment><comment><USER16> As someone who's coming from a Django world and is trying to get into the Rails 4 "way of things," where does this article lie in my path to enlightenment?

<comment><USER14> Probably towards the end (not that it's necessarily the goal). Make a normal Rails app, and see that grow and the joys and pains that follow. Then see if something like this would make the next one better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am learning Rails here but I know Django very well. Anybody knowing could give a explanation about what are the differences between Rails engine and Django apps?

<comment><USER18> It looks like midas007's comment has an answer: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7225851](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7225851)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is a great article! The only thing I would improve is the typography. It was hard to read the entire article because the line length was too long. The font for the text is a bit small. The difference between the headers and the subheaders is not large enough. Since some of you taskrabbiters play here, hopefully you'll take that into account.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> BTW, if this kind of thing is interesting to you, TaskRabbit is hiring [https://www.taskrabbit.com/careers](https://www.taskrabbit.com/careers)

</comment><comment><USER20> Do you do API versioning at taskrabbit?

<comment><USER21> Take a look at VersionCake ( [https://github.com/bwillis/versioncake](https://github.com/bwillis/versioncake) ). Yes, I am one of the authors.

After having gone down the path of separate API controllers, we learned that the APIs had become a second class citizen and had different code paths than the web based resources.

We unified everything; the same endpoint that the user goes through for web signup is the same endpoint that the API will request for a create.

We're just using respond_to's to respond to the various types of clients that make requests.

Utilizing Rails, Jbuilder, and VersioCake, we have a unified, versioned API that can support earlier client versions (thanks to VersionCake).

<comment><USER22> That's a really great use of jbuilder. I thought their only benefit was separating view logic but this really makes them useful. Now if they only had a name that was different from a Java thing.</comment></comment></comment>


Microservice Patterns and Antipatterns - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsyOkifmamI <comment><USER2> I've been actively searching for an understanding of how to compose microservices, i.e. define the bounded contexts. Having read many articles, watched videos, read books, I still didn't know. Most content talks about how to execute once you have defined a bounded context. There are a few examples but don't readily transfer to other problem spaces. It's much like trying to learn what a monad is, although it should be so much simpler to convey.

This video says most of the same things, but somehow it finally got through to me. Before the aha moment, I knew that you can define your boundaries by following business ones, or by verb, or noun, etc. From paying close attention to a seemingly obvious stream of words, I finally realized how we were incorrectly composing microservices (or decomposing the system).

We were mostly falling into defining boundaries by noun, which sounds right, but is usually closer to a _entity service_ with some specific advanced functionality. We also have some services that more closely follow the _micro- SOA pattern_. The lightbulb lit up when he mentions that services should loosely coupled (as we all agree), but mostly _asynchonously_ , and _with duplication_ of data. The red flag is that we have services that synchronously call other services with some single-source-of-truth.

To really illustrate a better path to finding microservice boundaries the Self-Contained-System[0] decomposition is raised which cuts a slice from the UI all the way through the back-end. This makes complete sense as in the example if a service for related items failed, then that section of the application would just be empty.

[0] [http://scs-architecture.org/](http://scs-architecture.org/)</comment>


Next Gen Machine Learning, just focus on algorithm logic - <AUTHOR> https://systemml.apache.org <comment><AUTHOR> \- Only logic, nothing else \- run it, it should run on one computer or one million computers \- Embed it in a mobile phone or in a spaceship. That's it.</comment>


The World's Fastest Man (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://comstocksmag.com/longreads/cover-worlds-fastest-man <comment><USER2> His company was responsible for repairing the 10 freeway after the Northridge earthquake. They got a bonus for finishing early, but there were lots of stories of him personally harassing inspectors and pulling inspector flags (where re-work was supposed to be done).

I know that one section in particular that they repaired was done really shoddy -- there was giant lip between pavement sections that would make your car shudder like it hit a giant pothole. Everytime I drove over it I cursed their horrible work and was pissed that they earned a bonus for doing half- assed work.

<comment><USER3> On the other hand, his work on the MacArthur Maze (mentioned in the article) saved the Bay Area transportation grid.

That one project makes up for every alleged wrong he did in his entire lifetime:

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

Some other titans you may want to read about who achieved great success through sheer force of will:

\- Frank Robinson, Founder, Robinson Helicopters (#1 helicopter manufacturer in the world by unit sales)

\- Chuck Yeager: "The X-1 wasn't a plane. Chuck Yeager was the X-1." (The world's first and only combined test pilot/rocket mechanic. That combination was needed to break the sound barrier and survive.)

\- the Florida airport consultant/GM who saved San Jose from bankruptcy by saving $2 billion in overruns on Terminal 3.

<comment><USER4> A less than favorable review of Chuck Yeager's performance and attitude handling the NF-104 air/spacecraft: [http://www.kalimera.org/nf104/stories/stories_11.html](http://www.kalimera.org/nf104/stories/stories_11.html). And politics as usual [http://www.kalimera.org/nf104/stories/stories_13.html](http://www.kalimera.org/nf104/stories/stories_13.html).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would caution current and future CEOs about misunderstanding this article. Quoting Jim Collins:

Interviewer: The CEOs who took their companies from good to great were largely anonymous. Is that an accident?

Jim Collins: There is a direct relationship between the absence of celebrity and the presence of good-to-great results. Why? First, when you have a celebrity, the company turns into "the one genius with 1,000 helpers." It creates a sense that the whole thing is really about the CEO. At a deeper level, we found that for leaders to make something great, their ambition has to be for the greatness of the work and the company, rather than for themselves. That doesn't mean that they don't have an ego. It means that at each decision point—at each of the critical junctures when Choice A would favor their ego and Choice B would favor the company and the work—time and again the good-to-great leaders pick Choice B. Celebrity CEOs, at those same decision points, are more likely to favor self and ego over company and work.

Source: [https://www.jimcollins.com/article_topics/articles/good- to-g...](https://www.jimcollins.com/article_topics/articles/good-to- great.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> Construction being done so fast? Something shady. The article never once mentions anything negatively. All full of praise and awe. Abusing and extracting unfair amount of work with no consequence on the company or the man is just toxic. They fire burned out employees and are proud about it. This is terrible management.

They are treating people so badly and the author is worshipping them for that. Incredibly wrong.

Measure the happiness of the employees and you can figure out if this speed is worth it.

</comment><comment><USER7> Great bio on a man who seems to have mastered the tenets of charismatic leadership that are crucial in the male-dominated construction trades where everyone is looking for a role model.

This will not be surprising to most, but it's not C.C. Myers at 76 years old building these projects. It's his field personnel -- Superintendents, Foreman, Apprentices, etc. The secret sauce is the on-the-ground leaders and their adherence to business process to get results.

Of course this was not discussed in the article, and as a result, renders moot discussion of performance improvements based on his means & methods.

</comment><comment><USER8> His real secret: he pays his people. He can phone someone and say "send me some guys" and the do because they know they will be paid. Most chiefs screw around with subcontractors, delaying payments and asking for reductions.... going bankrupt when it suits them. Pay people and they will work.

</comment><comment><USER9> Came here to read about Usain Bolt, and instead read a great article about another brilliant guy.

<comment><USER10> Same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it usual to get bonuses for finishing early on gov projects?

Do other construction companies realistically struggle to finish early because of their inefficient structure or is some other compulsion factor at play?

<comment><USER7> Speaking to your question on construction companies ability to complete projects on schedule -- Inefficient structure, more specifically human resource inadequacies, may be the most apt description of what causes missed schedule and financial targets.

It's important to understand that the construction industry is a well trained, but poorly educated workforce. That translates to a lack of comprehensive planning and foresight. The better companies have solved this problem by identifying individuals with the right mix of "global thinking" and field experience and charged them with managing projects.

Lesser companies still win work (especially during economic boom times) and, as there are so many, serve as a constant reminder of how straightforward projects can go awry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The way he drives his workers is very different than a common orthodoxy I see around here:

He demands 12 hour days, and he gets more efficiency than other contractors; definitely different than the view that there's some optimum level of work <=40 hours/week after which returns diminish so much as to not be worth it. Maybe the game industry's perpetual crunch time isn't as insane from a strictly financial perspective as it seems at first blush?

<comment><USER13> The <= 40 thing wasn't some random feel-good. Time and Motion and Operations Research people looked at what happened in wartime rush-rush production, and the evidence they collected was (from what i read) pretty good that its a law of diminishing returns followed by a downturn in safety and quality.

My only cite is indirect: Angus Calder "the people's war" but I would be surprised if this isn't well documented in the real literature.

Also, some of the outcomes very quickly become externalities: nobody notices the bodge job until 5+ years later, and people die young of non-specific stress related diseases which don't get attributed to work.

<comment><USER14> The 40-hour thing was for assembly-line type work if I'm not mistaken.

It's entirely possible for construction-type work where specialized workers have to take turns (backhoe guy digs a hole, workers prep with hand tools, concrete is poured from cement mixer and then smoothed out with hand tools, lather, rinse, repeat), that there's enough built-in downtime / break time between steps that workers can handle longer shifts without reduced productivity.

<comment><USER15> > there's enough built-in downtime / break time between steps that workers can > handle longer shifts without reduced productivity.

In the mining industry it's referred to as 'mine time'. The majority of your 12-hour day is spent waiting for other necessary things (competing work, isolations, hazard analysis, approvals) to happen so a 20-minute job can take three hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It page return 403. I also search wayback machine and google, but there is no cache for it.

<comment><USER17> I am able to navigate to the page just now.

In case there is still a problem: [https://web.archive.org/web/20180827010038/https://www.comst...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180827010038/https://www.comstocksmag.com/longreads/cover- worlds-fastest-man)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> So I'm curious: the insanely low bid he gives, the insane timeframe he's able to deliver, and the enormous bonus he collects at the end. Is that shared with his workers, or is that all kept for himself?

Rushing bridges and tunnel jobs seems... risky.

<comment><USER19> It is shared in the sense that he can't make payroll without the bonus.

<comment><USER18> I guess I don't understand what's in it for the guys doing the actual construction: longer, stressful days on a tight deadline, and less billed hours because the project takes _far_ less time. More people on site seems like a major headache. The articles talks about pulling these guys from other companies, so I'm guessing that they have work to do somewhere else.

The "little league contribution" as justification to bust your ass just seems a little suspect.</comment></comment></comment>


System Scripting with Scala - <AUTHOR> http://blog.getintheloop.eu/2011/08/01/system-scripting-with-scala/

<comment><USER2> ...but you have to wait for the JVM to spin up first. No thanks.

<comment><USER3> Depends what you're doing. I've seen ETL jobs that are shell scripts that take hours to execute, for example. Even with JVM startup, they'd probably be faster overall once the JIT kicked in.</comment></comment>


How Not to Sell a Business (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://www.exits.com/blog/how-not-to-sell-a-business/?Hackernews

<comment><USER2> I am sure the bullet points have meaning - it is just that I can't fathom what they are.

Secondary Sales? Check the alignment?

Both seem to be the key issues but fail the comprehension test from where I am sitting.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great presentation! It gets right to the point and offer advise you can use.

I think it's a good read for any entrepreneur. Selling your company requires planning from the start, before you've even made your first dollar.</comment>


Feedback on my idea and prototype - <AUTHOR> http://bgraph.herokuapp.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi guys,

A couple of months ago, as part of my personal mission to improve JavaScript skill, I have created a small Chrome Extension to prototype one of my ideas that occur to me casually. It does not do anything revolutionary but just structures all available information to see from a different perspective.

Main idea is when a user creates a new concepts, the extension records the browsing history and builds a graph in the background, then the user can see it as a graph visualization. I was wondering how people think about this idea and would like to ask your feedbacks. The extension can be found via link in the website I posted. Thanks a lot in advance.

Kind Regards</comment>


Show HN: CM - <AUTHOR> https://www.custommarkup.ml <comment><USER2> Tip: the landing page looks like something that wouldn't inspire me to trust the design or whatever the product is going to deliver. For example it the colour pallet and the use of times new roman (or similar) font makes me think of Geocities back in the early 2000 / late 1990s.</comment>


This is the face of the ISIS sex slave market – New York Post - <AUTHOR> http://nypost.com/2016/07/05/this-is-the-face-of-the-isis-sex-slave-market/ <comment><USER2> Is there something we can do about this?

Can we find out what apps they're using and make life tough for them?

Can we somehow pinpoint their phones (without getting innocents) and DoS them off the net?

I'm just riffing here, I don't think any of this is viable - but I feel sadness for these people and want to help

<comment><USER3> Pinpointing the phones and launching missiles at them might work better than DoS. I guess from the practical point of view, information on who's doing what helps. At least Turkey seems to have backed off supporting them which helps and may have been influenced by exposure on the internet eg [http://www.mintpressnews.com/211624-2/211624/](http://www.mintpressnews.com/211624-2/211624/)

Also feel free to donate to the Kurds who are the ones on the ground fighting this stuff. I did a not very good website for a charity helping the refugees there [http://kurdistanrefugeeaid.strikingly.com/](http://kurdistanrefugeeaid.strikingly.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As far as I can tell the relevance to HN is that people who do less than wholesome things use secure communication tools to organise them.

This is the necessary cost of not living in a police state (or police world). I hate people trafficking but freedom of association and privacy are too valuable to concede. I'm comfortable with that balance.

<comment><USER5> I get what you're saying and agree with you but your use of the word "comfortable" is jarring, don't you think?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> We need a space alien BDFL with the power to cause existence failure to any human at any time.

"Benevolent" being the critical part of that.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is not right

</comment><comment><USER8> Sorry to hear that.</comment>


Open-source Playstation 4 SDK - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/CTurt/PS4-SDK

<comment><USER2> These two articles are probably relevant and come from the same person:

1\. [http://cturt.github.io/ps4.html](http://cturt.github.io/ps4.html)

2\. [http://cturt.github.io/ps4-2.html](http://cturt.github.io/ps4-2.html)

They cover pretty much every question about the WebKit exploit and this open- source SDK.

</comment><comment><USER3> calling this ps4 sdk is counterintuitive and dangerous. It may paint sony as embracing open source to the unwarned.

this is nothing but a hack-y way to exploit a browser and get access to very limited functionality. It can barely be called 'ps4 homebrew sdk'.

<comment><USER4> It is a kit for developing software i.e. an SDK. Yes, right now it is very limited - it has only recently been made public, it is still in the very early stages. In addition, the limitations of current code execution methods (not fully public at present - the exploit used is public, code execution method is still private) inflict limitations on the software being developed.

Nonetheless, this is an SDK capable of producing software that can be run on the PS4, and so the title of PS4 SDK is perfectly apt. It never claims to be from Sony, and it should be evident to anyone with even a vague familiarity with homebrew/console hacking that it is not associated with them in anyway. And most HN users would be able to tell from looking at the code that it is very much bare bones and thus unlikely to be published by the company that made the console.

<comment><USER3> > right now.

that is the point. it is and will always be very limited. at most, it will be a able to write a loader to a higher level exploit.

<comment><USER4> This SDK has nothing directly to do with the current code execution method. There is no reason why this same SDK won't be expanded once a better exploit is found.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So... can one load a game on the PS4 at home using that, or is just intended to emulate the playstation on a PC ? I don't understand the intention behind making this open source, seeing all the loaded piracy history of the playstation consoles.

Kinda feels like it's a little short for a SDK too, but I'm no expert.

<comment><USER6> _Kinda feels like it 's a little short for a SDK too_

It sure is, also a bit sad that it takes such detours to be able to write software for such devices. Years ago when the first PSP came out things were different. I bought the PSP just because I saw there was a rather complete SDK available for it (also made available by hacking around and reverse engineering IIRC, but at least it was more than enough to write actual applications): it included access to buttons, sockets/wifi, raw framebuffer access etc. Which led to the availability of fun things like a working VNC client which was super impressive to me back then (remember that's like 5 years before the first iPad). I had only like one game which I never really played but instead I spent hours writing mini games and setting up communication between the PSP and a PC, using it as remote control and whatnot.

<comment><USER7> > I had only like one game which I never really played but instead I spent > hours writing mini games and setting up communication between the PSP and a > PC, using it as remote control and whatnot.

And that's exactly why manufacturers go to such lengths to prevent people from hacking on their consoles. With the way they are priced, and depending on when you bought that PSP, it may have cost Sony money if you didn't buy any games for it.

<comment><USER8> What length exactly? Both Sony and MS released, at some point, SDKs that could use a retail unit for development [1,2,3,4] so I am not sure this is exactly why.

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

2.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2)

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

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

<comment><USER9> And don't forget the Net Yaroze[0]! Sony was embracing tinkerers all the way back in 1997

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

<comment><USER8> I did not include Yaroze since it required a special PSX.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not entirely related but just reading this brought back a lot of memories of the PSP homebrew scene. I miss those days. Idolizing Dark_Alex was what got me into software.

##psp-programming represent!

<comment><USER11> That's a name I haven't heard in a while! I'm still using my old PSP (with a CFW) as a Gameboy emulator up to this day.

<comment><USER12> Me, too. Got my CFW loaded up on my PSP-1000...it's lovely wide screen, really nice Sony-quality controls, great battery life (with homebrew...) and superb homebrew and emulation support, it's not a wonder

a) I still use it for GBA/Sega Genesis emulation nearly every day but

b) I've never used a single UMD with the device and

c) I don't know anyone who has.

Kinda like the Dreamcast, which was also amazing but had even the most inexperienced users rushing to Wal-Mart to grab a stack of blank CD's to make their very own Kazaa-downloaded copy of 'Seaman.'

If Sony had actually pandered to the homebrew scene (yeah, I know that sounds like a joke, but I'm saying 'if'...) they could have opened up something like the App store even earlier on, where the barrier of entry for indie developers is existent but small.

I'd be interested to actually look up some numbers, but I imagine software sales for the PSP, especially the early generation, must have been fairly abysmal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How does this run on the PS4?

<comment><USER4> I believe it runs using the WebKit exploit available on FW 1.76

This means it's probably not very useful to most end users who generally will have upgraded by this point (the exploit is about a year old), but it allows developers to continue working on the SDK for whenever another exploit is found, and possibly allows further investigation of the PS4, potentially allowing the discovery of new exploits.

<comment><USER14> I have a passing interest in this kind of thing, for novelty's sake more than anything.

I might have to buy the next console that comes out and just leave it boxed up in the closet for a year or two, so when this stuff surfaces I can experiment. I feel oddly left out when I hear about this stuff and either don't have the correct version or just don't have the hardware itself.

I had a friend growing up with an amazing PS2 that basically functioned as a media server. Absolutely blew me away at the time.</comment></comment></comment>


Why I Regretted Hiring the "Perfect" Employee - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-regretted-hiring-perfect-employee-marc-lore

<comment><USER2> Summarization of Article: A person writing about a professional, the professional who, based on this article, lacks emotional empathy because: Let's face it. Companies will ruin your life if you trust them with your time, energy, and interest. They are only looking out for themselves, and by the looks of things this specific company decided to write and Article just to make themselves look better.

Management's skill levels are typically lower than expected, and beyond disappointing. The person who was hired clearly took the direct approach, and is now moving on to a different job.

The sad part of this story is the "Resume" or Curriculum Vitae only shows the negative part of the situation, and not the positive part, such as a great individual leaving what seems to be an amateur company/business.

This is just some random person being, as usual, disappointed by the actions of the generation that should be labeled as child-like.

</comment><comment><USER3> "In my experience, the best employees are positive, low maintenance and unselfish."

The above is true if you want a mediocre employee who does what is required and no more without rocking the boat, great if you work in McDonalds or other such industry.

If you hire a smart employee based on being a smart employee you hire them to tell you what you should be doing not to tell them how to do the thing you hired them for.

"when should I expect to get promoted if I exceed your expectations?... can indicate that a candidate values personal objectives above all else" Sounds like someone is driven, sure they are self driven but to drive there own success they have to drive the companies success.

It does sound like poor management, not knowing how to handle a smart employee who raises concern, as a smart employee should.

</comment><comment><USER4> This article is a confusing combination of things I agree with (it's better to hire employees with a good attitude) and things I just can't get behind (an employee who values his or herself over the company is bad and must be avoided).

Obviously the ideal scenario for a company is hard working, undemanding employees who get along. But it should be the company's job to create an environment for this to happen - listen to complaints and try to resolve them, don't fire someone just because they value themselves.

Oh, and sometimes people will have experienced bad managers. The problem isn't always with them.

</comment><comment><USER5> The message is: lie. Lie more. Make your lying perfect in its smoothness, with artfully planned designer rough spots.

This sort of article demonstrates what is wrong with the hiring process: _all the incentives on both sides are to lie_. And this manager fails to see his part in making it this way.</comment>


Personal Sites Are Awesome - <AUTHOR> https://personalsit.es <comment><USER2> What counts as "personal" though?

I think it's safe to say that your Facebook profile is definitely not personal, neither is your Twitter feed.

How about Medium? Or a blog on Blogspot? Geocities (or Neocities) should be ok, right? How about a WordPress site? Does it have to be on a personal domain name? Does it have to _look_ different? What if I just use WordPress or a static site generator with the default theme or one of the most popular themes?

</comment><comment><USER3> Bonus: Quite a few simple, minimal templates from the links to other personal websites

</comment><comment><USER4> This is really great work. It reminds me of the, "old internet." (rip)

</comment><comment><USER5> Pretty cool idea actually</comment>