Paying Users Are Your Nicest Users - <AUTHOR> http://agileleague.com/2012/08/paying-users-are-your-nicest-users/ <comment><USER2> You wouldn't expect D&D players to have much psychological overlap with elementary school English teachers, but in this regard _they totally do_. And this gets repeated over and over and over again in the experience of a lot of companies, B2B and B2C alike. It's like the iron law of customer support: non- paying users consume the most support for the worst reasons and constitute the overwhelming majority of abuse of the support staff. There's a quantum leap getting even to $1, and after that, you tend to see a less-dramatic-but-still- remarkable increase in general satisfaction, decrease in customer-has-unique- understanding-of-how-reality-operates, and decrease in abusiveness as price paid increases.

<comment><USER3> I'm thinking that some monkey software buried in the human psyche is interpreting giving someone money as an act of submission, while another bit is assuming that free is a promise of all-you-can-eat and thereafter interprets limits to that as cheating.

Someone with actual professional psychology experience could probably shoot that full of holes.

<comment><USER4> Are you implying that a person behaves differently whether they paid or not? I would instead guess that paid apps attract a generally nicer subset of people.

<comment><USER5> Both seem reasonably plausible - can we get some empirical data?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One of the reasons I recently shut down a free tool was due to the frankly horrific comments I received from users if it didn't work just exactly as they expected. Whilst it _did_ worked, and I probably could have explained things a bit more clearly, I don't understand the mentality of users sending messages like "WHY THE [nsfw filter] ISN'T THIS WORKING YOU [nsfw filter]? I HOPE YOU DIE." They put me off checking emails for that account, and Twitter via TweetDeck as a whole.

None of my other - paid with no free option - services suffers from this, despite similar numbers of users trying them out. In fact, I don't think I've _once_ received an email with a swearword in it from one of the paid tools, whether from users on the free trial or fully paid-up.

<comment><USER7> _One of the reasons I recently shut down a free tool was due to the frankly horrific comments I received from users if it didn't work just exactly as they expected. Whilst it did worked, and I probably could have explained things a bit more clearly, I don't understand the mentality of users sending messages like "WHY THE [nsfw filter] ISN'T THIS WORKING YOU [nsfw filter]? I HOPE YOU DIE." They put me off checking emails for that account, and Twitter via TweetDeck as a whole._

This is horrifying, and only further dissuades me from ever pursuing a venture built around the freemium model.

Frankly, I'm not a fan of it as a concept to begin with. The fact that it contributes to the mis-guided sense of entitlement of (in the words of Louis CK) non-contributing zeros only adds insult to injury.

<comment><USER6> _This is horrifying, and only further dissuades me from ever pursuing a venture built around the freemium model._

Heh, to be fair it's not all doom and gloom, I can't see how so many people would offer it if it was. Even with the paid tools, you will still receive the occasional bewildering email, such as this gem which arrived over the weekend:

 _Dang!! I love this app sooooo much. I thought it was free. Until i looked over and saw it was only a trial. I'm no longer using this site until it becomes free_

Sigh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This has always been my experience. I will go even further in my retail outlets - my worst customers are the ones who 'think' they spent a lot. But my best customers - by far - were the ones who can walk in and write a $64,000 check on a Wednesday, and any Wednesday after that. Those customers account for 90% of my business and are almost no hassle.

<comment><USER9> I don't think I understand your $64,000 example. Are you being sarcastic or are there actually people who spend that much money week by week?

<comment><USER8> There are people who spend that much week to week. This is dependent on a specific type of retail - our average sale in these stores is $30. But some customers can spend $50k or more in one visit. And those customers are the easiest to deal with - very few complaints, no arrogance, easy to please.

<comment><USER10> That is quite a gap... Average sale $30, but people spend $50,0000?

<comment><USER8> Yes. That's the difference between the people who try to bully a clerk and claim they are a big spender and someone who is actually a big spender. There are lots of people who think they spend a lot of money and that it affords them special privileges. But the people who think that have no idea that the scruffy guy in jeans and sneakers standing next to them is about to drop cash like that.

I think about this when I go to a trendy place like Buckhead in Atlanta. There are some big money players walking around - but they generally aren't the young people who look like a million bucks and look like they are loaded. Those people are broke.

But, I digress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was running a product with a freemium model for a while and I can say without a doubt that this is true.

<comment><USER12> Of course, if you add value for the users or solve their pain point, they will be willing to pay. I personally think that one month free trial model is better than freemium. It sets the users' expectation from the beginning. I always thought Freemium is sort of sleazy.

<comment><USER13> Can you explain how you find freemium to be a sleazy model? That's a genuine question - I run a freemium service and I'd hate for there to be a perception that we were in any way sleazy.

<comment><USER7> Intuitively, we know it's fairly rare for _something_ to be provided for _nothing_. Therefore, it's often assumed that the business model of freemium ventures is either :

1) purely ad-supported (increasingly difficult, imho)

2) generating (at least some) revenue by harvesting user data

3) running at a loss with the _goal_ of being acquired as soon as feasibly possible

2 & 3 specifically could in various contexts be viewed as sleazy. This isn't my personal indictment, but they do represent views I've heard bandied about on a semi-consistent basis.

<comment><USER14> What you are describing is the "free" services, not "freemium" services.

Freemium means trialing a product based on usage as opposed to trialing it based on time. Once your usage goes over a threshold you are an active user and you start paying for the service.

That's our model on JotForm and it works well for us.

One of the best examples of this model is evernote. I remember they were saying something like if the users stays active on their product for n months, they will almost certainly become a premium user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> At a start-up many years ago, one of our principals gave a free copy of our ($1000 and up, Windows-only) software to a colleague, a college professor.

College professor tossed it to a grad student, who proceeded to install it on a virtual computer instead of an actual PC. Virtual computers were _very rare_ in these days. The student then complained to us that the software wasn't working right in their emulator. And why didn't we say that our software required a serial port (which was impossible to _not_ have on a PC in those days) in our requirements list?

Give a man a fish and he'll bitch at you it's the wrong one.

</comment><comment><USER16> At one point it says, "Asking for payment does not fundamentally change your relationship with your users" but I'm not sure I agree with that. Asking for payment DOES change the relationship, but it changes it for the better--there is a more equitable sense of trade or exchange, where both parties feel as though their contributions are valued.

</comment><comment><USER17> If I pay a LOT for something and get poor results, I'll be pretty critical.

If something is cheap I don't expect much of it.

If something is free, then my instinct is to focus on the cost of my _time_ , which in many cases makes me demanding.

A perfect example of this would be Facebook. If it suddenly ate of my photos I would be _furious_ because of all the time I'd spent tagging them. Similarly, I haven't really used Reddit since 2007 due to the fact that it once tricked me into wasting a lot of time writing comments that were invisible to everyone but me. Even thinking about it now I'm angry. Money is money, but time is the stuff my _life_ is made of!

<http://toshuo.com/2007/reddit-deceived-me/>

On the other hand, if my $20 Nokia phonosaurus died, I wouldn't exactly be broken up about it.

</comment><comment><USER18> It's nice to know that this has been your experience. It's possible that paying users have generally become paying users only after more careful evaluation of a product, and hence are already pretty satisfied users. That would explain some of the niceness.

</comment><comment><USER19> Wouldn't it be reasonable/acceptable to deny support to those that use expletives when asking for it? Assuming you forewarn in your contact form or in your terms. Specially for non-paying users. Those people are not going to be paying for the product anyway, they probably wouldn't be insulting it/it's developers otherwise.

<comment><USER6> _Wouldn't it be reasonable/acceptable to deny support to those that use expletives when asking for it?_

I have a pretty thick skin, but after a while it is _tiresome_ to receive such emails. Draining, boring and tiresome. I wouldn't offer support to any user who wrote such an email, but the bigger problem was having to read their filth in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I would go a little further if you're an app store seller that the higher the price you charge, the more reasonable your customers are. Case in point - Sparrow ($2 on iOS and $10 on Mac -- inexpensive for each category) generated a huge uproar when Google bought them.

<comment><USER21> I disagree with your Sparrow example. People were upset that Sparrow was ceasing development after having a sale one week before it was announced that they were bought by Google. That is just bad practice on Sparrow's part.

For myself, if I pay for an app I expect a lot more from that app. I expect a quality apps with updates and support. There was an article I read (can't find it now) that a developer said he doesn't do payware due to the fact that he doesn't want to give support.

I have no problems with free apps ceasing development - they were free! It would be nice if they released the source code though so someone else could take charge of the app.

<comment><USER22> That seems like an unreasonable expectation for 2$.

<comment><USER23> If $2 for an update is unreasonable, maybe they should have charged more?

<comment><USER22> "For myself, if I pay for an app I expect a lot more from that app. I expect a quality apps with updates _and support"_

So pay 2$ and get updates for free.

<comment><USER23> Oh, you are one of those "Well, actually" people. Gotcha. I can do this.

> So pay 2$ and get updates for free.

No, that's not what he said. He said he expects update and support. He didn't say that those updates and support should be free. Merely that updates and support is available. It's akin to paying for anything, really. I expect if I pay for a computer, for example, that they make available to me updates and support.

So let's not play the "Well, actually..." game, and discuss things like an intelligent adult.

And, even if he did mean that he expects updates and support for free for the rest of his life, does that really warrant a response or consideration?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> no doubt.</comment>


Life and How to Survive It (2008) - <AUTHOR> http://blazingcold.blogspot.com/2008/08/speech-by-adrian-tan-at-ntu-convocation.html <comment><USER2> Youtube version: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z_ilHst4fc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z_ilHst4fc)</comment>


If Congress Doesn't Understand Facebook, What Hope Do Its Users Have? - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-congress-day-one/ <comment><USER2> It doesn't matter what congress feigns understanding of, or whatever failure to comprehend they masquerade in front of the cameras.

Facebook is there to listen in on your private conversations, read your mail, build up evidence for who you talk to and associate with. To seem benign and trustworthy while all this takes place is part of the game.

There's this idea to scapegoat the mea culpa off onto faceless shadowy firms, but none of what happened would have ever been possible, if facebook hadn't conspired to log and sell the information it knew to be useful and powerful to begin with.

To invert the blame onto Cambridge Analytica is a mistake, when Facebook's data collection platform was designed to do everything it was used for from the start.

Anything some political consultancy may have done, Facebook was and is doing times a thousand, back then, yesterday, today and tomorrow. And the more time that goes by the worse it gets.

<comment><USER3> To me it sounded like Cambridge Analytica approached an app developer who sold them the data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The article isn't mainly about the subject in the title, it's more of a general review of the hearing. However, regarding the question in the title: It is hard to understand anything if you don't try. The article mentions that people were asked before information were shared, but somehow did not understand the implications about that, or did not even read the approval before giving it. So my answer would be: Their hope is great great if they care and carefully go trough their privacy settings and read approval messages before giving. Lousy if they don't care and don't read anything on their screen.

So maybe the solution isn't trying to bring in Zuckerberg into congress and everybody's home to have an introductory course in Facebook privacy settings. Maybe it's about teaching each other about how internet works and making people more aware of how what they share could be used - which might make some users actually care about understanding?

</comment><comment><USER5> Many members of Congress owe their jobs to the deliberate cultivation of obfuscation, while running for office and in the development of laws, so I'm not sure if their ire at Z comes from genuine concern for their constituents or if they are just protecting their turf.

</comment><comment><USER6> Congress does not need to "understand" Facebook for them to pass a privacy law.

Congress doesn't need to understand anything in order to pass a law concerning it.

<comment><USER7> > Congress doesn't need to understand anything in order to pass a law > concerning it.

They have made that abundantly clear.</comment></comment>


Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/4/17989224/intellectual-humility-explained-psychology-replication <comment><USER2> Just as - if not more - importantly: try not to be a jerk when somebody else is wrong, just point out where they're wrong, present evidence, and move on. Maybe then people will be less reflexively defensive about being found wrong.

<comment><USER3> The way I see it, in technical fields, we all share common interests and are working toward the same goals. Why not share in both your collective enthusiasm and knowledge?</comment></comment>


Broken Performance Tools [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.brendangregg.com/Slides/QCon2015_Broken_Performance_Tools.pdf <comment><USER2> In case hackernews traffic brings down my website: [http://www.slideshare.net/brendangregg/qcon-2015-broken- perf...](http://www.slideshare.net/brendangregg/qcon-2015-broken-performance- tools)

</comment><comment><USER3> Where is the video of this talk? Slides are only half the story.

<comment><USER3> Hopefully they recorded it. [https://qconsf.com/sf2015/presentation/broken- performance-to...](https://qconsf.com/sf2015/presentation/broken-performance- tools)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of the criticisms of "top" is that it clears the screen and you cannot turn this off. "top -b" works fairly well for this.

<comment><USER2> ah, thanks, I forgot about this. Although it doesn't quite do what I want: I want it to truncate to the screen (like normal top), and just print the next summary without clearing the screen. That way you'd use it like normal top, but in case you wanted scroll back it'd be there.

</comment></comment><comment> Ono-Sendai You do need to know what you are doing when doing benchmarking. Doesn't mean that ~100% of benchmarks are wrong.

<comment><USER5> They're almost always not able to be replicated, and measuring something almost always skews the results!

Check out gnn's talk on this tooled towards networking in FreeBSD

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BcdRHNTdf4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BcdRHNTdf4)</comment></comment>


Founder Resentment: How to Avoid It - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/mark-peter-davis/founder-resentment-how-to-avoid-it.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+inc%2Fchannel%2Fstart-up+%28Inc.com%3A+Start-up%29 <comment><USER2> Very interesting and true. At the end of the day everyone is human and fundamentals of human psychology will always shine through. Personally I think the important thing is to always know what your own requirements for happiness/contentment are - if you base your own happiness on other peoples position/status you will never be happy as there are always people doing better or working less or more lucky etc!</comment>


IPad 2 forces Samsung to reconsider features/pricing on Galaxy Tab 10.1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.edibleapple.com/ipad-2-forces-samsung-to-reconsider-featurespricing-on-galaxy-tab-101/

<comment><USER2> Ah, excellent. As much as I like my Xoom, the Android tablet market would benefit tremendously from lighter, cheaper tablets. It wouldn't hurt to have some 7" devices, either, running Honeycomb and a real GPU.

Apple has some terrific advantages in the tablet market: A unified vision, a larger marketplace of tablet apps, and good vertical integration. Android, on the other hand, benefits from the fact that multiple manufacturers can launch multiple devices per year. Look how quickly the Android market went from the G1 to the Nexus S.

I'm bullish about tablets in 2011 and 2012. Both Apple and Google are executing very credibly, and the Xoom is a _vastly_ better first attempt than the Android 1.5 phones. So with any luck, we should see significant consumer adoption and growth in the tablet market over the next two years.

<comment><USER3> > Look how quickly the Android market went from the G1 to the Nexus S.

In about the same time frame, Apple created the original iPhone and revised it into the iPhone 4. It's not clear to me how Android has a clear advantage here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Eh, not really, at least according the same source that started the rumor: [http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/techscience/2011/03/05/06010...](http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/techscience/2011/03/05/0601000000AEN20110305002100320.HTML)

Echo chamber of the web strikes again.

</comment><comment><USER5> I never thought I'd see the day that Apple would be winning on price. This surely flummoxes the current tablet challengers.

<comment><USER6> Apple hardware has never been about price, it's been about profit. In the PC market this generally equates to more expensive like-for-like machines because the Dell/Sony/Lenovo's of this world are sold at wafer thin margins.

When it comes to tablets & phones Apple's costs, from components through to retail, are so much lower that they can sell at lower prices than their competitors and still make a healthy profit on the hardware.

For tablet/phone makers, trying to figure out how to compete with Apple in the mid to high-end range must be a very miserable situation to be in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Samsung is the company best positioned to compete on price. The Tab 10.1 is an anomaly because it uses an nVidia processor rather than a Samsung processor, but for most of their products, Samsung manufactures their own LCD, CPU, RAM & Flash.

<comment><USER8> The funny thing is, Apple's CPUs are manufactured by Samsung.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A5>

<comment><USER9> Can Samsung use the A5 in their devices? Or do they just manufacture them for Apple.

<comment><USER10> Samsung's Exynos already appears to be a better chip than the A5. But Samsung's (and everyone besides Apple) issue isn't CPU power, it's software and ecosystem.

<comment><USER11> I'd add one more item to that list: hardware design.

And I'm not talking merely aesthetics - I know a few hardware engineers who have torn down iPads, iPhones, Galaxy Tabs, etc, and the consensus is clear: Apple _excels_ at materials use and space optimization in a way that _none_ of the major OEMs do right now.

<comment><USER12> i agree that anybody except apple excels at hardware design, however both ipad and ipad 2 are not at all impressive in terms of what apple could have offered in hardware in 2010 and 2011;

<comment><USER11> Compared to everyone else, Apple is miles ahead - and I'm not talking abou features and specs. Hearing from some of my hardware friends, Apple's hardware is built like a tank - in terms of design, manufacturing precision, and use of materials. Crack open a Samsung phone and you'll find lots of plastic, lots of empty space, lack of structural rigidity, and even things like antennae haphazardly taped down to the casing.

I don't think this is a case of _can_ or _cannot_ , these phones, laptops, and tablets are coming out of the same factories Apple products are - it really seems to be a matter of priorities. Apple spends an enormous amount of effort on making their machines beautifully designed, inside and out, whereas most OEMs seem merely content with the outside.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bringing Blogging to the Fediverse - <AUTHOR> https://write.as/matt/bringing-blogging-to-the-fediverse <comment><USER2> I'd really like to see distributed comments across self-hosted sites and blogs, but I haven't come across a decent way to prevent spam.

I used to embed Disqus in my site, but wasn't really happy with its centralised nature (plus it was _far_ slower and bloated than anything else I had; generally a few KB of static HTML with "motherfucking-website" aesthetics).

<comment><USER3> I imagine that the answer to that may well end up being the same as it is for email. When a comment arrives, check a few centralised reputation systems (like DNSBL), and then perform a statistical analysis of the comment against some corpus (like SpamAssassin et all) before allowing it or not. We could even introduce greylisting too.

<comment><USER4> DNSBL — I'm wondering those solutions are never going to work totally well? When even Facebook gets rather many spammers, don't they. It'll be a tech race and the clever spammers can continue spamming?

I'm thinking the only? way to deal with clever spammers, that's really going to work, is to manually review the first N comments by each new commenter, and only approve the comments, if they add value to the blog post. Once someone has been able to add value to the blog post 3? 5? times (e.g. provided more useful info or thoughts, or asked on-topic questions whose answers = good for others to know too) — then the likelihood that that person is a spammer is maybe 0.01%, ok to auto approve his/her comments hereafter. I actually built such blog commenting software, link in my profile.

<comment><USER5> That still requires a centralized reputation system to be the clearing house. Unless people frequently comment on the same blogs. And in that case the activity would be more centralized again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is neat. The Fediverse is a really exciting development in the re- decentralization of the web. Is there any intent to also expose published articles as, say, IPFS blobs or Dat archives? It'd be cool to see some of these services starting to expand into those realms too.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is already possible with the XMPP protocol for many years now :) The good thing is that it simply relies on XMPP Pubsub and the widely deployed Atom standard.

You only need an XMPP account with a quite recent server (pas few years) and a client that supports that, such as Movim ([https://movim.eu/](https://movim.eu/)) or Salut à Toi ([https://salut-a- toi.org/](https://salut-a-toi.org/)).

And here is an example of a Blog handled with XMPP [https://firstname.lastname@example.com](https://firstname.lastname@example.com). It is also possible to have feeds handled by several users at the same time (called Communities on Movim) [https://nl.movim.eu/?node/pubsub.movim.eu/Movim](https://nl.movim.eu/?node/pubsub.movim.eu/Movim).

</comment><comment><USER7> What advantage does bringing ActivityPub to this blogging platform have over just subscribing via an RSS reader?

<comment><USER8> Interaction. Comments (toots) and likes (boosts) are built in the platform. And you don't need to log in anywhere to comment, you're using your one ActivityPub identity. While commenting you can add additional people to the thread, recommending the post to your friends.

<comment><USER9> I'm new to this landscape, how do I have one activitypub identity? I have a Mastodon account, but that's about it

<comment><USER8> I mean you can use that account to comment on any ActivityPub enabled blog, no need to register there or for any comments system they support.

One identity may refer also to running your own server, then you're safe from any extinction events :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I use Diaspora* as a blog platform

<comment><USER4> Haven't heard about that way of using D*. It'd be interesting to have a look at your Diaspora blog? If you'd like to post a link?

<comment><USER10> Here you are

[https://pod.storel.li/u/alexandre](https://pod.storel.li/u/alexandre)

then, with a script executed periodically, I convert the Diaspora* Atom feed into a static page:

[https://alexandre.storelli.fr/](https://alexandre.storelli.fr/)

<comment><USER4> Looks aesthetically nice I think with D* as a blog. B.t.w. Taxi Driver is a great movie :- ) (I recognized the avatar image) & Another World, I played it too all the way to the end.

I couldn't post a comment about eating vegan food, compared to meat (I'm a pescetarian b.t.w.), at: [https://pod.storel.li/p/164706](https://pod.storel.li/p/164706) — I was a bit confused about this: _" meat requires much more fossil fuel to produce than vegetables and grains"_. Fossil fuel to produce food got me confused (my first thought was: _" But humans and cows don't eat oil?"_) ... and apparently that's for transporting the food and maybe preparing it in food factories or maybe keeping it cold, etc. (?)

... Apparently one needs a D* account oneself, to post comments (?), [https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/FAQ_for_users#Who_can_co...](https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/FAQ_for_users#Who_can_comment_on.2C_reshare.2C_or_like_my_public_post.3F)

<comment><USER10> Thanks for your remarks! Good catch for Taxi Driver!

To add comments, indeed you need a D* account. The network is federated, go register at one of the pods listed here [0] or start hosting a pod yourself (which I do).

As for the article about bicycling vs car, it's a comparison of global contributions. It's not only about fossil fuel burned in motors, it also about methane from cow's farts for example [1]. The conclusion is that being a vegan bicyclist is the best option with regards to greenhouse gas emissions.

In the end, if the script to generate the static page is of any interest to you, tell me and I'll put it somewhere on Github.

[0] [https://the-federation.info/diaspora](https://the- federation.info/diaspora) [1] [https://thinkprogress.org/methane-emissions- are-spiking-but-...](https://thinkprogress.org/methane-emissions-are-spiking- but-it-might-be-more-cow-than-car-791e5233dc2a/)

<comment><USER4> Ok thanks for the reply & details about emissions (e.g. cows & methane). Actually I have a blog and it's static pages already :- ) (+ blog comments)

<comment><USER10> Just curious, would you share the link?

<comment><USER4> [https://www.kajmagnus.blog/new-embedded- comments](https://www.kajmagnus.blog/new-embedded-comments) (that's the only blog post this far. I'd like to write about society & people later on in the future) — and here is the software for the blog comments, in case you're interested: [https://www.talkyard.io](https://www.talkyard.io) (a tiny one person startup)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kima Ventures Will Allow Startups to Raise $150K Within 15 Days Via AngelList - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/04/kima-ventures-will-allow-startups-to-raise-150k-within-15-days-via-angellist/ <comment><USER3> I am a co-founder at a startup that just graduated from 500startups and as part of my fundraising process, I decided to approach Jeremie.

I think what's this post is missing is some context, Jeremie is running one of the most active seed fund in the world (200 investments is no feat) and they have a stellar reputation which is why I approached him - I did some due diligence with other entrepreneurs who provided me great recommendations as well.

Jeremie turned us down for various reasons but did in a timely manner and was being very honest about it (no sugar-coating or stalling the process to keep the door open like most VCs do).

I think if you're looking to take money from an unknown investor (who has made almost no investment), you should be doing your due diligence. However with a network of 200 backed companies - making a due diligence can be fast and take just a few days and I also think you should do that prior applying to Kima15 via Angellist.

Some cite the valuation not being favorable, however there are stages when your company is so immature and early that you shouldn't worry about over- optimizing for valuation and rather take some money at a lower valuation and move fast in order to make great progress that will let you close more money at a significantly higher valuation. If you are looking to build a company which might be the $100M-$1B valuation range then that low valuation will not have any significant impact on your outcome.

It is also very refreshing to see a seed fund publishing a SLA - I am looking at this as a very clever marketing feature - now people will remember Kima as the first seed fund that agreed to commit for a SLA for giving you an answer - one of the biggest pain in raising funds.

<comment><USER4> I've heard mostly negative things about Kima.

There's Jeremie's public negative statements about a company they invested in (Sparrow): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4277331](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4277331).

They're also very price sensitive, which can create resentment even in companies that take their money.

<comment><USER3> They're price sensitive and are quite open about it - I don't see why it would create resentment?

If they are approaching you and are trying to negotiate a lower price while other investors are on board on a higher valuation (I saw this happens quite a lot), I think that would be the kind of behavior that would create resentment both on the other investors and founders side.

However I haven't experienced it and my experience was that they turned me down because my valuation was too high for them and out of their comfort zone - did they try to negotiate me to a lower valuation? No.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To dismiss fund raising as a "distraction" as they do belies the importance and seriousness of choosing good investors that benefit your company, on terms that won't hamstring your growth later.

A "one size fits all" approach like what they're pushing sounds more like a pay day loan than a legitimate business partnership.

I worked with a startup that took a $150k seed-stage investment on a $1m valuation, but the terms and the investors were terrible. My partners and I were too inexperience to know we were being ripped off until the time came to raise real money and our first investors were blocking every funding attempt and giving us "counter offers" at significantly worse terms.

I'm not saying these people are doing this, or even that it's a bad deal, but I would advise serious caution and diligence in matters of fund-raising. It's worth spending more than 15 days to get a deal right. Properly funding a business is not a "distraction;" it's a primary component in running a business.

<comment><USER6> Hello

Nope, we are not doing it ;-) Check my Angellist profile: [http://angel.co/jberrebi](http://angel.co/jberrebi)

We have a very good reputation in this market and are helpful! You can check!

<comment><USER7> The good url is: [https://angel.co/jberrebi](https://angel.co/jberrebi)

<comment><USER6> Thanks, corrected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think it's an interesting move. I can tell most of HN seems to dislike this idea but I believe it's basically what incubators are offering without the usual smokescreen of "advice + intros"

I know nothing of Kima itself, they could be great or terrible investors - <USER2> that seems orthogonal to this idea which could makes sense for both parties in many cases.

</comment><comment><USER9> I can see this as being great for inexperienced founders looking at getting funding for their first stab at being an entrepreneur. However, any founders that are talented and have worked as an engineer at at least one moderately or highly successful company should be able to raise money on much better terms. Giving up 15% for $150k seems pretty steep, especially when the investor in question is spread so thin. Money and maybe occasional introductions are going to be pretty much the only forms of involvement that the investor could realistically invest in you.

</comment><comment><USER10> To the naysayers, the biggest downside of fundraising is just the insane distraction and time it takes to get through that process.

Kima Ventures has simply understood that and has solved that problem.

There are a lot of startups for whom it would be detrimental to have investors who want to have a say in their startup, but who would have a lot of benefit make big progress by getting $150k fast.

If you position yourself as the brand to get all these startups, you will inevitably scoop up some of the really big hitters.

</comment><comment><USER11> I know I wouldn't invest or accept an investment without being able to meet the founders face-to-face. That is part of why Y Combinator has been as successful as it has been, it offers less funding and more networking. The later being what a founder needs just as much OR MORE.

</comment><comment><USER12> These terms are so good that Kima may have put itself in a strange position of looking "too good to be true."

Standoffish arrogance in VCs is unpleasant, but it can signal that the VC is so successful that he or she doesn't _need_ to be nice.

If only the straightforward approach worked!

<comment><USER6> Ok, so the good strategy is to give a bad deal to entrepreneurs ? ;-)

<comment><USER12> No, my point was not that. My point is that sometimes, showing how tough you are makes you appear more successful and more desirable--a type of signaling.

I'd certainly prefer a situation where no one has to do this, much less VCs!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What do you guys think about the terms of the deal? Isn't 15% a lot to give out for just 150k?

<comment><USER14> Y Combinator is $20k (+ $80k maybe) for ~6% equity.

<comment><USER15> The $80k is a convertible note though, so expect it to be converted into another ~25% equity at that valuation.

<comment><USER16> It doesn't convert at that valuation. It converts in a future equity round, usually the series A, valuations for which are on average over $10 million lately.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the clarification. Thats what I thought. So convertible note is much better for the entrepreneur. It retains the optionality of doing well and consequently giving out less equity.

<comment><USER16> Notes aren't always better. It depends on the valuation cap at which they convert. A note with a low cap is just as dilutive as an equity investment at a low valuation. The YCVC note is uncapped, however, which means it's like getting part of your eventual equity round in advance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wondered why no firms were doing that: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6730152](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6730152)

</comment><comment><USER18> Any advice for someone in the early idea phase? What steps would one do before applying to this?

<comment><USER19> GSD (Get Shit Done) and get some traction. Without traction, you're just a guy with an idea in a queue of thousands...

<comment><USER18> I thought the purpose of this type of funding was to fund the idea stage, so you wouldn't need traction yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Terrible terms will attract terrible companies.

<comment><USER6> Why do you think our terms are "terrible"?

<comment><USER21> Terrible is a strong word, but I don't think these terms are good for lots of companies. Each company is at a different stage when they first start raising seed funding. Some companies might just be worth 1 MM, but if you have a strong team, great technology, a workable plan, and early customer interest/revenue 1 MM is a horrible deal. In my opinion these terms are great for some ventures and absolutely horrible for others. I think the quick decisions are great, but I would think it would be more fair and equitable for you not to box the valuations. Perhaps offering a tiered option where higher value ventures take a little longer to evaluate, but I think boxing the valuation will have you miss the best companies. My two cents anyhow.

<comment><USER6> Agree with you that for it's not for everyone but for most early stage startups, it's a great deal.

For the others, Kima Ventures still exists and we are investing at differents valuations (lower and higher)

<comment><USER20> I think it's best for _super_ early stage ventures. If you're much further along, it's going to be a bad deal and possibly deter any future investment in your company due to the dead money (lack of follow-on).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> We raised money from Kima after our incubator. They have a fast process and understand technology well.

This is much better than incubator terms, and if I had this before committing to a incubator, I would have done this instead.</comment>


ZeroNet: Decentralized websites using Bitcoin crypto and the BitTorrent network - <AUTHOR> https://zeronet.io/ <comment><USER2> Does anyone else see it as an issue that the decentralized website solution to databases is to create a copy of a SQLite database on every user's machine?

<comment><USER3> I agree. This is the biggest technological issue for zeronet imo.

Every time there's a change to the db you need to download a whole new copy afaik.

Ideally you'd use a log based store. To do this you need to fundamentally change your idea for how a website works.

With a distributed log store chances are you won't have the same data as another person.

<comment><USER4> Just a minor correction: if you provide a stable API for querying the database, you can ignore the technological details on the caller side, the website.

<comment><USER5> WHat's stopping governments to just kill access to the api?

<comment><USER6> See Dat / Beaker Browser for Desktop / Bunsen Browser for Android. Dat hosted websites can be distributed online or offline. A write up on how that works: [https://github.com/bunsenbrowser/bunsen#millions-of- people-u...](https://github.com/bunsenbrowser/bunsen#millions-of-people-use- the-offline-web-but-cannot-trust-its-content-bunsen-and-dat-solve-this)

[https://docs.datproject.org/faq](https://docs.datproject.org/faq) \- [https://beakerbrowser.com/](https://beakerbrowser.com/) \- [https://github.com/bunsenbrowser/bunsen](https://github.com/bunsenbrowser/bunsen)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> code-is-code I'm following the developement of zeronet for the past 3 years. I'm not convinced that it is the final solution to the decentralized internet. A main thing that bothers me is the insane lookup-time for site with a low distribution. The same problem occurs with ipfs btw. It takes up to one minute to find a the correct node when only one node hast the content-hash.

<comment><USER3> I need to read the IPFS paper but surely there's some kind of DHT to find data?

<comment><USER7> Right, and finding rare content in that DHT is going to take a while.

<comment><USER8> Finding "interesting" content would be a more accurate description of the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Show HN: TorrentPeek – Distributed search engines using BitTorrent and SQLite | [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14130280](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14130280) (Apr 2017, 33 comments)

 _By putting an SQLite database file (.db) inside a torrent, we can query its content -- by prioritizing pieces based on the SQL query -- and quickly peek at the content of the database without downloading it entirely._

</comment><comment><USER10> Is the content I would host visible to me? How could I avoid to host child pornography? I'm eligible for hosting such a content im not aware of? That's the questions I would like to get answered.

<comment><USER11> Yes, you host only the pieces that you've downloaded on a specific website and you can delete them if you want.

<comment><USER12> They say

 _" You start serving sites as soon as you visit them"_

I'm not comfortable with that at all. Distributing content has very different legal implications than just viewing it, especially when it comes to pirated content.

<comment><USER13> But there's also optional files, which are not downloaded when you visit the site, only when you request the files. These are used for images, videos, etc. Many sites use these now, especially the ones that have porn or illegal content. If you visit a site and find that you don't want it on your hard drive, you can simply delete it.

<comment><USER12> _> If you visit a site and find that you don't want it on your hard drive, you can simply delete it._

But that's only after I have already started serving that content to others, is it not?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In related news, another similar technology (Blockstack):

[http://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/economy/article/2113521/n...](http://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/economy/article/2113521/new-internet-looks-keep-user-data-away-tech- giants-and-bypass)

[https://blockstack.org/](https://blockstack.org/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Last time I used that project I was trying to migrate my wordpress to zeroNet and I failed because my wp-content/images is over 3Gb and ZeroNet website is (was?) limited to 100Mb. Has this changed, are they tools that migrate images to separate addresses and link them correctly in html files?

<comment><USER14> Shouldn't they combine it with IPFS for static content storage then? Or does IPFS have the same limitation?

<comment><USER16> There's no such limitation in IPFS -- currently the largest known dataset is about 3.8 TB, a mirror of [https://cdn.media.ccc.de](https://cdn.media.ccc.de)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interest in decentralized web solutions seem to be on the rise. I wonder why and if they have any real world benefits for me as a publisher?

All the stated benefits are non-issues for me:

* Uncensored

I never been censored.

* No hosting costs

I serve hundreds of thousands of users per month for something like $20.

* Always accessible

Just like hosting costs, my downtime is negligible.

<comment><USER18> > I never been censored

Have you never self-censored?

<comment><USER19> That would be a benefit to him as a publisher you are proposing he give up, in that context.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you are interested in this, you might be interested in Archain ([https://www.archain.org/](https://www.archain.org/)) - a different solution to a decentralised sister internet.

</comment><comment><USER21> I can bet my 0.1000 bitcoins that news headlines will pop up soon as follows: "China bans ZeroNet" :) Wait & see...

<comment><USER22> I don't know whether it is banned there or not, but when you join ZeroMe (zeronet's decentralized twitter) you quickly realized how it's populated with chinese sites and profiles

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I believe it is 100% feasible to create a decentralised, secure network for static content - i.e. static sites. Combined with powerful (and secure) client-side APIs we are on a good track to success. I am not sure what this is but I am sure going to give it a try.

</comment><comment><USER24> Curious about using Tor for anonymity. Tor explicitly asks users not to use it for bittorrent for many reasons. So if I have a ZeroNet site serving a nice big video over bittorrent, does my visitors' using Tor for anonymity go against their best practices?

<comment><USER25> ZeroNet doesn't use bittorrent for file transfers. The bittorrent network is only used for the DHT to map site addresses to IP addresses (or TOR hidden service names).

File transfer is done over a service that ZeroNet runs on a particular port with its own protocol.

<comment><USER24> Sorry I have not investigated deeper myself, but does this service still preserve sender/receiver anonymity? A link about it would be just fine, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> DHTs are not fast (or secure, but that's another story).

[https://thecedrus.com/tag/lovequotes](https://thecedrus.com/tag/lovequotes)

</comment><comment><USER27> A distributed web site using a blockchain is what I'd proposed as a solution the the DCMA ad block debacle.

[https://blog.adguard.com/en/ad-blocking-is-under- attack/](https://blog.adguard.com/en/ad-blocking-is-under-attack/)

</comment><comment><USER28> What happened to IPFS and Filecoin?

<comment><USER29> IPFS still looking very strong

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> How do you account for content unavailability when a node shuts down/ runs slow?

<comment><USER25> All sites that viewed an existing site contain a copy of it and share the data. There is a "thundering herd" problem of multiple requesters for the site initially being distributed but once that's done then multiple nodes will have it and can seed it. The original site shutting down is no problem at that point.

IPFS shares the same problem and knowing when it's safe to shut down a node in both IPFS and ZeroNet is difficult.

Freenet solves this by having an insert of data sent directly to peers immediately. The site isn't stored on the inserting node. Once the insert is done it's safe to close the node and the content is still available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I like how it's an eye candy.

I guess there's a lot of opaquenets already, and it's not the feature richest, but this one you can have running in under five minutes.

I was actually using it for some torrents but currently ZeroTV is down :(

</comment><comment><USER32> oh man, i hate those software that automatically try to guess the user language! even more annoying when it chooses the wrong language for you. in my case PT (Portugal) instead of PT-BR.

argh.

</comment><comment><USER33> You should be investing in Namecoin if you believe in a decentralized web structure.

</comment><comment><USER34> This is very similar to maidsafe. Except maidsafe pays you for hosting. Does this?

<comment><USER25> ZeroNet does not pay you for hosting. Maidsafe is more file storage, ZeroNet is more about distributed site sharing. ZeroNet could be implemented on top of Maidsafe but not vice versa. There's also the fact that ZeroNet works today, has been working for a year or two, whereas Maidsafe is still in test stages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Why does ZeroNet not host their website on ZeroNet and uses a .bit domain?

<comment><USER36> Downloading the client for the first time would be a tad inconvenient...

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> How is this different than FreeNet?

<comment><USER25> FreeNet is a distributed key/value store. It can be used to store files by storing the contents of the file under a key that is the hash of the file content. Generally you operate on Freenet at the level of keys and values.

ZeroNet operates at the level of sites. Sites contain multiple files. Seeding of data happens at the site level.

You could implement ZeroNet on top of Freenet but implementing Freenet on top of ZeroNet wouldn't make much sense.

When inserting new data, Freenet pushes data out to nodes. ZeroNet pulls data from requestors. With Zeronet you can't disconnect your node until other nodes have a complete copy if you want the data to remain available. It is difficult to tell when it is safe to do this. With Freenet the data isn't stored on your own node, it is pushed out to other nodes when first inserting. When the insert completes you know you can safely turn off your node. The data remains available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Cool.

</comment><comment><USER39> Is anyone else concerned that this will enable hate groups to more easily collaborate and grow?

<comment><USER40> I'm much more concerned about hate groups being silenced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think substratum has a better approach: [https://substratum.net/technology/](https://substratum.net/technology/)

</comment><comment><USER35> All these blockchain/decentralized projects remind me of my childhood. Everytime there was a new technology I built cool things just for the sake of doing something with this shiny new tech without actually having any real- world use case.

<comment><USER42> I think it has very real real-world usecase. The question is if it is good solution.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why are verification questions everywhere? - <AUTHOR> I just got locked out of an important banking account because I couldn't remember the answer to my verification questions...
I have mental issues that cause me to have a VERY bad memory.
Generally I use a password manager so I can still have unique and strong passwords for everything and I even use 2-factor when I can.
Verifications questions on the other hand: usually I am forced to have a unique answer to each one AND there are like 5 for each company that uses them and each company uses different questions.
I can't use a password manager and I can't reliably know the answers. Even something as simple as "what's your favourite movie"... I don't know. I like lots of movies? Did I pick a classic one from my childhood? A modern one that's pretty cool?
Where was your first date? I have absolutely no idea.
first dogs name? I don't know. I remember he was black. That's about it.
Do they even add any security at all? <comment><USER3> I use the "notes" field on 1Password for just this sort of thing. Plus, I make them up, so if they ask me for my mother's maiden name, I would use something like "plexitrough", or my first pet is "Fortran". And I use different ones for different accounts.

To answer your final question, using the true answers to the question is in fact insecure, and has been known to be so for nearly 10 years.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly! I might be able to do what you mentioned (great advice!) but the average person most definitely will not!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm willing to bet that for many companies, it's part of their regulations or pushed by their security teams as a best practice. The point was to add a second factor of authentication, but one that didn't require you to have a cell phone on hand. The problem is that it's very rare to find good questions that you can remember years from now that's not easily discoverable by a hacker. (I'm currently locked out of an Apple account because of this, especially with their practice of requiring you to get all 3 verification questions correct.)

</comment><comment><USER5> If hacker stole your data from lousy credit rating bureau or alike - <USER2> questions are not information commonly associated with your SSN.

Every merchant/sevice in this case keep their own "last line of defense" \- your security Q/A's.

While being PITA sometime - they are offering a way to steer hacker away from you to easier targets.

You don't know how many times some bad guy failed to answer your security question and moved on.

But this does happen often.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Not to mention, I now have to call in - using your company resources on a call, wasting time with a call rep and not to mention pissing me off so I might switch.

</comment><comment><USER6> Not an hour goes by these days without a service forcing me to enter information for security. It's so out of hand. Same basic tragedy of the commons as every app thinking it belongs in the systray. Except now every service thinks it needs to ask me questions, text my phone, check my ip, and send warning emails every 15 minutes. And I'm not talking banks, here.</comment>


Twilio – Why there's no API for crossing the chasm - <AUTHOR> https://exponents.co/twilio-market-opportunities-risks/ <comment><USER2> I work at a company within the Fortune 10 and we use Twilio in some isolated products, and they are pushing hard on a few potential deals/opportunities to expand further.

Technical foundation appears solid to all their stuff, but their enterprise sales/account folks seem very green - unsure of how to navigate large enterprises, not connecting with the right folks at the right level within the org, not understanding who or how decisions are getting made, etc.

We see this alot - deals with tens or potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at stake where potential vendors have a couple sales folks working the deal, not getting traction. Get a few more folks working the deal and figuring out the right angles and they could have it locked down in a matter of months, but they never seem to figure this out and a year later they're still dicking around with the wrong people at the wrong level not making progress.

<comment><USER3> I work in sales at Twilio and manage the account of a huge enterprise customer. We've sold to a few of their departments and what we've done so far has been successful.

But every time I call my contacts at this customer, something seems to derail us from the path to further integrations. They know our products work and save them money. But just last week I called Glenda in accounting only to find out her phone number now goes to some guy named Bob who refused to tell me what desk he works on or what happened to Glenda.

So I fired off a quick email to Vincent, the CIO, asking for an updated contact list since Glenda is gone and I heard Sally moved to outside sales. Vincent's secretary wrote back to me saying she'd "ping" him and "circle back". That was two weeks ago.

Last year when we closed a bunch of deals with this company I was recommending to my management that we spend even more effort to get further with them this year. But here I am halfway through the year and I feel lucky that my proposal was turned down because we were already too busy with other clients. What would another sales guy have done anyway, apart from dogfooding our sweet new IP phone stack as he wasted his time trying to navigate an endless megacorporate morass?

<comment><USER4> I see this a lot at start-ups as I come from automotive (similar to large enterprise sales, engineering teams with product teams make calls on buying 10's of M to 100's of M in product.)

The biggest problem I see is you're not on site. You're not there physically and haven't met Glenda and her manager or immediate peers. Because if you were on site Glenda would've let you know she's thinking of leaving and would've referred you to her manager in charge of her replacement. There's so much gained in just showing up and being present.

It doesn't feel scalable or meritocric but it is how a lot of humans work.

<comment><USER5> Are you telling a Twillio sales rep that you can't do proper enterprise sales by phone ? Life is hard ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> TBH, their billboard is pretty genius: [https://i1.wp.com/exponents.co/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/Tw...](https://i1.wp.com/exponents.co/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/Twilio-Ask-Your-Developer.jpg?w=700)

Many CTOs, CIOs, C*Os, VP of product, etc. ask at least some of their developers which platforms they prefer. Most people in those positions won't admit they don't know the latest tech, but they do look to the people working for them. This billboard taps into that and establishes authority, so I don't think it's worth ripping on.

<comment><USER7> This is not how most large companies I've worked with operate. Large IT decisions are driven top down, not organically through the engineering front line. The CTO, CIO, etc. work with vendors that market to them. It's the way organizations like Salesforce, Workday, Cisco, and Concur operate. The consumer/developer first organizations like Dropbox, Twilio, and Stripe can only get to a certain stage before they need to target the big fish. It's this huge cultural shift (focusing on making something users want vs figuring out how to sell to behometh organizations) that will make or break these companies.

If they figure it out, they will own their markets because frankly their products are better since they were user first.

I think it's important part of building a company - recognizing that the heart and soul that led you to say $100M sales can completely differnent from what leads you to $1B. It's almost like a mini innovators dilemma for startups.

<comment><USER8> Yes, absolutely. However, does this change over time? With:

\+ increased decentralized decision making \+ less monolithic systems architectures and complex integrations \+ quicker/cheaper ability to take software from pilot to production

Do developers become the new gatekeepers of the large enterprises?

<comment><USER9> "Do developers become the new gatekeepers of the large enterprises?"

I doubt it. From what I see is that developers can do a few things but as soon as the IT department hears about it they will try to standardize on a solution. And you are back in big Enterprise sales. In the end the CIO wants to keep his/her budgets and power.

I just went through this. We prototyped a system and thought it would work. IT jumped at it and made that supplier the company wide standard. In the meantime we got some doubts and will probably jump ship. But IT is sticking to their decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've read the article and that's one more argument for me that IPO is a very toxic thing sometimes. mass marketing strategy/creating a commodity is a very hard longplay game. the prize is a huge stake of the market, but it's very challenging to get there.

now assume you have your revenue and then you get two customers that are going to pay you 25% of your current revenue (20% of the revenue after they start working with you). if you're private you just stick to your strategy and count these two clients as some random money (as they don't fit your main strategy). being public, now, if you lose these customers - you're at risk, the market forces you to make decisions, to keep these customers, to go to the enterprise market, hire sales people etc.

"In Twilio's earliest days, multiple angel investors and VCs told Twilio's founders that focusing on software developers would never lead to a venture- scale business. To make their case, Twilio's skeptics pointed out that software developers have no control over budgets in the enterprise.

But Lawson, Cooke, and Wolthius were undeterred. They believed deeply that software developers held the keys to the future…and not just of telecom, but perhaps the whole world."

well now, being public you can't just do this.

imagine Amazon listening to advise to use retail-chains (system integrators in Twilio case), or should Amazon do really care about revenue coming from one specific customer (even if it's huge)?

it's really hard to keep doing what you believe you need to do when you're under pressure of the public market. I absolutely understand why do such companies go public, but that makes me sad.

</comment><comment><USER11> Twilio seems to be leaning a little bit in the directions of solutions #1 and #2: [https://www.twilio.com/showcase](https://www.twilio.com/showcase)

But they are also going further all-in on the developer-first market with things like their serverless offering: [https://www.twilio.com/blog/2017/05/introducing-twilio- funct...](https://www.twilio.com/blog/2017/05/introducing-twilio- functions.html)

I'd be interested in the author's thoughts on Twilio's strategy in context of AWS (which I think the author would agree has crossed the chasm).

</comment><comment><USER12> I was thinking about the 'systems integrator partner' strategy before I even got to the end, without knowing that 'systems integrator' was what that was called.

After getting to the end, I realized a very common path would be to start with the 'systems integrator partner' strategy, then realize, hey, these guys took the risk and proved it could be done, but now they're taking a huge slice of our potential revenue -- let's build our own products, end our partnerships, and screw the partners who got us here. Sometimes it "works", sometimes it doesn't.

</comment><comment><USER13> Twilio is wisely selling axes during the gold rush. Interesting article but I've bet my company and $50k that this is wrong. (I buy their stock on dips)

Rather than trying to deal with all the costs/conflicts and intricacies of selling their services directly to each client they are smart to empower others to handle that last mile for them. That's the true essence of a platform. When offering a platform like iOS you invite others to make money handling all the stuff that you aren't uniquely qualified to deal with and/or that isn't worth your time. I've talked to Google employees who consistently say if it's not a $100M/yr opportunity we won't even look at X.

You could argue, as I think this article does that Twilio is leaving billions of dollars on the table with this approach but they are getting something for that money... an ecosystem of fiercely loyal clients invested in their success (because companies like mine make money off of them).

Finally, does Twilio (or anyone) really know what the future of enterprise telephony will look like? I would argue they don't, and anyone with any technical experience knows how VERY dangerous + expensive it is to start building a client facing product without a clear vision for what it should be. Better that they provide the API and let other companies fight to figure out the rest... which of course we are happy to make money doing for them :)

</comment><comment><USER14> Page-down doesn't work right on this site, it skips over all the text and takes chrome to the next image. Too unpleasant to read, imho.

<comment><USER15> I was thinking the same in stronger terms. Managing to break Page-down is a pretty impressive level of web design muppetry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Crossing the chasm"... now there's a phrase I haven't heard for a very log time. Although I enjoyed the book, even the author says that the "chasm" no longer exists (in part, cured by his book).

Though he's right about consumer products due to direct access to consumers via internet, it may still exist for B2B suppliers, especially for the enterprise, where high-value purchases require an involved and cautious organizational process.

</comment><comment><USER17> Twilio is great and we used it on my last team, which is a fortune 50. However, I saw the issues with having a subpar sales team. As I was leaving the communications team, "management" decided they wanted to replace Twilio with a Salesforce product. That Salesforce product uses Twilio for sending e-voice calls and text messages. Unfortunately my arguments against the switch fell on deaf ears

</comment><comment><USER18> Side note, please don't hijack normal navigation keys to do something unexpected. In this case, page up/down navigates the sections instead of the normal behavior.

<comment><USER19> I had no idea it did that! Thanks for letting me know. Will look into.

<comment><USER20> Smooth scroll here. Windows 10/Chrome59.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I personally disagree with this guy but felt the debate on here about what he wrote would be useful.

If you've IPO'd in general you've already crossed the chasm ;<). Sounds like a bitter former employee taking his shot.

<comment><USER19> I'm the author, and am not even the least bit bitter. I love Twilio. I wrote this because I want them to succeed.

A successful IPO has no necessary correlation to having crossed the chasm.

You've successfully crossed the chasm when you are the clear market leader in the a "mainstream market" segment.

In Twilio's case, that would be Being at the center of communications infrastructure for Fortune 500-1000 companies.

They've made some inroads (ING, etc). But most larger enterprises are still using Cisco/MSFT/Avaya and other on-premise tech for call centers, conferencing, video chat, collaboration, etc.

Also: Twilio is not profitable and it just lost one of its highest volume customers (Uber) who had been using it for "point solution" use cases, mostly around automated SMS and voice.

So if you disagree, that's fine. I'd find it much more productive to know what you disagree with and why than the ad hominem accusation that I'm a "bitter former employee" which is a. Not useful and b. False.

<comment><USER21> I think it's important to remember that what Twilio offers is a commodity, and there are no switching costs, which limits their market value.

Just as it's easy to spin up comms on Twilio, it's getting easier by the day to spin up Twilio-esq infrastructure itself. They had first mover advantage, but it doesn't seem good enough (not taking into account their largest customers deciding to internalize the functionality to reduce costs).

<comment><USER22> > what Twilio offers is a commodity, and there are no switching costs

There are plenty of switching costs. Porting numbers from one carrier to another with zero downtime, for example. Negotiating a contract with a new carrier. The new carrier may not support numbers, calls or SMS in some countries you are currently supporting. Testing deliverability and call quality across multiple carriers in multiple countries; you might discover that the new carrier routes messages/calls using unreliable carriers. The new carrier may not have good procedures for avoiding toll fraud. Sending SMS messages that contain Unicode might render like à on some phones; Twilio put a lot of time into figuring out how every carrier treats those on the wire and ensuring that messages get rendered properly. Fallback procedures may break.

If you want to host it yourself now you probably need a NOC, and to test binds, and to test the fallback protocols, and to figure out every edge case that carriers have with respect to certain numbers, messages or routes.

<comment><USER21> I feel like you're exaggerating based on my knowledge of interfacing with carriers using SS7, but that's just my opinion.

I agree that Twilio blazed the trail, but much of what you mentioned is a known quantity now and can be replicated with less effort.

You don't need to be as good as Twilio, just "good enough".

<comment><USER23> As a former Twilio engineer he might be somewhat biased. Full disclosure: I am also ex-Twilio.

<comment><USER19> Hey Steve! Love what you're doing with the bank APIs!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> 3 paragraphs about why to write this essay. :/</comment>


Small companies? Meet big talent at the UC Berkeley 2011 Startup Fair - <AUTHOR> http://ucbstartupfair.com

<comment><USER2> This is awesome since we missed the deadline for the Berkeley career fair. I just wanted to ask how they got to the pricing model. I REALLY REALLY want to bring our startup to the Startup Fair, especially since I'm an '03 Cal alum, but the $2,000 fee is a bit steep for us. We're attending about 6-8 other career fairs around the US and we're more accustomed to paying $500 - $1,000 for a booth ($1k at the upper end @ MIT). I definitely know the demand for talent is there so don't take this as a criticism but as more of an inquiry. Thanks.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for your interest! We're really excited for this event, and we're sure that you will definitely gain much from attending. Last year we had some 45 companies attend, and that was after having to say no to many due to space constraints. They all came back with rave reviews. This year, we've moved to the marquee recruitment location on campus, and are looking to grow. Please email us at email@example.com, and I'm sure that we can help you out. Thanks again, and we look forward to seeing you there!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who is signing up for the Mac App Store? - <AUTHOR>

Mr. Jobs just let the world know that he is bringing the successful app store model to the Mac.
I know a number of members already have applications for the Mac. Will you be bringing your apps to the new store?
Are you going to create a new app for the store? <comment><USER2> If you consider their 30% cut as a marketing expense, it's probably a pretty good deal. For that 30% cut you're going to have your product in front of a whole lotta eyeballs.

It'll also be interesting to see if the app store agreement allows you to sell the same app outside of the store and, if so, if you're allowed to have different pricing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's my question: Who is going to make money packaging liberally licensed OS projects into the store.

<comment><USER2> First person to ship a 99c fart app makes a million bucks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I for one am not interested in having a constrained application environment on my computer. I'm glad Steve's giving us a choice with this release, but as soon as the App Store becomes _the way_ to buy and run OS X applications, my dual boot MBP is going to turn into a full-time Linux machine.

I think the rise of Ubuntu, the tightening of the OS X ecosystem, and the rising popularity of geekery are going to converge nicely into a solid market share for open source operating systems.

Just a thought.

<comment><USER5> You're underestimating how much this store will help an indie developer like myself.

<comment><USER4> I don't think this will be a boon to developers at all, because people like me won't be buying "apps" for a desktop environment. I want to use the full power of my computer and not have limited options.

Do you think people will be using iOS iWork on their desktops, for example?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I will definitely try Mac AppStore. Out of these 30%, you will spend at least 10% on billing, hosting, etc. if you distribute yourself, and you will also spend some time doing that (or posting PayPal horror stories to HN). I think the AppStore's wider audience reach will more than offset these mere 20%.

Also, we should expect significant price drops for desktop software (competition), and ignoring that will make your app less competitive, whether you're on AppStore or not.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Another good question is what are going to be the limitations on the API?

</comment><comment><USER7> I regret immensely having bought a macbook (the only Apple product i own), i didn't know they were this nazi, this only reinforces my regret, i'm never buying an Apple product again.</comment>


A Look Inside Airbus's Alabama Assembly Line - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/magazine/a-look-inside-airbuss-epic-assembly-line.html <comment><USER3> This was the most striking part to me: "According to The Seattle Times, the starting rate at the Airbus plant, about $16.50 per hour, is comparable to the starting wages at Boeing's passenger-plane plant in Renton, Wash. But the Airbus pay scale tops out at $23 an hour, while experienced Boeing workers can earn $45."

We now have so much surplus labor that even this relatively skilled job only pays $16.50 an hour.

<comment><USER4> You're overestimating both the level of skill required to start and the cost of living in Alabama.

Alabama is CHEAP, and taxes are very low.

<comment><USER5> 8th lowest CoL in the USA and a pretty great place to live. Glad to call Birmingham my home.

<comment><USER6> Jasper here, even cheaper. A neat little town not too far from the Ham.

<comment><USER5> Currently two miles from work with dirt-cheap rent while I build up my nest egg. Late twenties, single and enjoying the convenient nightlife. I'll gladly move when it's time to though (better school systems and all those family- life-community benefits).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> These are some massive sub-assemblies being carted all over the world...it's surprising to me that there aren't more localized efficiencies, or that this global Lego set doesn't always have more missing pieces than its worth.

        Rear Fuselage: Hamburg, Germany
        Vertical Stabilizer: Stade, Germany
        Forward Fuselage: Saint-Nazaire, France
        Wings: Broughton, Wales
        Engines: Middletown, Connecticuit
        Final Assembly: Mobile, Alabama

<comment><USER8> It's like this due to political reasons, nothing to do with eficiency.

<comment><USER7> But doesn't a business have to, at some point, meet a minimum level of efficiency to still be viable? Do subsidies and mandates make up for all that slack?

<comment><USER9> It's not just subsidies and mandates, it's large government contracts on maybe not actually needed systems. See the F-35 as an example of this, which has parts manufactured in a majority of states meaning it's impossible for congress to nix this sort of program because it would cost constituents jobs. Also how it makes it harder for congressmen and women to vote against these sorts of deals because it would cost their constituents future jobs.

I don't know about Airbus in particular but this is how it generally work with companies like Lockheed and Boeing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "American workers expect things to go wrong and then they fix it"

I found this this interesting, also that it was said by a _25 year old_ manager.

<comment><USER11> I think the latter part of this quote is disappointing: American workers expect things to go wrong and then they fix it," said Freddie Guinness, 25, who moved to Mobile from Ireland to manage the new facility. "We want it to go right the first time."

How much does cautiousness result in increased productivity versus having the ability to have reactive responses to things going wrong? I've found this behaviour in other orgs, and often it was used an excuse not to train people to have the capability to remediate, but only to do what they're trained to do.

Also, as far as the age goes -- that's not that unusual for a line manager in manufacturing. Assuming they started working at ~22, 3 years in one plant can definitely make you a line manager.

<comment><USER12> If you've got a process where each stage has as its input a previous stage, improving the whole process depends not on fixing the inputs, but fixing the output of the previous stage. Getting into a habit of local fixes and workarounds may lead to a more resilient process, but it's also a less globally efficient one; fixes accumulate and the knowledge of brokenness stays local.

There are direct analogues with software engineering, particularly in maintenance of large or legacy systems - local fixes is how global architecture degrades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Almost a third of American factory workers now hold four-year college > degrees, a trend that reflects the increasingly cerebral nature of the work.

Wow.

<comment><USER14> Im waiting for "one third of factory jobs _require_ a four-year degree" before getting to excites about cerebral natures. There are a great number of people with degrees out there. I want to see that the jobs require the education to do the work, not that market forces mean that unnecessary degrees make an applicant more competative.

<comment><USER15> How would you tell the difference?

<comment><USER14> The job postings say "must have undergraduate in X".

<comment><USER15> Oh OK, but this doesn't really distinguish between "market forces mean that unnecessary degrees make an applicant more competative" and "the job actually requires the knowledge/skills learned in college" (my words). Lots of businesses will just say "requires a college degree" on the job ad as a filtering mechanism.

<comment><USER14> A factory won't just casually add a degree requirement. That has implications. In a union environment this may require a higher pay scale. If they increase the minimum standards for a current job they may have to retrain people. There may also be a trickle effect on managers who may too now need degrees. So whereas a startup may just start requiring degrees to weed out candidates, a large employer like a factory (or government) won't do so unless necessary.

I'm just starting that rare job that insists on a "four year degree plus other post-graduate education" but isn't specific as to which degrees they want. That really cuts down on candidates. Of the dozen interviews, I will instantly be higher up in the organization than ten of the people who interviewed me. They didn't take the education requirements lightly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "It helps that in Alabama, labor is cheap. Airbus set a goal that building planes in the United States would not cost a penny more than building in Europe. It is expensive to ship parts from Hamburg, but because the Mobile workers are not unionized, Airbus can hire fewer of them and pay them lower wages."

I think that's the money quote of the article. Large multinational corporations have a long history of moving factory work to cheaper third world countries.

Economic disparity has gotten so bad in the US in the past couple of decades that, effectively, places like Alabama now qualify as "third world" in that economic game.

<comment><USER17> The per capita GDP of Alabama is $5k higher than that of (e.g.) France: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=per+capita+gdp+of+alaba...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=per+capita+gdp+of+alabama+and+france)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/07/magazine/07airbus...](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/07/magazine/07airbus- slide-QGOR/07airbus-slide-QGOR-superJumbo.jpg)

"Beware of propeller" seems like a strange name for a ship :)

<comment><USER19> The real name is actually painted at the top. It's BBC Volga [1]. Currently in the Bahamas.

1: [https://www.vesselfinder.com/de/vessels/BBC-VOLGA- IMO-943632...](https://www.vesselfinder.com/de/vessels/BBC-VOLGA- IMO-9436329-MMSI-304043000)

<comment><USER20> The BBC is really branching out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's surprising to me how small the cargo-hold is. I've always imagined it to be a lot bigger, but now that I think about it (having seen it), it makes a lot of sense..

<comment><USER22> Yes, I went through the same process, obviously in hindsight it is a tube, all that can remain is the bottom half of the circle underneath the floor.

Fascinating look at those part assembled planes.

Interesting how a politics is just as 'real' as economics - the plane is purposefully built around the EU to spread the jobs and buy in from member nations, why not include the US in that too?

With the UK leaving the EU I can see those parts being moved to the US and more being done here. Pity it's because 'cheap labour' though -having said that the cost of living in Mobile, AL is a lot lower than the European sites I'll wager.

<comment><USER23> > the plane is purposefully built around the EU to spread the jobs and buy in > from member nations, why not include the US in that too?

Four EU countries, soon to be only three. That's not purposefully spread, but the result of history and politics.

<comment><USER24> You don't think that history and politics were the purpose for forming Airbus?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So Mobile is to Airbus as Charleston is to Boeing.

</comment><comment><USER26> A lot of this article talks about the US government subsidies and back rubbing required to sell to the US market. What about the reverse case? What is required to sell Boeing planes in Europe?

Last time I checked there are a lot of protectionism clauses surrounding EU aerospace markets.

</comment><comment><USER27> Looking at those pictures I wonder how assembly, from unloading cargo to final testing, could be fully automated. I came to think that until we automate automation it will be quite hard. Humans with assist of tools are flexible enough - especially on this scale.

<comment><USER28> The question is how much of it should be automated that isn't already. It's not like they're building 737s and A321s for everyone - at some point, human labor just makes better business sense, though I admit I have no idea where those lines are - I don't have the factory experience to tell you.

It's also likely they'd pretty significantly redesign a lot of the parts if they were going for more automation - a lot of aircraft construction is done in a way that makes it difficult even for humans to get decent access - <USER2> robots to get into those kinds of tight spaces to work would look more appropriate on the International Space Station, and may not be much faster at the job due to all of the extra maneuvering to get in and out of tight spaces. (In fact, on most existing aircraft designs, to do much with robots you'd almost certainly need a human operator standing by just to make sure it didn't accidentally punch through a firewall or the tin can hull, since a lot of assembly steps require moving fixtures around and installing temporaries for support, which may be more ad-hoc than planned procedure.

As an example of design and construction philosophies, both Boeing and Airbus have adopted a more "outside-in" approach to building aircraft, where the principal components of the airframe are built first and everything is fastened to them as construction evolves. This is a very human- and aircraft- centric construction philosophy, since it means the workers need to move around the plane a lot, rather than the plane's components coming to the workers. This works better with the scales in mind, since the aircraft are already constructed in some of the largest buildings on the planet, and moving large assemblies around a lot during construction means employee downtime and slower delivery performance.

But what if instead they took a tunnel building-like approach where the interior would be mostly assembly-line built in ring sections, fastened together into modular inner compartments, and then fitted to external fuselage pieces before everything is snapped together in one big final assembly step? The smaller sections work better for both humans and automation, and the larger pieces snapping together Lego-like means you can even reduce the need for as many large assembly buildings down to just final assembly. It could possibly be much better for composite construction, as it would mean fewer external seams on the aircraft (which in turn must suck for the carbon fiber engineers, since it means even larger autoclaves and components they would have to deal with), which in turn gives you even more of the advantages you already are seeing on planes like the Dreamliner (plus likely a much quieter cabin, since it would be better separated and insulated from the hull, and fewer fasteners means less vibration noise generated as well as shorter assembly times).

Of course, Boeing and Airbus are huge companies with lots of extreme long term planning when it comes to budgeting and logistics, so I doubt if either company will make revolutionary strides in this direction rather than evolutionary strides. With product deliveries over multiple decades and lifecycles approaching a century, it's easy to see why these companies are conservative and evolutionary.

<comment><USER29> They are already built like that. In Boeing parlance it is called a section. Smaller sections are built and then joined together at final assembly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> One of my uncles has worked for Bell, Boeing, and Lockheed for the last 30 years. The mechanical complexity of aircraft, and the ability for a blue collar worker to master a niche aerospace trade, never ceases to amaze me.

<comment><USER31> What amazes me is that 50 years ago a plane like the SR-71 was designed on paper and turned out amazing. Fast forward to today and you have the over- engineered piece of expensive garbage that is the F-35.

<comment><USER32> > SR-71 was designed on paper and turned out amazing

Well, "amazing" is relative - it was a hastily constructed leaking bucket of kerosene, and within the first five years of its first sorties, _one third_ of the planes have crashed and burned.

Not even Lockheed's other famous death trap - the F-104 Lawn Dart - was as dangerous as the SR-71.

(And of course the F-35 is supposed to be doing every single job under the sun rather than having a single purpose - hence it being outperformed by its Chinese single-purpose carbon copies already.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The vivid color contrasts in these photos make them visually stunning, but do they serve any functional purpose?

<comment><USER34> The photos are absolutely gorgeous, and it looks like whoever's taking them has some seriously expensive glass. I'm guessing that someone in charge wanted the photos to "pop" and the contrast got boosted just slightly too much. In my opinion it doesn't ruin the photos, and it's only really visible in a handful of them.

<comment><USER35> The photographer is Christopher Payne who does a lot of work that looks at humans making things. The colors and how they're treated in these photos is a product of his specific aesthetic:

[http://lenscratch.com/2016/08/christopher-payne-making- stein...](http://lenscratch.com/2016/08/christopher-payne-making-steinway/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Fascinating to see something made not in China, and even the components don't come from there. (I realize they also do assembly and produce some components in China too.)

<comment><USER37> Why the hostility?

<comment><USER36> I didn't intend to sound hostile?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm disappointed American Airlines don't buy all Boeing planes, especially given their name. Although Airbus planes do have some American parts on them, they're mostly European. Considering they got USD$15 Billion in bailout money from the US Government, and just how good Boeing planes are at a very similar price point, supporting manufacturing in their country of origin seems like the right thing to do.

<comment><USER39> > supporting manufacturing in their country of origin seems like the right > thing to do

Where do you think Mobile, Alabama is?

<comment><USER40> Realistically though, if you buy IKEA furniture and assemble it at home, it's not "made in my bedroom". The vast majority of the value created in the process of of creating an A321 will be overseas. Assembling it here is just a gimmick, for better or for worse.</comment></comment></comment>


Ark bought Carsabi - <AUTHOR> http://carsabi.com/

<comment><USER3> That's surprising given the publicized Facebook acquisition: [http://m.techcrunch.com/2012/10/01/facebook-acqhires- founder...](http://m.techcrunch.com/2012/10/01/facebook-acqhires-founders-of- carsabi-who-will-sell-off-their-car-price-comparison-site/)

<comment><USER4> Did you read the article? It says they plan to sell off the carsabi site/service. So, it's not really surprising at all...

<comment><USER3> Good point -- I remembered the article from October and found it to link it, but didn't re-read it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Initially didn't know what to make of this given how highly I think of Carsabi and how new Ark was. Put the pieces together with the FB aqui-hire [http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/01/facebook-acqhires- founders-...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/01/facebook-acqhires-founders-of- carsabi-who-will-sell-off-their-car-price-comparison-site/)

and now I think it's probably beneficial for all parties, but not as big of a deal as a full acquisition (by a mile).

Love to see Ark pursuing other verticals though!

<comment><USER6> Slightly OT, but could someone tell me what, exactly, "acq-hire" means? I thought it referred to one company acquiring another purely in order to get access to talent.

Facebook did not acquire any Carsabi assets according to the linked TC story, it simply offered the founders jobs.

Back in the day, we called that getting "hired."

Is there a distinction here (e.g. perhaps some sort of payback to investors or something) that I'm missing?

<comment><USER7> Your understanding of "acq-hire" is accurate. In this case, I think the TC headline is wrong.

If Carsabi never raised money (I'm not sure), then they had no investors to return money to. And since FB didn't want it, perhaps it was okay to just sell it separately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Both of Ark's co-founders are Cal grads. Both of Carsabi's co-founders are also Berkeley grads. Seems smart, Carsabi gets to leave their baby with someone they know and trust, and Ark probably got it for a song.

</comment><comment><USER9> fwiw acquihire means fb gets your investors some money back and you get a decent offer when Craigslist sues you and things go south. as car search is not particularly relevant to social media, we were pretty happy to turn over the IP to Ark as another Cal grad search company and can't wait to see what they do with it.

</comment><comment><USER10> Good news. I used Carsabi a lot when they first started it since I was in the market at the time. I also emailed one of the guys (maybe OP) a little bit offering to help and he seemed like a good guy. Congrats.

</comment><comment><USER11> As someone not in the know, I would love for someone to explain whether the Startups TV show had something to do with this and how "real" is this?

</comment><comment><USER4> Bummer. I was hoping carsabi would take off.

I used them to find my car. It was great. Especially the graph that tells you whether a car is overpriced or underpriced compared to all of the other listings. I used it to negotiate $1,000 off of a $6,000 car at a used car dealer, making them sell it to me for the average private party price.

Kelly Blue Book purports to offer a similar price guide, but it is terrible and dealers know it. If you try to cite it to them, they say its wrong - <USER2> if it benefits them they try to use it to their advantage. However an actual database of actual private party sales going on right now is very powerful.

<comment><USER12> Cargurus.com has a similar feature. You are right...it's a great feature for negotiating price.</comment></comment>


The Internet of Things Will Make Manufacturing Smarter - <AUTHOR> http://www.industryweek.com/manufacturing-smarter?utm_content=bufferb8b9e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> Manufacturing environments are probably among the best use cases for "the Internet of Things" but also magnify the security concerns tenfold. Stuxnet was a similar attack on networked manufacturing infrastructure, and it proved that if you give a sensor/automation network control over manufacturing processes, you create a massive vulnerability in the supply chain itself.

If a Russian student owns my Nest and makes my home freezing cold in the winter, I reconfigure or replace the device and its fine. If the automation system in a Siemens plant gets bricked, that's millions of dollars in damage before considering lost revenues.

The Risk Managers are gonna go wild for this one...

<comment><USER3> One thing you should know about Stuxnet that I can talk about publicly (I used to work for Siemens) is that it was an attack vector on part of the SCADA RTU drivers that ran on a very old and unpatched version of WindowsNT. People running an nuke plant on something that old (which is typical of Iran, considering how their politics have isolated them over the last 30 years) are kinda asking to get hacked like this.

Of course I'm not saying that this means the problem you're talking about isn't real: security is a real concern, _especially_ with SCADA systems running energy plants. Just putting in some perspective.

<comment><USER4> hey nick do you have an email address? would love to talk with you about this

my email is firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That's a clickbait article by the "chief content officer" of the publication. It's almost content-free.

Most factories have had networks for decades. 100baseT works well in a factory environment - twisted pair differential signaling is relatively noise-immune. Most machines with a CPU in them have a network connection now. (And way too many of them still run Windows XP.)

</comment><comment><USER6> If a little bit of Internet is good then MORE must be better!</comment>