Google closes its $1.1B deal with HTC Corp - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/google-is-designing-more-in-house-phone-chips-to-take-on-apple <comment><USER2> after being an iPhone user for 6 years and recently switching to android (first a pixel, then one plus) I can say with confidence Google's hardware approach sucks. Android can do a lot more than iOS but it does most of the simple things in a user unfriendly way

<comment><USER3> For a contrasting perspective, I went Android to iPhone and I can say it sent me running back to Pixel as fast as I could for basic usability.

<comment><USER4> Funny, I've never had a problem using my iPhone. Care to elaborate?

<comment><USER5> Android has three buttons rather than one, reducing menu fatigue. System settings are more customizable and generally easier to and more intuitive to use. Launcher screen be replaced by 3rd party app. Keyboard can be replaced by 3rd party app. Browsers can run any engine they want. Apps can host code. Terminal is a first class citizen. Phones can have the bootloader unlocked legally. Supports launch screen widgets. Better integration with Google services.

Sorry if iPhone now supports any of these. It didn't when I switched over from a 4.

<comment><USER6> > Apps can host code.

You say that like it's a good thing.

<comment><USER5> It is if you are a programmer. Must everything be locked down and controlled by a corporation for our safety? Are you aware of any issues this has caused on Android?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand, how is this different from Google acquiring and then selling off Motorola Mobility?

<comment><USER8> I was at Google during the Motorola years. There was no integration whatsoever, by design. The Android team bent over backwards not to give Motorola any special access.

<comment><USER9> Why was it designed that way? Can you elaborate?

<comment><USER10> I remember reading somewhere that they did not integrate to not alienate other phone manufacturers, they were trying to avoid making the manufacturers feel like second class citizens.

<comment><USER11> That strategy worked out really well for them.

<comment><USER12> It did. The have a majority of the market. They don't make money selling phones. They make money selling ads. As long as all the phones are using google search and ads they do well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Google doesn't understand least-friction products like apple and HTC isn't going to get them there.

Their customer first and formost are ad-buyers and what they sell is your data. Apple's customers are users, and it shows.

</comment><comment><USER13> Apple comes across as people friendly, a hardware company who provides a tangible, usable set of products. Google comes across as what they are, an ad company with a semi-decent search engine and an OK web mail and docs platform. I stick with my i-devices and Fastmail.

<comment><USER14> What Apple or Google or any other company comes across as is mostly in the eye of the beholder and can be influenced by many, sometimes trivial things. As an example my perception of Google has changed in recent years, not so much due to them shedding projects but more due to the intense politicisation of the place and the censorship which followed. I don't use the search engine directly, preferring to go through a third party to gain a semblance of anonymity. The Android project still gets my vote as long as AOSP remains viable, as soon as that road is cut off I'll jump ship to something else. To me Apple seems to be more in the business of herding their flock of users, trying to extract as much profit from them as feasible. They know which strings to pull to make keep most users from leaving the flock but recently more and more have strayed to the edge and beyond.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why would HTC sell 2000 engineers to Google if they plan to still make smartphones? This move suggests HTC management felt they would be unable to produce $1.1B value with those engineers (which should be a warning to investors).

<comment><USER16> HTC has been losing money each quarter and needed an infusion of cash to sustain their operations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> For sure, the only reason I've been on Apple devices these past few years is because Ubuntu is such an abomination. Windows is plainly unthinkable. And if you have my laptop, the mobile devices fall like dominos. I don't love iPhones, but even at premium prices it's worth it to integrate with OS X.

Android really makes me sick though. Touted as free and open, but you still have to root your phone with shady exploits, payloaded over some sketchy USB shell. And then when you do, the custom roms are trash. And I wouldn't even be rooting these devices if I could just efface some of the stock brand and bloatware, but no, every mobile provider wants me to sign into their analytics package, and billboard their logos all over the place. It's a wasteland in all directions.

<comment><USER18> That's the mobile provider fault, not Android's... And no custom ROMs are necessary for root usually.

Also, what makes you prefer macOS UX than Windows or Ubuntu? They surely have their downsides, but I don't think they're THAT bad to the point of not even touching one.

<comment><USER19> Not OP, but for me it's the apps. While a good number of apps I use professionally can be used on both Windows and Linux, I prefer using OSX simply because Omnifocus, Fantastical and Spark exist on it. I'm sure there are other people who can use the Todoist/web/web trio or make do with Outlook (if you're in an all-Exchange shop with no CalDAV stuff), I'm just not one of them.

An alternative view is that Linux lacks good GUI apps and Windows blows at the command line (despite Bash on Windows). Windows apps also don't have great UX chops in the areas I'd like them to. 1password on Windows sucked the last time I used it, there's no native equivalent to Omnifocus or Things, there's no great calendar app like Fantastical, there's no great indie devs like Readdle[1] or Nucleobytes[2].

This comes from someone who's used all these OSes as well as FreeBSD and OpenBSD for both work and home.

[1][https://readdle.com/](https://readdle.com/)

[2][https://nucleobytes.com/](https://nucleobytes.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Another me-too from Google. It doesn't matter how much money they put on it, it won't work until they do something innovative. Apple had to do it to get where they are.

<comment><USER21> > Apple had to do it to get where they are.

Apple aquired a lot of companies to get their "innovative" features. Siri was aquired (I know, its not great, but it was novel when it came out), PA-Semi was aquired (boosted their in house SoC development), and the original Kinect team for the iPhone X face recognition sensor suite come to mind.

A much bigger list is here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple)

<comment><USER19> All that proves is that ideas can come in from anywhere. Google has a similar list: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet)

It's impossible to say how much input/influence each of these mergers had on the products of these companies. Some of these started products, some of these enhanced them, some of these even replaced them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Though Apple is lagging behind in innovative features in recent times, I think they are at a higher level because of the excellent hardware that complements their software and vice versa. I think Google feels let down by the other mobile manufacturer's hardware and hence wants to bet big on improving its in house hardware expertise.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, the battery story shows how excellent their hardware is.

<comment><USER24> That could be the sales department at work there..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Gotta say as an iPhone user throughout (I own a nexus5 v1 ), I'm pretty impressed with HTCs design. However it's not clear that google will integrate them well.

I see this as more of a sign that Google doesn't care about scaring the hardware manufacturers anymore.

</comment><comment><USER26> I wish Google would just buy HTC already and put out a Fuschia based phone so I can be done with iOS.

<comment><USER27> Fuchsia looks like it is at least 2 years from release (probably more. No wonder O was presented as `the technical foundation of the next 10 years of Android` (from the last IO): it is possible that Google plans Fuchsia as an Android replacement (maybe only at the technical level, as long as they add ART, it can be the next version of Android) but it is not going to happen overnight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Apple has built a brand that's cool and stylish. Google's got a long way to go to get there. More brains aren't the answer to this problem.

<comment><USER29> But tailored hardware might be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Google has always been tone-deaf when it comes to how they treat their users. Apples treats their users as something special. Apple delights - google, well it's fast, but it sometimes creeps you out.

throwing more bodies at the problem isn't going to fix it - this is a top-down issue.

<comment><USER31> Fairly subjective to be fair. I'd wager that the same features that creep you out are some of the features that delight me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> How come the title was changed? Original title from the article was "Google Bets a Billion Dollars More Brains Can Help Take On Apple".

My thoughts when reading this title: [https://i.imgur.com/Y6Js3Ju.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Y6Js3Ju.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER33> For sure, the only reason I've been on Apple devices these past few years is because Ubuntu is such an abomination. Windows is plainly unthinkable. And if you have my laptop, the mobile devices fall like dominos. I don't love iPhones, but even at premium prices it's worth it to integrate with OS X.

Android really makes me sick though. Touted as free and open, but you still have to root your phone with shady exploits, payloaded over some sketchy USB shell. And then when you do, the custom roms are trash. And I wouldn't even be rooting these devices if I could just efface some of the stock brand and bloatware, but no, every mobile provider wants me to sign into their analytics package, and billboard their logos all over the place. It's a wasteland in all directions.</comment>


Geeksphone's Firefox OS smartphones go on sale tomorrow - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2013/04/22/geeksphone-firefox-os-keon-peak-launch <comment><USER2> I'm pretty excited about Firefox OS, honestly. While I loved my first two Android phones (G1 dev phone, and Nexus One), I've hated my third (HTC Sensation). I can blame HTC Sense for some of the disappointment, but I think Android has become less stable over time. It restarts the desktop (dashboard, or whatever the "main" screen is called) regularly, maps crashes all the time, and sometimes the network just stops without warning or error. I've occasionally rebooted the phone to find I've missed hours worth of calls and text messages and Google Talk messages.

I'm also becoming frustrated with Google's evolution toward walled gardens, an end to privacy, and away from the open (and anonymous, when needed) web. Reader to Google+ is one indicator. CISPA is another. I consider Firefox a good foil against that evolution, and I've started switching back to Firefox for my primary browser. In time, Google will have less control over my online life, because the trust I once had toward Google is fading.

I don't believe Google really believes in "Don't Be Evil", anymore, and so I have to protect myself, and push back against Google's dominance. However small my efforts may be to GOOG's bottom line. (And I still hold GOOG stock. Ethically, I'm not sure where I stand on that.)

<comment><USER3> I can't speak for your experiences with the HTC Sensation, but my Samsung Galaxy S3 running Android 4.1.1 has been remarkably stable, especially compared to my previous phone, an HTC Legend running Android 2.2.

As for broader issues you raise about openness vs. the walled garden, I'm also excited to see alternatives like Firefox OS, Ubuntu Phone and so on take shape.

<comment><USER4> I have a Note II running 4.1.1 and I experience the OP's "deluge of texts/notifications hours after the fact" issue. It's very frustrating to get pinged with 10+ notifications at once that came in over the past hours.

To be fair, it's wifi related, but to be more fair: every single iOS device gets texts and notifications from the identically same wifi network without any issue.

<comment><USER5> If it's anything like my work network, it's because you have ports blocked. Agreed that it's annoying that iOS has no such problems, but I'm guessing we have a minority problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have two Geeksphone Keons in here and I've been speaking at events about Firefox OS. I develop mobile apps and web for both Android and iOS and I find that developing for Firefox OS is very refreshing. The OS gets out of your way and you're free to create your own vision for an app.

You're not restricted to a walled garden and don't need to use the Firefox Marketplace if you don't want to. Your app can be on the device or hosted on your server and have an offline mode using appCache.

For those that want to know more, take a look at the developer hub at:

<https://marketplace.firefox.com/developers/>

All you need to develop is a copy of Firefox with the the Firefox OS Simulador add-on installed. The rest is just HTML/CSS/JS. The hardware is exposed using the webAPI which can be seen at <https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI>.

:-D

PS: I am a Mozilla Rep.

<comment><USER7> Can I buy a Geeksphone Keon and just use it on wifi or do I need a cell provider? I am thinking of getting one just to do some development.

<comment><USER8> +1 on this question... would be nice to be able to use things like this with a SIP client over wifi instead of or in addition to mobile.

Another question that is somewhat unclear is in the US will I get 3G/4G data on what carriers? Would prefer to keep my T-Mobile MVNO over AT&T.

<comment><USER6> these phones are unlocked so they work with any carrier. One of my keons is only on wifi and has no simcard, it works fine.

currently I am not aware of a SIP client for the system.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the answer

<comment><USER6> You're welcome! If you need any more information about Firefox OS check out the developer hub at:

<https://marketplace.firefox.com/developers/>

:-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This highlights the different strategy Firefox OS is taking- completely sidestepping North America and Europe, and putting out cheap devices in emerging markets.

We'll see if it works out, but it seems like a very clever strategy to me. There is no way Mozilla is going to outcompete Apple and Google in marketing, but there are many people out there in world still using dumbphones that could upgrade when given the right opportunity.

<comment><USER9> I would be interested in a smartphone that doesn't require a Google account (or an Apple account) to function.

<comment><USER5> Get an Android phone and don't sign into your Google account (and flash a ROM that has it all removed, if you'd like). There are APKs available of non-Play Store stores that should let you find alternate map apps, etc..

<comment><USER10> I've done that, but I'd still like to get a few apps from the official Play store, and I haven't found any other way to download and install them.

<comment><USER11> I've found <http://f-droid.org/> to be an increasingly viable alternative Android app store. All open source so obviously the choice is comparatively smaller, but it seems to have pretty much everything I need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm really excited to see this get to market. The number of developers who already know enough JavaScript to get something done is large. And Mozilla is interested in advancing the open web, not building a closed ecosystem.

I hope there are plans for FFOS tablets in the future. At ~$200 for a decent tablet, they're cheap enough that you can start using them as single purpose devices. The kitchen grocery list. Outside of every meeting room, showing the room calendar. By the door to tell you whether or not to bring an umbrella and which bus to catch. On the wall, as artwork. Basically, any place you might previously have hung a sign. Having them be hackable by any webmonkey would be perfect.

<comment><USER13> > And Mozilla is interested in advancing the open web, not building a closed > ecosystem.

This is definitely the problem with Chrome browser - I've seen a lot of enhancements to that product that seem of very little use for a browser sitting on a functional mobile/desktop OS but critical if it happens to be the only native app (ie, ChromeOS).

Meanwhile, FF quietly just works for all of my needs and has gotten a lot better in the past several releases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Between Firefox OS devices and Jolla (<http://jolla.com/>) Sailfish OS ones, the next months will be pretty interesting.

Can't wait to play with both of them.

It would be even more awesome if they strongly cooperated somehow, though.

</comment><comment><USER15> This weekend I was at a Firefox OS workshop in Madrid. They gave me a Phone for free to play/hack with. I think they will have a big chance. The phones are very good for the price and Firefox OS works alright. They have to fix a lot of bugs but they are on the right track.

And it is so easy to make apps, to put them on your phone or market.

<comment><USER5> Where did you find out about that event? I'd be interested to attend a future event.

<comment><USER15> <https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/03/firefox-os-app-workshops/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I hope this goes well. I got excited about using web technologies to build native mobile applications with WebOS, but am happier to see the non-profit Mozilla take charge on it.

I also agree with other commenters that it's a great idea for them to attack the emerging markets rather than compete with the huge players in the US and Europe. Excited to see that revolution.

I've always supported Mozilla's mission, but I'm still a Chrome user because I feel like it's a more polished consumer product, particular in the area of design. Every time I get that F the establishment motivation and open Firefox, I look at the tab structure and the separate url and search bars and close it again. Sad face.

<comment><USER17> In case you wonder, the reason for which Firefox doesn't merge url and search bar is to protect user's privacy. If you prefer a Chrome-style UI, there are a couple of add-ons that provide just that.

<comment><USER16> I hadn't heard that it was a privacy issue. I'll have to check out those addons, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As an ignorant American who knows zip about smartphones (still carrying around an ancient dumbphone, desperate for an upgrade) what would it take to actually receive calls on one of these? Do Verizon et al just let you waltz into a store with a phone and buy cell service?

<comment><USER19> Verizon or Sprint, no. T-Mobile, yes. AT&T can technically sell you a SIM card but the people in the store probably do not know how.

<comment><USER20> I have just showed up at the local AT&T store and asked for a prepaid SIM. Walked out 10 minutes later with a re-fillable month-to-month account that I used for testing.

<comment><USER21> Did that too. Funny thing, I was visiting US, had no address here, but the AT&T guy seem to like the idea to use my hotel's address. 10mins later, I was calling at local rates, not using my crazy european roaming fees. Very good service, even tho I was in a rural area.

So yes, they know and willing to sell you the SIM cards under very uncommon conditions. PS. just occured to me that in US you don't have ID cards, but you use the driving license for ID. So it's very relative where you live and what's your name. Correct me if I'm wrong ( that was in 2009 ).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 115 euros off contract, including VAT? Not bad.. can't find details on sd card support though.

<comment><USER23> KEON: \</comment></comment><comment>- CPU Qualcomm Snapdragon S1 7225AB 1Ghz. UMTS 2100/1900/900 (3G HSPA). GSM 850/900/1800/1900 (2G EDGE). Screen 3.5" HVGA Multitouch. Camera 3 MP. 4 GB (ROM) and 512 MB (RAM). MicroSD, Wifi N, Bluetooth 2.1 EDR, Radio FM, Light & Prox. Sensor, G-Sensor, GPS, MicroUSB. Battery 1580 mAh.

PEAK: \</comment><comment>- CPU Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 8225 1.2Ghz x2. UMTS 2100/1900/900 (3G HSPA). GSM 850/900/1800/1900 (2G EDGE). Screen 4.3" qHD IPS Multitouch. Camera 8 MP (back) + 2 MP (front). 4 GB (ROM) and 512 MB (RAM). MicroSD, Wifi N, Bluetooth 2.1 EDR, Radio FM, Light & Prox. Sensor, G-Sensor, GPS, MicroUSB, Flash (camera). Battery 1800 mAh.

<comment><USER24> Qualcomm, that means no datasheet. Too bad, it certainly looks interesting for the price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The first thing I thought when I looked at this was that with CyanogenMod this could be a great secondary phone I could use to keep track of Android accessibility as well as learn android programming. Then I looked at the Android 4.2 hardware requirements and it looks like it won't have enough ram to provide a good experience. I won't get one of these until Firefox OS has enough accessibility for blind users to be used on a daily basis.

<comment><USER26> We have accessibility coming for Firefox OS. It still need some work, but I've seen text to speech working really well last week on a target device (with 256MB of RAM).

<comment><USER25> I'd be interested in alpha/beta testing, if I can be of help let me know how I can contact you.

<comment><USER26> You can mail me: fabrice [at] mozilla.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Hardware isn't very thrilling. Even the better spec'd peak is qHD vs. current Android flagships' 1080P screen resolution, a processor generation back, 4GB ROM vs. 32GB and 64GB internal memory, no LTE. The Keon model is a step further back yet.

That does let them offer a very affordable price at least, and probably meant much cheaper to get an ODM since there isn't anything new about the hardware. LTE isn't as important outside US and with fewer contract subsidies the price is more important. They might manage some low end sales this way and get some developers to pickup an extra developer device.

I think the bigger OEMs avoid this sort of thing because there isn't much profit margin, but it might be enough for a small company to get by. You can't really get huge sales unless you are in stores, but you can get some.

<comment><USER28> The FireFox OS project is aiming for the dumbphone/featurephone market.

Source: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QnIskIc3EY>

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "...but will there be buyers?" Yes. I'm definitely buying a Peak and a Keon. =)

<comment><USER30> Yes I want one too. The only hitch is dealing with the actual providers in the US, my current contract, and how much they want me on a plan that rips me off. But I'd imagine this will be a moderate hit with developers who end up making apps, which ends up selling more phones. I've never liked the Android or iPhone development environments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Any details about shipping costs? And will non-EU countries also have to pay the VAT fee? (Hosting companies do not charge VAT for non-EU customers.) 91 euros seems to be too tempting. :)

<comment><USER21> You pay VAT only if you are from EU. Exports do not carry VAT, but you pay customs fee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Boy, I better get hopping on my FF OS app. :D

</comment><comment><USER33> What are other developers doing and or using to create innovative streaming audio/video web apps for Firefox OS?

We have a flash fallback for streaming for Firefox desktop, but we havent had a chance to look at Firefox OS.

<comment><AUTHOR> In theory, you could use WebRTC to stream data from phone to phone as P2P connections.

I've also been toying around with a Spotify streamer, which uses websockets to stream data from open.spotify.com to client side using binary websockets. I managed to create it natively without using any client side JS libaries, so as soon as binary websockets will be supported on phones, I'll be able to stream music to my phone. The music is playable trough HTML5 music player and currently works on mobiles with a workaround, where the music is first piped to a file and then referenced in DOM. Sadly, the hosting service took my servers down because of DMCA and for the same reason I've kept the source code private.

It is written in node.js

<comment><USER34> WebRTC is not in gecko 18 which is the version Firefox OS will initially ship with (ffos versions 1.0.1 and 1.1). WebRTC support should make it into firefox os when we pull from mozilla central again to branch off version 1.2, but development won't be getting started on 1.2 until later in the summer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Based on these specs I guess my good old Galaxy Nexus should have no problem running FirefoxOS? I'm really hoping it'll be ported to existing devices too.

<comment><USER36> [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox_OS/...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox_OS/Firefox_OS_build_prerequisites#Have_a_compatible_device_or_use_an_emulator) Galaxy Nexus is specified as a Tier 3 device. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is exciting news. I'll probably end up with one of these as well as a Jolla (the Sailfish phone) in the near future.

</comment><comment><USER38> Slightly related: does anyone know when the first Ubuntu phone is being released (specifically, in the US)?

<comment><USER39> "Ubuntu will be ready for smartphones at retail in Q4 2013." <http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/contact-us>

It'll be interesting to see it go head-to-head with Android. I think it has potential simply because of how popular Ubuntu is, whereas Google has yet to release a proper desktop operating system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Phones are now available. I just ordered a peak.

</comment><comment><USER41> Why is there so much boast over this fellas age? Didn't this just happen...</comment>


Yii Framework switches: Ruby replacing PHP - <AUTHOR> http://www.yiiframework.com/news/68/yii2-migrates-from-php-to-ruby/

<comment><USER2> Yii makes me feel like I'm programming in something other than PHP. When I need use PHP, Yii is always my choice.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wish they ported it to Python instead. I'm seriously missing a lot of the goodies in the latter, and they'd make a great match. Nonetheless, great to hear it is moving off of PHP!

<comment><USER4> I'm afraid its just a joke

<comment><USER3> It cannot be. It's on the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> yep, we appreciate the joke :)

</comment><comment><USER6> this news will be true tomorrow as the second day of April :)</comment>


Job interview tip #10: interview the interviewer - <AUTHOR> http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/job-interview-tip-10-interview-the-interviewer

<comment><USER2> This is a good article; I think his suggestions are mostly spot on.

Part of my current position is to sit on interview committees. I think I can sum up points 6-11 by simply saying: be interesting and engage the other people at the table.

Interview work is mostly boring drudge work with little payoff for the interviewer. I only remember the interviews where the person being interviewed had something interesting to say. It won't always mean you get the job but you've got a better chance than if we can't remember you five minutes after you leave the room.

Also, don't tell us about your cats on your resume. Seriously, just don't.</comment>


Why the hell doesn't the W3C have a favicon? - <AUTHOR> http://www.w3.org/ <comment><USER2> Because they don't have any specific value?

</comment><comment><USER3> NIH?

<comment><USER4> Bingo.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Cloud cost estimates for Terraform projects in GH pull requests - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/run-infracost <comment><USER2> Neat.</comment>


Why Blackberry Needs Real Innovation - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2010/03/01/why-blackberry-needs-real-innovation-and-how-boston-can-help/

<comment><USER2> I could be misinformed, but an hour ago I needed to update someone on some weekly stats who is out of the country. He told me to give him a summary as he can't open an XLS attachment on on his Blackberry (one of the new Bolds). If my iPhone can do that, how on Earth could a 'business' smartphone not do that? Please contradict me if I'm wrong; otherwise Blackberry is in far greater need of 'innovation' than this article argues.

<comment><USER3> My bold can do that, though it's entirely likely he didn't know the path through the menus to open the .xls doc. The office-like suite opens .doc/.xls/.ppt, iirc.

It doesn't render properly 100% of the time, though, whereas my iPhone always seemed to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I recently did some work porting Hecl to the BB, and just found it to generally be a painful experience. Windows-only, lots of weird stuff, a slow emulator, and a generally odd platform. The actual phones are very nice, but in an iPhone/Android world, I think that's not an edge any longer.

</comment><comment><USER5> Hey. They're finally going to use WebKit instead of their extremely sucky browser, that's gotta be a start.

</comment><comment><USER6> I won't worry about BB. They seem to be the only company able to create a smartphone that works (i.e. doesn't crash etc.) at the moment.</comment>


Google Labs Winding Down - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-wood-behind-fewer-arrows.html <comment><USER2> The scary thing about that announcement are it uses the exact same terminology Sun Microsystems used. 'All the wood behind one arrow' being the most relevant. Since I know some of the ex-Sun, current-Google folks I"m guessing at least a few of them flinched reflexively at that.

That being said, I hope this does _not_ mean they are killing off their research group. If they did I think it would be a colossally poor move on Google's part. While Google is famous for it's 20% time initiative its also infamous for having folks deny it or 'target' it (which is to say you can spend 20% of your time working on anything you want as long as it helps this department's goals) which made it difficult to be a source of innovation.

<comment><USER3> I believe it is not about killing the research, but more of killing the public aspect of it. They want to be less open about future products/innovations and be more like Apple.

Edit: To make it clear - Not that anything is wrong with it. It's probably better for the company.

<comment><USER4> Looks like some HN users have caught the butt-rage since nothing you said was false except maybe that Google would want to be like Apple.

Edit: Uh oh, looks like it's spreading to me now. Here's something shiny to distract you: OS X Lion, iOS5, MacBook Air, App Store is better than Android.

<comment><USER5> That might be. Apple now has much more revenue than Google.

Though, just today I was thinking: 'Well, Google with their young nerdy founders might just not care as much about profit.' I hope Google won't sacrifice geeky projects like autonomous cars for better quarterly numbers.

<comment><USER4> Good thing their autonomous cars project isn't part of Labs and could make them an obscene amount of money if it works out.

<comment><USER6> I wondered a few days ago about the cars: Wouldn't it make more sense to make that project open source?

<comment><USER4> From a good-for-mankind perspective, probably. From Google's perspective I really don't think so. If they can perfect that technology they will have a great opportunity to be the only company in the world able to license the ability to automate the transportation of people and goods using existing vehicles and roadways. It would be a gold mine.

<comment><USER7> Well technically, they could open source and still have patents on it. That way they can be the only supplier of autonomous car software for car manufacturers and still allow people to play with the code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This doesn't come at all as a surprise to me. Google Labs was well known internally for being a graveyard for projects that, ironically, was really hard to launch stuff in. Anything that Google launches anywhere automatically gets a huge amount of traffic, and, because it has the Google brand on it, it's expected to meet a fairly high quality, stability, and scalability bar. In practice, this meant was never really possible to use Labs for throwing something up quickly to see if it stuck. This, combined with the maintenance overhead of keeping the various projects running (which were often grafted onto other larger codebases), makes shutting it down a pretty obvious decision.

<comment><USER9> Obvious decision or not, Google Labs has been one of my favorite parts of Google for years. For me at least, this deprecation pushes Google one notch closer to "boring megacorp" and one notch further away from the sort of cool "research garden" that Google is famous for being. I'm not saying Labs was the forefront of Google research, just that it was a fun, lighthearted place where nifty (and often quite strange) ideas could be trotted out.

<comment><USER10> For me it's not even so much the research angle, as the power-user-features angle. Via Google Labs you could enable features and interface customizations that for various reasons didn't make sense to put into the default product, especially in Gmail and Google Maps. Some were not at all researchy, just simple interface enhancements, like the "drop lat/lon marker" feature in Google Maps. I'll miss that flexibility if they don't replace it with some kind of advanced-options config.

<comment><USER11> Google Labs is different from the gmail/maps labs. See the linked blog post and <http://www.googlelabs.com/>.

<comment><USER10> Ah cool; it looks like that clarification was added in an update. I had assumed that those were part of the overall "Google Labs" project, but maybe that was just a (now-obsolete) branding strategy to tie together all the "labs" stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Corporate labs are funny things. Where would the valley be without Xerox PARC or America without Bell Labs? But from the corporate view they are fairly inefficient. They are a very academic environment, working at a leisurely pace, not at all like startups or even the lean-and-mean among established companies. Self-education and publication is as much a goal as improving the bottom line. Eventually the suits take notice and start reorganizing things to bring the fruits of their labor immediately to market. It happened at Bell, at PARC and at a lab where I was resident. Unfortunately, the shift in focus doesnt really work. The researchers cant shift their timelines. Partially baked ideas dont easily become marketable products and the future becomes sacrificed to the immediate.

If you want short term results, the policy of engineers working on their own pet projects 20% time is really fruitful, but the promising ones then need time and resources to become fully realized. I think thats where Google failed.

Maybe Google is inventing something better than Google Labs. I can see a successful approach being to sprout mini-labs around promising projects where the developer(s) get resources like additional developers, designers, market researchers, QA and the like. This of course sounds a lot like internal entrepreneurial startups, which havent been notably successful. I can hope that Google has something more innovative up its sleeve than the bottom line.

<comment><USER13> Google Labs itself is just a repository of experimental projects, not a research organization. It is not the same idea as PARC, which is a research organization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Relatedly, Steve Ballmer a few weeks ago at Microsoft's earnings:

"We increasingly are only working on things that are actually very important. The day and age of idle, smaller things [at Microsoft] is a little bit behind us. We're putting more energy behind fewer things than we have historically."[1]

[1]:[http://www.winsupersite.com/article/paul-thurrotts- wininfo/b...](http://www.winsupersite.com/article/paul-thurrotts- wininfo/ballmer-discusses-future-microsofts-future-139678)

<comment><USER15> This is probably a bigger news and also sadder as Microsoft labs does great research and really hardcore stuff that never sees daylight. Google labs on the other hand though is more consumer oriented.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I hope this isn't bad news for Swiffy, the very cool Flash->HTML5 converter they launched not long ago. Hopefully they'll commit to licensing the runtime so that people can continue to use their converted files. If they take it down, existing Swiffy conversions will stop working, and right now it says "All Rights Reserved" at the top of the runtime they host.

Anyone know if there are any plans to open source projects like this, or if there's a way to get in touch with someone who could do so? I've submitted feedback to their feedback form, but I'm not sure if it will be seen.

<http://swiffy.googlelabs.com/>

</comment><comment><USER17> We're deprecating our platform for releasing technically interesting experiments that don't make us money

</comment><comment><USER18> Sometimes you hear people say "we're like a startup inside of a big company." This is a great example of why it's hard to make that work. In a big company, you have one source of funding, and they can pull the plug at any moment-- sometimes because your project is doing badly, and sometimes just because you don't fit into the overall corporate strategy this year. At a startup, you only die if you run out of money (which doesn't happen overnight), and if an existing investor says no, you can still raise capital on the open market.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't know anything about archery, but this strikes me as a weird metaphor - is the amount of wood that goes into an arrow really what makes it hit the target?

<comment><USER20> It's not the best metaphor but it is a relatively well known and understood saying for many native English speakers (at least in North America).

I think some people who have replied to you are trying way too hard to make the metaphor fit. Top item later today will be about a Hacker Newsian with feathers, arrowheads, and a sharp edged rock, being arrested by Google's security while muttering about trajectories and wind resistance and trying to catch Googlers in the cafeteria.

<comment><USER21> I've never heard it before today, I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that it is a common thing in North America.

<comment><USER20> It's not so common that I hear it often or anything. It might not even be as well known as I think it is.

<comment><USER22> /I'd/ never heard it before today - one old USian.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I remember a quote from the person who worked on Google+ before heading for Facebook saying "things got to bureaucratic and political" or something to that effect. It feels like a downward spiral or at least seems like a common pattern where an organization loses its agility (not to be confused with "agile") and starts compensating with cutting down.

Labs had an amazing run but Google surely needs to re-invent itself to handle the challenges ahead. Honestly, their setup is not that different from Microsoft where they have cash cows concentrated in several areas whereas Apple has more flexibility with a wider range of services without being spread out too much.

</comment><comment><USER24> Given the first-day issues with launching experiments under the Google brand, would it make sense for them to sometimes 'stealth launch' projects without an explicit Google branding? Experimentation is important for innovation.

<comment><USER25> Yes, and maybe with the side-effect of getting a truer read on reaction versus the reaction to experiments under a google banner.

Nonetheless it may make google a less fun place to be if they do drop a bunch of people, and they surely will lose some of their tech buzz cred.

<comment><USER24> I don't think there's been any implication that they're cutting people related to this change... I read it as the reverse - they're trying to focus the headcount they have on projects they consider more core to their business, which is probably more effective than adding headcount and keeping labs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I thought the new google was going to have more engineers in charge.

This does not feel like engineers in charge.

It feels like public relations people in charge.

</comment><comment><USER27> I liked the customization that Labs offers (undo send in gmail being a brilliant example), but I can see where they're coming from on the focus front. So long as I get to keep the features I currently have enabled, I'm happy.

<comment><USER28> I believe this only applies to the "main" Google Labs (<http://www.googlelabs.com/>), not to things called "Labs" that are integrated in products like Gmail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This had to happen:

<http://morewoodbehindfewerarrows.tumblr.com/>

</comment><comment><USER30> This is a big mistake for Google. One of the big allures of working for Google as an engineer is doing something that gets millions of views. Google Labs is one of the most exciting aspects of this idea, since it lets engineers showcase anything they create to millions of consumers. Now only products that are already in line with the Google products will have the same amount of publicity. This is a very sad day for Google engineers. I will not be surprised to see Google loose even more talented geniuses because of this. Goodbye innovation, hello corporation.

</comment><comment><USER31> Given the issue of launching projects under the weight of the Google brand, I don't see why Google doesn't borrow the idea of Hollywood studios to just have a 'separate studio' brand for things that aren't ready for the big time, while still letting them go live to users

(I realize this is about focusing energy on Google Plus, I'm just concerned they won't bring Labs back)

</comment><comment><USER32> This isn't April Fool joke, is it?

</comment><comment><USER33> Google's '20 percent time' will still allow employees to keep experimenting.

<http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/20/20-percent/>

</comment><comment><USER34> goodbye pagespeed / pagespeedonline / mod_pagespeed ...

<comment><USER35> Uh, no. It's open source, so even if Google took it down you could put it on Github and keep maintaining it. It'll likely just move to Google Code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> How does this affect existing labs products? For instance I use apps like Google goggles, Google listen, My Tracks, and Shopper

</comment><comment><USER37> More dead wood behind fewer sharp ideas.

</comment><comment><USER38> Does this mean I might lose my Multiple Inbox on GMail? ... I hope at least that one sticks.

</comment><comment><USER39> so the strategy is we'll just buy innovation or we don't care about innovation?

</comment><comment><USER40> Fewer arrows? Is that how you say "fewer sharp people"?

</comment><comment><USER41> Does this include Gmail labs? If so, fuck.

<comment><USER42> Apparently not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> it really was just a matter of time.

</comment><comment><USER44> Google labs lab winding down</comment>


The need for multi-platform npm packages - <AUTHOR> http://www.2ality.com/2016/03/multi-platform-npm-packages.html <comment><USER2> Ask HN:

I have been looking at ways to manage some private npm packages while also having the freedom and ease to publish npm packages to github.

jspm is good - but it covers your code with ugly systemJS.

is there a workaround ? is it possible for me to use code kept in bitbucket, github, private github repos, etc.

best wishes - I tried sinopia - but its not maintained well :( I would love to make my own npm but not sure where to start !

<comment><USER3> what's wrong with regular npm for private packages etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think the next step is something like npm for Web Assembly. Web Assembly is an abstract syntax tree format that can work on multiple platforms.

They need to break the HTML5 features into a separate set of modules though.</comment>


My love letter (and goodbye?) to Austin - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/austin-startups/my-love-letter-and-goodbye-to-austin-601dc54a868a <comment><USER3> If you don't have an ironclad way to make money, you will not get funded in Austin. No one in Austin cares about growth of users if those users are not actively contributing to the bottom line. Relying on some sort of soft advertising or vague monetization hand waving for sometime in the future will get you absolutely nowhere. It's been like that since the first bubble burst and maybe a little bit before.

This attitude has some serious pitfalls, no doubt. You don't hear about many 'grow users to the stratosphere and sell for obscene piles of cash before the first hint of profit' stories here. Or 'critical mass was achieved and now we can't help but make rivers of cash' stories (which, to be fair, are fairly rare).

But you also don't hear about the 'we poured money into this unprofitable thing because of an impressive growth curve and it imploded because we couldn't find a way to turn users into money' stories here either.

Fewer headline grabbing stories, no doubt. But what you do end up with is a whole host of solid companies that either make money from almost the beginning or that go away quickly. Investors here want to pour gas on a fire that's already burning (doesn't everybody?). They shy away when there is no spark in sight.

But that doesn't mean there's not a lot of innovation happening. There absolutely is, but just not in the 'get the users and the rest will follow' realm of high-risk.

You're going to have to get lucky with the right investor with an appetite for risk in a competitive area of social apps where even the most successful companies struggle to turn a profit or show how your current user base can be solidly monetized today.

<comment><USER4> Well the problem with something like that is that when you think about it the Ubers and airbnb's of the world would never have made it in Austin based on those criteria. Thats a bit of a problem for me and the city in a way, because when people think "startup" they're thinking more about stuff like that and less about the pragmatic "show me the money" software businesses that Austin tends to fund ... and even at that, not very much.

<comment><USER3> > Ubers and airbnb's

Uber and airbnb were not profitable right away but their mechanism for making money couldn't have been clearer. Uber -- sell rides, get a cut. Airbnb -- sell places to stay, get a cut. These were not 'let's get a bunch of users and see what happens' kind of deals.

That's exactly why Homeaway and SpareFoot got funded. Still a hard problem building that two sided marketplace and reaching profitablity...still a risk. But the mechanism for making money couldn't be clearer.

A better example would be Waze. Offers great value but how how do you capture that in terms of profit for the company? Waze would probably not have been funded. But it worked out since they were acquired. But counting on getting acquired is a sure way /not/ to get funded in Austin. The business has to stand alone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hi, Joah Spearman here. I wrote the piece. This was a personal account, my account, on both my own journey to entrepreneurship, to Austin and to fundraising. I tried to touch on location, race, the business, raising money and a few other things that would help convey the position I'm in. Some people are downplaying the role of race or geography and I'm almost certain they're probably not Black founders or in Austin. My goal with the post was simply to give a personal, open and honest take on my experience here. You wouldn't find me commenting about the scene in NYC or LA from a local's perspective because I'm not a local there nor would you see me doing a lengthy Medium post about how gender isn't really an issue for women trying to raise VC funds. That's not my experience. I shared mine, nothing more, nothing less. I appreciate you all for reading and sharing your commends/feedback in the comments.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm sure a lot has changed since 2014 when I last raised in Austin but in my experience it is possible to raise money for consumer businesses in Austin. Before we pivoted to Cratejoy we had raised a significant seed round from almost entirely Austin investors. It's also possible to get west coast (and really all over the world) investors to invest in you and stay in Austin. We've raised $11M, about 80% of it from non-Austin investors.

For me the secret for raising successfully in Austin was getting individuals on board — high net worth individual investors that I established a personal rapport with. With the exception of the Capital Factory all of the angel funds (for me) were operating off of FOMO and social pressure more than fundamentals. The VC scene does contain some bad actors, and I probably wouldn't spend a lot of time looking for institutional money in Austin. I would get my growth funding west or east coast.

Having raised millions in both SF and in Austin I can say that it is definitely easier in SF. However, the cost of living is so much lower (and I would say quality of life is so much higher) in Austin that I'm glad we're based here. It's also relatively easy to recruit from all over the world to Austin, everyone has seen the continuous stream of articles rating Austin as one of the best places in the US to live.

There's also another great side-effect of being Austin which I didn't notice until we were already scaling very quickly. There's a smaller number of startups in Austin that are producing millions in revenue very quickly (as compared to SF) but the enthusiast and talent pool is very large. When we started to hit scale we had way more advocates than we ever expected. Austin wants home-town winners and it throws its weight behind the ones that look promising, but you have to have something to show.

My cofounder and I consider having Cratejoy based in Austin a competitive advantage.

</comment><comment><USER7> Anyone remember the day where you just made a business, and built it over time, and nourished it into a successful company? Where you didnt beg for money from investors and build your entire plan around using someone else's money? Where the best businesses came out on top, and not the best flashy idea or happenchance encounter with a VC? I don't get why every freaking idea has to be tied up in investors to take off, when if its a valid, profitable business, it would build on its own, and prove itself a strong business without needing help...

Im just tired of seeing so much tech tied up in the politics of investors...

<comment><USER8> I think it's that those are the only businesses you hear about in the press.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> First and foremost I really want to acknowledge the great tone, reflective nature, and clear chronicle of spending talent, time, and effort to build up Localeur into a going concern. I think the piece does an excellent job describing to an outsider the personal challenges of both tech and the cultural considerations that come along with being a Black founder. The apparently repetitive 'dismissiveness' from within the tech community (re: location) is tough to read but certainly strikes a chord.

My experience with Austin as a city and with its own culture really soured me on the place, in that I discovered the "Live Music Capital of the World!" to be self-congratualtory hype that wasn't true (e.g. New Orleans can toast Austin any night of the week, full stop). I've watched as 'up and coming' cool-factor-wow stuff like SXSW lost most all of its local roots.

I saw tons and tons of well-to-do people moving into Austin, driving costs up and creative types out. I saw a town where there's a seemingly endless glut of up and coming talent by way of the University; a glut that depressed wages and made companies comfortable offering no-benefit wage-slave work just to work as a sub-contractor in a "cool" place like AMD. I saw a town that desperately wanted to be cool and had long ago forgotten what it looks like outside of a smart-phone screen.

My point is that I hope the best for the founder to use his experience wisely, to look toward SV with the same skepticism that has been developed after all those years in Austin, and be careful. Don't let reputations fool you - <USER2> thinks its such a great music town, but it only takes a quick minute to realize that Leon Bridges, St. Vincent, Justus, and a load of other up and coming artists do their thing in Dallas/Fort Worth/Denton, not Austin. It might not seem a clear correlative to many, but I honestly do believe support for creative industries and taking risks on new business efforts are quite analogous - so be wise and prioritize which matters more, coolness or success.

<comment> dj-wonk Austin is indeed (!) the "self-proclaimed music capital of the world". They should invite musical delegates from all other lesser cities (like New York) to represent at the Austin Capitol.

I do love a lot about Austin -- just not the self-promotional parts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It reads like a marketing piece or a resume. I could feel that there is some important topic that the author tried to convey, but it was completely lost for me behind list of achievements and recognitions.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, it's one of those things where there's a good story to tell, but it needs focus and editing. But hey, Austin is alright.

</comment></comment><comment> dj-wonk This article raises important questions and observations. I've lived in Austin, DC, and Silicon Valley. I've met Joah (the author), and I wish him, his company, and anyone like him good luck!

Given that VC's often move as a herd (more or less; e.g. seeking signals from others before acting), there is a hurdle to cross. Perhaps it would be better for Austin and companies there if VC's were a bit more numerous, diverse, and willing to act first. By 'diverse' I mean all senses of the word; in particular, covering more industries, models, and risk preferences.

</comment><comment><USER12> Austinite here. Interesting article.

> how can I go about doing that if I'm not being supported > by VCs in Austin?

As a three year old firm, you might be running out of runway. I don't disagree with your statement that Austin VCs are more risk adverse than SF, but in my experience we do have a serious funding environment that many cities would be envious of.

Austin is not really competing with SF, but occupies a niche with a nice tech ecosystem while simultaneously remaining affordable with a nice work-life balance. [The affordability is rapidly eroding as the city-center grows]

<comment><USER13> I would disagree that Austin is all that affordable any more.

I can't comment on the venture scene here as my projects are boot-strapping right now.

<comment><USER14> Austin is certainly still more affordable than Boston, as someone who made the move from the latter to the former.

<comment><USER13> I almost included another line that Austin is probably more affordable than SF, NYC and Boston but I guess I would point out that Boston is likely more affordable than London.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interestingly enough, this has renewed my interest to move to Austin. There are more opportunities in the States than here (Canada) and Austin looks like an appealing spot to relocate to.

<comment><USER16> Be very careful with this decision. Austin has a reputation and the name of the city moves lovingly across the lips of starry-eyed dreamers, but I must warn you that Austin these days is an East-Coast city in the middle of Texas. I am from a town in Kansas that probably would have made a great sister city to Austin in the 80s (Lawrence), and so I understand viscerally what people love about Austin. But enough people from the east coast and Los Angeles have diluted almost all of the things that once made Austin special. Real Austinites do exist, and they are as cool as you have heard, but they have moved and live outside of Austin in places like Elgin or New Braunsfels. The city does not live up to its reputation, unlike other places (for example Portland is as weird as you hear about and Austin doesn't hold a candle to that weirdness). Just an opinion from a guy that's lived in a bunch of places.

<comment><USER17> As someone who spent a decade there and moved on, I second this sentiment. Austin has a homogenous weirdness and a southern corporate consumer culture, and its fabled affordability is a thing of the past.

<comment><USER18> What more affordable city did you move to, if you don't mind me asking?

I visit tech cities across the US often for work and in comparison I find Austin is incredibly affordable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> That was a really long way to go just to attack local politicians for not giving in to Uber's (empty) threats of leaving. Their entire business model is based on breaking the law and yet people are shocked when local governments don't just roll over for them.

<comment><USER20> Seriously. I remember a time when people protested their local governments when they gave in to corporate blackmail of the "let us do this illegal thing or we'll take our business elsewhere" variety. And now some of them are instead protesting when local governments _don 't_ give in. God help us.

<comment><USER21> I follow reddit Austin as well and while the sleaziness of Uber's actions is apparent to many, they also have a lot of fans. Recently it came out that one of the councilpersons who resisted Uber had a recall petition filed against her by some notorious political operatives (1,2) and with that, the pro-Uber voices seem to have died down as the identity of the operatives became known. It was never clear if the pro voices are shills or genuine fans as traditional taxi services have genuine issues.

1: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/43fco8/can_someone_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/43fco8/can_someone_set_me_straight_on_the_battle_between/) 2: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/46q8z5/ann_kitchen_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/46q8z5/ann_kitchen_says_people_with_austin4all_came_to/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've said that town's reputation is a sham for years.

The reason it's hard to get funding is because there's never really been a large VC there except for Austin Ventures, who 1) everyone saw as a Faustian bargain 2) has been hammered by investors for the past 3-4 years 3) is now broken up.

To make matters worse, there aren't any large enterprise customers. There's two Fortune 500 companies - Dell and Whole Foods, and the later is not a tech company. Sure, Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. all have _presences_ there, but decision making is still in San Jose and New York.

</comment><comment><USER23> This may seem like a stupid question, but does your home office really need to 100% tie to your funder's office? I go to KPCB [0] and see a lot of Bay Area companies, and quite a few that aren't. As a Bay Area local, I hear a lot about "Put whatever you can in a place like Austin for lower costs are more employee stability."

If the business is a good deal for investors, they won't let an Austin zip code stand in the way.

[0] [http://www.kpcb.com/companies](http://www.kpcb.com/companies)

</comment><comment><USER24> Why is the color of his skin so important to keep noting throughout the essay?

When you boil it down, VC's only care about one color: green. I highly doubt skin color is the reason you aren't getting call backs or having VC's roll out the red carpet.

<comment><USER25> > When you boil it down, VC's only care about one color: green.

Do they? Do you have personal experience to suggest that VCs in Austin are color-blind when it comes to race?

What I see is a person's personal account of living in the Austin startup scene. They consider their race to have been a factor in that experience. Who are any of us to turn around and say " _actually_ , you're wrong, your race doesn't matter at all"?

<comment><USER26> _Do you have personal experience to suggest that VCs in Austin are color-blind when it comes to race?_

Do you have personal experience to suggest that they aren't?

The personal account here seems to conflate the possible race factor and the definite business factors that go into a pass. It's up to us, the readers, to decide whether or not we agree with the author's analysis.

<comment><USER4> > The personal account here seems to conflate the possible race factor and the > definite business factors that go into a pass.

I'm curious how can you actually determine that if you haven't actually ever been passed on for being black?

> It's up to us, the readers, to decide whether or not we agree with the > author's analysis.

Actually its not. I've never menstruated in my life, but if a woman tells me about her experience of menstruation (as long as it matches the data), I really _can 't_ dispute it since because I have zero context to determine anything past cold hard fact.

And the fact is that the numbers are pretty stark when it comes to black founders being funded by Venture capitalists ...

And no. I'm not going to provide you the data. Educate yourself a little on the topic ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Some observations:

First, it's odd that the author claims that their ethnicity is not the point or not an issue, and then several times says that VCs and folks are not willing to put money on an ethnic founder. Like, pick one: either they're racist shitheads, or it doesn't matter. I know at least one local startup CEO here in Houston who is of color, and I've seen nothing but respect and success for him--mostly because he's a _brilliant_ businessman.

Second, the author is grumpy that consumer plays aren't getting funding. This could be _because consumer plays are not worth funding_ , especially in the current wave of (finally) conservatism. It's a space filled with stillborn and decaying unicorns.

Third, the author's project Localeur ([http://www.localeur.com/](http://www.localeur.com/)) is kinda jank. It doesn't recognize locations outside of Austin, it seems to rely on Facebook for signing in (which while boneheaded is unfortunately SOP in that space), the location bar doesn't even take keyboard focus/input, the "How this works" thing pops down a tab that covers half the screen but has no obvious hint on how to close it...it's just not super compelling.

Fourth, the product seems to be "report on cool stuff nearby and vote on it and get internet points"\--this, without an obvious way to pay them money. They're in, incidentally, a niche already covered well by such little-known startups as Yelp, Foursquare, and Google Maps. It does not take Marc Andreesen to figure out that the space might be pretty competitive and without great returns.

~

I'm from Houston, and we all _wish_ we lived in the magical circlejerk of entrepreneurship and hip tech culture that everyone else seems to believe Austin is. Yet, we still find ways of building good businesses and raising funding if needed.

If the author can't hack it there, maybe moving to the land of even more farcical business _is_ the answer: that said, they shouldn't blame Austin.

<comment><USER27> > _the location bar doesn 't even take keyboard focus/input_

Going all the way from the OP to that petty a smackdown of the author's app is a real stretch, and feels more like an attack than respectful conversation. That's not in the spirit of this site.

<comment><USER26> I respectfully disagree that it is a petty smackdown: the core feature of the app is this location-based business discovery, and _on the current production site you cannot even enter your location in the provided input box_.

If a person is trying to build a business in a very tight space (Yelp, Foursquare, etc.), then their product needs to be _on point_.

If it isn't, that's fine--but then they need to be honest when trying to review why the may not be raising funding. This article (and associated product) kinda fail in both ways, and I think my criticism is completely fair in that light.</comment></comment></comment>


Built with Workers - <AUTHOR> https://workers.cloudflare.com/built-with/ <comment><USER2> Still kind of confused about the seemingly arbitrary 30 sites limit for workers sites. If I am a professional web-developer, I am going to need to deploy a heck of a lot more sites than 30. There is no option to get access to more than 30 sites other than signing up again and again with a new account (and the same payment details? Will that even work?) and paying a number of different $5 monthly invoices. A really unnecessary hassle. It would be much nicer if this limit was either lifted, or it became possible to increase the number of sites. I felt the whole point of workers sites is ease of deployment, which is nice for a single blog, but really only becomes powerful when one is cranking out multiple websites monthly.

Anyone here have experience with workers sites as part of a similar business model as mine?

<comment><USER3> Hi, PM of Workers KV here.

This number happens because you're limited to 30 scripts by default. We do raise these limits for customers depending on circumstance, so if that's a blocker for you, you should reach out to support.

You're not alone :)

<comment><USER2> Hey, glad to see you are monitoring this. I certainly tried this already (and even got as far as your support team stating they would be happy to do this for me and then somehow it never happened and I was instead sent down a long rabbit hole of different people and phone calls. I'd love to send you some feedback on this if you are happy for me to send you an e-mail?) Thanks

<comment><USER3> ugh, sorry about that! Please do: firstname.lastname@example.com</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google services should not require real names: Vint Cerf - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/google-services-not-require-real-names-vint-cerf-120515311--sector.html

<comment><USER2> You do not have to look far as to why one might want to remain anonymous. I submit The Federalist Papers[0] as exhibit A. If the Founding Fathers deemed it necessary to publish under a pseudonym then who are the likes of Facebook and Google to say otherwise? Yes, you may say that FB and Google are private entities and as such we must play by their rules. But I would retort that FB and Google are the default market places of the day for connecting with people and spreading ones ideas. I submit they have an obligation to maintain anonymity for those that choose to remain anonymous. The Federalist Papers were not self published. They were published by The Independent Journal[1], a journal of the day. That journal saw fit to publish those works anonymously under a pseudonym.

Anonymous publication must remain a viable avenue in the digital future if we are to maintain our character as a free nation. There can be no two ways about it.

[0]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers> [1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_Journal>

<comment><USER3> >But I would retort that FB and Google are the default market places for connecting with people and spreading ones ideas.

"Default marketplace" != only marketplace. Was The Independent Journal, which published the Federalist Papers, the largest publication around at the time? Did it matter, as long as the Federalist Papers got published somewhere?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy?

[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F)

<comment><USER5> Wouldn't the people who perform much of this harassment also fall under this "Real Names" policy? While I'm not saying that the issues would be completely eliminated, could this perhaps be progress towards reducing such cases?

<comment><USER6> No one wins in a "Real Names" policy; those who follow it are vulnerable and those who don't care about their reputation or the consequences of their words will be jerks and then find ways to spoof their identities after such a ban.

Besides that, the internet benefits from pseudonyms; [http://readwrite.com/2012/01/16/people_using_pseudonyms_leav...](http://readwrite.com/2012/01/16/people_using_pseudonyms_leave_better_blog_comments)

And it isn't just blog comments; it's everything. If people here were using their real names and weren't allowed to create sockpuppets for one-off posts, we wouldn't see nearly the honesty and humiliation we do. People being fearful of their reputation just leads to less communication, particularly on topics that are controversial but need to be talked about. You don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace pseudonyms are. The argument that it leads to just as many trash posts might be true (although I see just as many idiots using their Facebook accounts to post bile on news sites); but that's why voting exists. Shame the comment, not the commenter.

<comment><USER5> > And it isn't just blog comments; it's everything. If people here were using > their real names and weren't allowed to create sockpuppets for one-off > posts, we wouldn't see nearly the honesty and humiliation we do.

But this isn't about making the Internet as a whole non-anonymous. I realize that Google is a rather large entity, but I put a lot more trust and faith in them than other big internet players.

> don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace > pseudonyms are.

I don't find a community where some people can say immensely hateful things as all that great. Sure, they can regulate and ban the user, but there is absolutely no responsibility taken for the aggravator's actions.

In my opinion, I'd rather there be several levels of anonymity available. Competition will drive each platform and with any luck, some semblance of a standard practice may come out of it.

I personally want people to be responsible for their actions on the Internet, until it has been completely proven it won't help, I don't see a reason to do away with a "Real Names" policy.

<comment><USER7> >> "I don't find a community where some people can say immensely hateful things as all that great. Sure, they can regulate and ban the user, but there is absolutely no responsibility taken for the aggravator's actions."

But what action would be taken if you actually knew who they were in real life? You mentioned "hateful" comments, but assuming that isn't actual threats to someone, there is no accountability beyond banning the user, pseudonym or not.

This of course also assumes people aren't faking out the "real name" restriction to begin with...

<comment><USER5> > This of course also assumes people aren't faking out the "real name" > restriction to begin with...

I'm not talking about a service that half-asses the feature. I'm talking about a legitimate link between my online persona and my actual real name. G+ doesn't nearly meet my demands for this service, but at least they're trying it and hopefully making progress on legitimacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > _"Using real names is useful," Cerf said. "But I don't think it should be > forced on people, and I don't think we do."_

I guess he hasn't seen YouTube's argumentative 'give us your real name and link our accounts' wizard, then. While you can find a way to answer the questions to keep your handle, you may have to lie to do so.

<comment><USER9> What? Just say no when prompted by the dialog. It then says they are considering other options and asks you which you'd prefer. There is no lying involved.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying Youtube's dialog is a good thing. I'm just saying there is no lying involved and it's rather trivial (albeit annoying) to dismiss it without having to lie or use your real name.

<comment><USER10> It's a dialog that shows up every time I log into youtube, and requires (as of the last time I went through it) clicking about 5 different buttons to keep my real name off the service. I didn't have to lie, but it DEMANDED that I select a reason for not wanting my name on the service, and you can tell they're trying to get users to cave and just click "yes" once. It's shitty, argumentative, and unpleasant to use.

<comment><USER11> If it asks you more than once after selecting a reason for picking no, then its a bug. I hear your complaint a lot, but I've never seen it happen in person to anyone I know personally.

<comment><USER12> My anecdote beats yours. I've never seen it do anything _other_ than ask on every login.

<comment><USER13> I just tested (logged out, logged back in) and did not get the real name prompt after selecting to keep my username back when the change was first announced. That seems to confirm it's not something everyone encounters.

<comment><USER14> It would show it for me over and over, but suddenly stopped. Maybe installing Ghostery and ABP helped?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> G+ official tagline is "Google+ makes connecting on the web more like connecting in the real world."

Google has not required Real (legal) Names for quite a while now. Google requires your "Common Name", which is the name you use with your friends, family, or coworkers. And there is an undocumented policy that the name has to look "middle-class", have 1-3 spaces in it, and not look too artsy.

[http://support.google.com/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answe...](http://support.google.com/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1228271)

If your friends call you Mini Kites, Google+ won't shut you down. And if Google+ challenges you on a name violation, you can "clear your name" with purely online-evidence, if you like.

<comment><USER16> > And if Google+ challenges you on a name violation, you can "clear your name" > with purely online-evidence, if you like.

Their help page states that you may appeal with "Proof of an established identity online with a significant following"

That's more of a celebrity clause than an actual solution for real users. Yes, if you're Lady Gaga or 50 Cent, or if you're just an internet personality with enough followers to raise a stink about being blocked, then you'll get your pseudonymous account. The rest of us will be named what Google tells us to be named, or stay out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was never able to use google+, I always have "Your profile has been suspended.". Screw google plus.. <http://i.imgur.com/frHh5dt.png>

</comment><comment><USER18> The major unexamined assumption here for me is that identity is unitary. In fact I have different names for different groups and I don't want them linked together.

And that doesn't mean by everyone except Google. I don't want Google to consider me a single identity across its different accounts, either.

<comment><USER19> > _"I don't want Google to consider me a single identity across its different > accounts, either."_

Good luck with that.

I've had Google prompt me to associate separate accounts across different domains (each driven by google apps). And I've had Google prompt me to merge what it determined were 'duplicate' email addresses into one contact for several of my friends/family -- it connected work accounts, pseudonymous webmail accounts, personal domain accounts, etc.

You may not want to make the connection _official_ , and I understand and respect that. But Google already has the data to _know_ with some confidence. And that's not just a hypothetical capability; they're demonstrably _doing_ it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A good and well thought-out appeal on the Google+ naming issue: [https://plus.google.com/103112149634414554669/posts/WAu688n8...](https://plus.google.com/103112149634414554669/posts/WAu688n8JgZ)

Even after they allegedly changed it to allow "well-known" pseudonyms, the Google+ naming policy just seems arbitrary and pointless to me. Real names that look fake get blocked, while fake names that look real stay. People who want to follow the TOS will stay away, while people who do not care will sign up.

I'd consider using a nickname a "web best practice". It takes minimal effort, is unlikely to confuse anyone you actually know, and lets you compartmentalize your interactions better than any "circle". I am disappointed that Google is trying to discourage it.

<comment><USER20> The whole 'we changed our policy, you can now _add_ a pseudonym field to your profile' was total bullshit in my experience. I tried adding 'mullingitover' as a pseudonym and got shot down. WTF is the point of adding a pseudonym field and then being inscrutable and pedantic about what you'll allow there?

That was the day I stopped going to G+, and the day Google lost a boatload of my goodwill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does Google actually ask for validation of user names? I prefer real names for aesthetic reasons, but if someone chooses to make up a false name, i wouldn't bother.

<comment><USER22> They worry because they want G+ etc to be your real identity much like facebook. I had a nickname in Facebook, they found out and they put my name and I can't change it back. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are some very valid arguments for allowing fictional names (privacy, security, etc).

They mainly not want to go back to the day were everything was mydodoname123.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm still not entirely clear on what Google's policy is on real names, even after reading it.

Is it acceptable to have an account with a fictitious name in addition to one's own account? It's not clear to me from their policy whether this is allowed or not. I had assumed not, but I know of at least one G+ "Suggested User" who maintains an account under a different name.

</comment><comment><USER24> > ... there are cases where in the transactions both parties really need to > know who are we talking to.

This coming from a search company? What else do they have. A free email. You need two parties verifying each other via free email? What else. Ads. There's only a single party in Ads.

What am I missing here?

<comment><USER25> You are starting from the premise that Google is a search company. They are not. They are an advertising company.

The advertising company needs to know your real name as it is more attractive to clients to know they are dealing with a real person viewing their advertisements rather than a legend. The advertising company can charge more money and target advertisements better.

You are also working from the premise that you are one of the parties in the transaction. You are not. You are the product being sold.

<comment><USER24> I think based on the content of the linked article, it appears that he's talking about non-advertising situation, i.e credit card transactions or otherwise. From that perspective, it does however makes sense that "both parties know each other". However, I agree with the rest of your comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Real names for standard web usage does not benefit anyone except Google. With it they can track you more effectively, which is the only reason they demand it. There is no value for the user. No matter what they say.

Note that Nuuton does feature a good naming policy: Nicknames are encouraged.

</comment><comment><USER27> It's about time this opinion started spreading. Let's hope we can change google... though I doubt they'd be moved by a news article.

</comment><comment><USER28> I am not for real name policies, but I do want the problems with posting under real names to be fixed if possible.</comment>


Getting traction for your startup – how we did it. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.newscred.com/?p=268

<comment><USER2> An interesting approach but it sounds like it really boiled down to the backlinks you got as a result of the TC article ... and having an existing (if not extensive) relationship with Arrington. While that's definitely valid it's a combination that's out of reach for most startups.

I would have to say for me personally word of mouth outranks SEO enormously at this (early) point in my startup. To me SEO is about getting every joe typing whatever into Google, word of mouth is securing a lot fewer but a lot more notable users.

Only one significant blog (and only significant to casual game devs) has written anything about me in the month since I posted here asking how guys launch startups. And in terms of link creation ... just scraper blogs stealing that guys content really. But word of mouth has led to some of the biggest names in the industry using my service now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Backlinks were huge, but I had absolutely NO relationship whatsoever with Arrington, Jason or anyone else in Silcon Valley. I link to post that explains how we got on TC. It's all perseverance and creativity.

But I agree, that word of mouth and passionate users are absolutely essential. You can still get backlinks from these 'notable users' - they have blogs right?

If you have a product with a viral coefficient approaching 1, you'll be all set. But for the rest of us, backlinks and organic traffic give us a steady base of users to test, iterate and get feedback from.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> That sounds like pretty decent advice. I have one nitpick though, which is the advice to leave blog comments everywhere and to relentlessly tell all of your friends about your startup.

That surely cannot hurt, but the return on investment of posting comments on a site is minute. I mean, I am addicted to commenting on HN and other sites daily and it is a lot of fun, but the notion that this is actually a good use of time for my startup is wishful thinking.

I would never expect to get a single customer from this. I think getting an article on TechCrunch is of debatable value... but the traffic you'd get from a comment underneath an article from people checking out your profile link is miniscule.

Regarding telling your friends -- again, it doesn't hurt, but it is thinking really small and is not sustainable. That might be a good strategy for winning a minor student council election, but the ROI is going to be utterly negligible. Basically, you could spend a week phoning everyone you know and convince them to check out your site. If you're lucky, this would roughly equal the amount of traffic you would get by having a moderately influential person spend 30 seconds writing a tweet about you.

<comment><USER4> I disagree, especially about posting comments. When I was running my social "cute" site, I hired my niece to post comments on icanhazcheezburger, and to have cuuute.com in the sig (the site is dead now). I routinely got 2-5 clicks a day from people clicking through her sig.

And, pretty routinely, every time I post a link to my economic social news site, <http://newsley.com>. I get around 70 clicks. Frankly, the people that come to Newsley from HN give me the best feedback and are my best users. In fact, a large portion of my first 1000 visitors came from HN. I get a lot of bounces, but i also pick up a couple of regular users every time. Granted, the demographic that I'm looking for actually intersects with HN's demographic somewhat.

I can also vouch for leaving links in the body of comments. As long as your link is on topic to the blog post, I really don't have any problem at all dropping a link in a blog comment. I think it can often add to the discussion.

<comment><USER3> 2-5 clicks per day? That would take over a year before you even generated a single CPM!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I know a lot of this is obvious to some, but I gotten feedback that it's helpful so I thought I'd share with the community.

Bottom line - SEO is your friend when you're looking to build a large, sustainable audience.

<comment><USER5> Preach it brother!

SEO scales ridiculously out of proportion with time invested, does not typically require dedicated upkeep outside of continuing to execute on the business, can be done without large ongoing payments of money, largely does not depend on pleasing gatekeepers (a task which almost always distracts you from executing on the business), etc, etc.

<comment><USER6> The OP seemed to credit the number and quality of the backlinks gained as opposed to a SEO strategy per se.

I understand that SEO is vitally important, but for getting high quality backlinks (which in turn generate a more back links) you'll always have to go though, and please, gatekeepers.</comment></comment></comment>


How do You Improve Problem Solving Skills? - <AUTHOR>

I seriously lack problem solving skills particularly when it comes to solving algorithmic or mathematical questions. I think the issue is that I can't think "outside the box." I am only good at solving problems that I've sort of encountered before. For instance, I struggle through Project Euler questions and take long hours or even days to solve questions and I'm not even past question 10!
This worries me a lot since it seems that there is so much emphasis on the ability to solve problems or puzzles to get to good companies. What can I do to improve?
Some background if relevant at all: I'm a 2nd year student in computer science in a university, not very strong math skills (as pointed above) <comment><USER2> I also struggled at first semester in college (I'm in my 3rd year now) with math (particularly Calculus) and found after my first semester it was due to a gap in my knowledge. I did not have a solid enough understanding of trig or high level algebra to calculate or manipulate equations expected of me so I would bomb all the exams.

If you can't fully understand low level concepts how can you even expect to even grasp the broader view? It's like trying to explain multiplication to someone who has no concept of addition. To understand a topic you must also understand all the sub-topics that make it up, and once you grasp all the moving parts a problem by nature become much more intuitive to you. This also includes math equations, if you are expected to know an equation dont JUST memorize it but instead understand why its necessary, how to derive it, and when you can and can't use it. You'll be able to look at an equation/function/program and pull things out automatically just by looking at it that may have taken some time and work to conclude before. This is very similar to Scott Young's learning ideology that I also recommend reading up on. [1]

Therefore after that semester I took some time and reviewed my algebra and basically re-learned trig from the ground up (it was very weak). Calc and Calc2 came a lot easier to me after this.

In college you must continually fill these gaps in your knowledge as every professor is different and has different expectations in student's knowledge. I've got in the habit of taking topics(whether it be a CS topic, math formula, ect) that I don't fully understand and writing it at the top of a blank sheet of paper. I then just start writing as if I was explaining the topic to my girlfriend. You'll quickly figure out where your gaps are and then know what you need to work on (which may include writing one of those sub-topics on a blank sheet and starting from there).

[1] [http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2007/03/29/studying-and- holi...](http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2007/03/29/studying-and-holistic- learning/)

</comment><comment><USER3> You need to simultaneously level your creativity and pure reasoning skills.

The first and most obvious thing is to level your math - checkout the offerings on coursera. If you have never done higher math, there is a certain type of student (often quite mathematically gifted) that require the ground up approach higher math takes, I'd highly recommend a 100 page book called a concise introduction to pure mathematics by liebeck. This will teach you the mathematical foundations of logic and remember, I often say computer programming is convincing a computer to do something.

Writing and especially debugging code is often abstracted as having a generative model for computing in your head (playing computer in your head to predict what will happen). You're looking at this interface or problem and you are trying to find an efficient solution under different paths through a solution space, until you have closed that space with a provably efficient solution. This involves following out chains of reasoning - if this happens, that will happen and if this and that and the other thing happens, the computer will respond this way and so forth.

For that training, I would recommend learning to play go (the game, not the language) it operates in a binary space and teaches you to run out chains of reasoning.

</comment><comment><USER4> I can't speak specifically to mathematical problems, but in my experience, there are two main ways to improve problem solving skills in general:

1\. Practice.

2\. Work on developing a better understanding of the problems you're solving. For example, if you are designing a website and all you do is memorize an html/css layout from a tutorial, then you won't be able to solve problems that develop because you won't understand why certain properties behave the way they do.

Therefore, it's important to spend a lot of time figuring out why things work they way they do because by understanding those foundations, you have the material you need to solve problems.

</comment><comment><USER5> Try to start with the first book in the series - Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms by Donald E. Knuth

<comment><AUTHOR> Did I forget to mention that my math isn't very good? :(

<comment><USER5> You could always start with the fundamentals ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thanks for asking. I have been struggling with this problem since joining work.</comment>