Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html <comment><USER2> Good article, but I disagree with the Microsoft/Apple example in the beginning. MS and Apple happened to come along when the microcomputer was really starting to take off, and they were able to ride that wave (while 1000's of other microcomputer startups crashed).

One thing that worries me personally about starting the "stereotypical" HN startup right now, is that I think the free/fremium model is going to lose steam FAST. My prediction is that you will see more companies trying to start monetizing their web-app soon. FWIW, TipJoy is well positioned to take advantage of this if my prediction is true.

Of course, I've always been a hardware/product startup hacker, but I've had a couple of rounds in software and Web 2.0 companies. So, I'm not as immersed in web-app funding cycles as some others here are.

I would look to solar and certain other viable alternative energy options right now as the next major tech growth sector. I think the tech startup world needs to see more "inventions" (again, admitting my own bias).

While many here may disagree with me, one of the problems with web-apps is that while they are cheap to get going (relatively speaking), I think that the saturation of non-revenue producing web-app companies, coupled with the low cost of starting them, will make many traditional VCs look elsewhere for their next investments. The web-app community needs more investors like YC, that keep the investments and process realistic.

<comment><USER3> _MS and Apple happened to come along when the microcomputer was really starting to take off, and they were able to ride that wave_

That was the point I was making with those examples: that technology evolves independently of the stock market. So if it's time to build the Apple I or Altair Basic, do it whether the economy is good or bad.

<comment><USER4> Technology doesn't evolve independently of a market for it. While "make something people want" is true in any economy, the problem is that what people want changes with the state of the economy. So startup founders need to reassess the market for their products (building iPods or building pacemakers?), and I'd guess many will decide this is not the right economy for their startups, and some will now discover new opportunities.

You do touch upon this a little bit in your article, where you mention startups that save customers money will succeed more in a bad economy. But I thought the more general assertion wasn't made.

<comment><USER5> I've often thought that the mantra _make something people want_ should be amended to _make something people want to pay for_. It's an important distinction. It's the difference between Richard Stallman and Steve Jobs, between Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates. I have great respect for all of those individuals, but I don't look to Stallman or Torvalds for _business_ inspiration. I don't doubt that all YC companies have made something people want, but I wonder whether all have made something people want to pay for.

<comment><USER6> Neither Stallman nor Torvalds are scrambling to pay rent.

So it depends if you want to be "well off" (Stallman), "obscenely rich" (Torvalds), "shockingly rich" (Jobs), or "embarassingly rich" (Gates).

And I think that most would, given the choice, rather be the BDFL of a project they obviously enjoy (Torvalds), than spend all day in meetings, or managing management, or whatever Gates has done for the last decade. Unless you're a masochist, or a megalomaniac.

And besides that, lightning has to strike the same place 200 times before you make it to the 99.9th percentile.

"I'm trying to make a living; if you're trying to make a killing then you're stuck in the system."

<comment><USER7> >Neither Stallman nor Torvalds are scrambling to pay rent.

I've heard rumors that Torvalds wishes he had the money Jobs and Gates have. So, yeah, a little unhappy.

>And besides that, lightning has to strike the same place 200 times before you make it to the 99.9th percentile.

That's if you're in a bell-curve. If you're in a zipf-distribution, lightning only has to strike once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article seems to ignore the main argument I've heard: exit strategies are fewer in a recession. IPOs are out of the question and few companies are in an acquisition mood. So instead of growing fast and selling out before you hit your plateau, you have keep your traffic climbing until the market picks back up. That's really hard, esp. since founders have a tendency to get bored. I expect many will start something new at that point anyway, so I can see why it'd be tempting to skip the step in between. (That said, it's hard to think of a better way to spend the time -- even a failed startup's more educational than grad school.)

<comment><USER9> While exit strategies might be fewer during a recession, the point of starting now is that the economy will (hopefully) be out of the recession by the time you want to exit (typically beyond 12-18 months).

<comment><USER3> Yes. Startups generally take 3-5 years to succeed. The economic situation that far ahead is effectively random, so you can discount it.

<comment><USER10> Just curious, how do you define succeed? Founders becoming millionaires or?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Another great essay Paul, I wrote up a blog post with similar conclusions last week: [http://www.charlesju.com/2008/10/5-ways-recessions-help- star...](http://www.charlesju.com/2008/10/5-ways-recessions-help- startups.html)

Sorry for the plug, I just thought it was funny that we're on the same side of the equation, when everyone else in the world isn't.

It seems to me that somewhere along the evolution of the internet we forgot the golden rule of any business:

If you make stuff people want, they'll pay for it (either directly or indirectly), and you'll make money. Recession or not.

</comment><comment><USER12> Totally unrelated:

Clicked through to Bountii, and then onto their API TOS, and found this:

"[you agree not to] use the Bountii API to operate nuclear facilities, life support, or other mission critical application where human life or property may be at stake. You understand that the Bountii API is not designed for such purposes and that their failure in such cases could lead to death, personal injury, or severe property or environmental damage for which Bountii is not responsible;"

Me he heeeeeee

<comment><USER13> Sorry for the oversight; we just added "unmanned aircraft" to that list.

<comment><USER14> What about to build guns which are intended to kill human beings?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _It's not necessarily a problem if customers feel pinched: you may even be able to benefit from it, by making things that save money._

Funny, you can take the _exact same software_ and position it as a totally different product in a different economy.

Instead of "This software does a better job," imagine, "Our subscription fee is 10% your current cost of ownership. How will that affect your budget?"

Once your customers start shopping with a "recession mindset", you'll already be positioned before your competitors.

 _Without changing a single line of code._

</comment><comment><USER16> "Last year you had to be prepared to explain how your startup was viral. Next year you'll have to explain how it's recession-proof."

In my experience, what's true of investors here is also true of potential co- founders. It's so much easier to get other people to work with you if your project is in a trendy field or appeals to the dominant logic of the afternoon. And it's really really frustrating.

/end rant

<comment><USER17> Think of it as an easy way to screen out people who would be uncreative and uncommited. Less signal, but a higher signal to noise ratio.

<comment><USER18> It felt like Paul was going to make a hard statement like that, but edited it.

But _I_ was thinking, "If the economy is stopping you, you're not the type to start one."

<comment><USER3> I never said it in the essay, but we have actually been thinking it at YC. One of the hardest things we have to do in the selection process is filter out people who are smart but uncommitted. (Smartness is much easier to judge than commitment in a 10-minute interview.) And now the economy is going to be doing it for us. So frankly I'd prefer to be operating in a mild recession. Unfortunately this one sounds like it is scheduled to be a few notches above mild.

<comment><USER19> My tiny startup has a small but stable amount of funding. In our case, it's enough to provide a two-year runway to finish development and iterate the product a couple of times before reaching break-even.

Up until this month, I've had trouble finding A-list programmers because I don't offer a large salary and benefits. This month, I've suddenly found it easier to attract high-skill employees and I expect it to get easier still as the recession deepens. Many are involved in loss-generating startups which they anticipate will soon fail as funding dries up. (Not all these experts choose to return to grad school...some, for instance, are too old for that culture shift or don't have liquid assets to sustain them.)

As you discuss, the recession may make it easier or harder for startups depending on their value proposition and their reliance on additional investments. I encourage you to write on how easier access to expert programmers changes the equation. In my case, I must decide whether to commit our resources to, say, hire another brilliant programmer because it's now possible OR to hold at our current headcount to maximize survivability.

Another variable is whether brilliant hires in this economy are likely to stick with the company when the economy improves in, say 12-18 months. An HR expert who's weathered a few of these cycles pointed out that while it's easier to hire good people in a recession, some of these hires are more likely to jump ship when the economy turns around. I think the description would be "fair weather hires".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think it's fairly easy to write those things. What will be more interesting is actual data after a few YC rounds in a weaker economy.

</comment><comment><USER21> pg was a lot more fun when he used to talk about other things than making money all the time.

<comment><USER3> One of the strange consequences of writing about several mostly unrelated topics is that you pick up readers with quite different interests. Then whatever you write next, the ones not interested in that topic complain that you've jumped the shark. I doubt I've written a single essay since about 2002 when someone didn't say something of the form "pg was ok when he was writing about x, but I wish he would stop writing about y."

And incidentally, it's not the making money aspect of startups that interests me the most. I'm mostly interested in startups as agents of change. We could right now be in the middle of a shift on the scale of the Industrial Revolution. Or not; always hard to tell from so close. But there is certainly something interesting happening.

<comment><USER22> There's a wonderful quote from Brian Eno about the conservative force that comes from having people who like your work:

"I'm afraid to say that admirers can be a tremendous force for conservatism, for consolidation. Of course it's really wonderful to be acclaimed for things you've done - in fact it's the only serious reward, because it makes you think "it worked! I'm not isolated!" or something like that, and it makes you feel gratefully connected to your own culture. But on the other hand, there's a tremendously strong pressure to repeat yourself, to do more of that thing we all liked so much. I can't do that - I don't have the enthusiasm to push through projects that seem familiar to me ( - this isn't so much a question of artistic nobility or high ideals: I just get too bloody bored), but at the same time I do feel guilt for 'deserting my audience' by not doing the things they apparently wanted. I'd rather not feel this guilt, actually, so I avoid finding out about situations that could cause it. The problem is that people nearly always prefer what I was doing a few years earlier - this has always been true. The other problem is that so, often, do I! Discovering things is clumsy and sporadic, and the results don't at first compare well with the glossy and lauded works of the past. You have to keep reminding yourself that they went through that as well, otherwise they become frighteningly accomplished. That's another problem with being made to think about your own past - you forget its genesis and start to feel useless awe towards your earlier self: "How did I do it? Wherever did these ideas come from?". Now, the workaday everyday now, always looks relatively less glamorous than the rose- tinted then (except for those magic hours when your finger is right on the pulse, and those times only happen when you've abandoned the lifeline of your own history)."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It is nice to read some sober thinking on the economy...

PG has it exactly right. Startups are HARD and there are so many factors that are more important than the state of economy.

The odds of success are low enough with a startup already that the economy shouldn't really change the decision making process.

<comment><USER24> Don't forget that economic downturns, whether real or imagined, are another barrier to entry for your competition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article is titled wrongly. It should not be called "Why to startup in a bad economy", but "Why to startup, even if the economy is bad".

<comment><USER25> Don't quit your day job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> _"What if you quit your job to start a startup that fails, and you can't find another? Good hackers can always get some kind of job. It might not be your dream job, but you're not going to starve."_

Hmm, isn't that kind of a low bar? I worry that I'll be 40 before I know it, with no savings to show for my years of work. Isn't opportunity cost a concern?

Perhaps PG really _is_ writing for the young.

<comment><USER27> I sure get the same impression. Start ups are for twenty somethings who are not married. If you are 30+, married and with a mortgage then forget it.

<comment><USER28> I'm 26, married with a mortgage, car payment, student loans, etc. The economy isn't going to stop me - my wife is willing to sell our house at the drop of a hat if we have to, move to another city if we have to, etc. You sacrifice short term for the long term gain, and if you're married to someone that supports you, they ride the roller coaster with you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> "investors tend to be less willing to invest in bad times. They shouldn't be. "

Angels probably should. Many of them just had a 20%+ decrease in their net wealth. Investing is an activity for them, like golf, not a profession. They shouldn't make themselves feel uncomfortable financially.

There's a difference between which action has the highest EV and which one you should take.

<comment><USER10> But don't you think they'd witness a similar discount in the valuations?

<comment><USER29> Of course, but they've already achieved independent wealth, why risk it? Extra money to them is just icing on the cake at this point. Investing is basically a hobby for them, and when their money starts to evaporate, it's the first thing they will (and should) cut out.

<comment><USER30> Do angels really risk money that they can't afford to lose? I'd think that most of them would sock away enough to remain financially independent in safe investments, and then do their investing with "play money".

<comment><USER29> They probably don't risk money they can't afford to lose. But if you figure an angel invests 20% of his money in startups, and the stock market comes along and reduces his total net worth by 20%, how much is he going to invest now? How much if he invests 10% in startups and the stock market hits him for 30%?

It may not be 0, because he may have had other expenses and investments that he prioritizes angel investing over, but it probably won't still be 20%. The total dollar amount he'll be willing to stick into high-risk investments will probably decrease.

I'm talking on average, of course. Each individual will vary according to their net worth, lifestyle, investment philosophy, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Great article and the example from the 70s (brk has some good points) was a good one. A LOT of innovation happened in what were very difficult times on a macro level. Living / working cheap is absolutely key. I knew the economy was going to tank back in January when I started my company, but I still did it.

I'd also like to see more "inventions" (another good point from brk). There may be a certain amount of critical mass of development that has to happen around other technologies. The last 10 years or so have seen optimization in the development cycle for web apps, resulting in their relative low barrier of entry today. It could be my ignorance, but I don't detect the same level of commoditization in other industries. Of course, a higher barrier of entry is great for the people already involved.

Another way to look at the "inventions" issue is the rather quick evolution of non-web technologies to web accessible interfaces. We've seen this happen with telephony, video, radio, print, television, navigation, security systems, and many more, I'm sure. It's pretty amazing actually. I think you'll continue to see more of this over the next few years, so we'll all still have stuff to work on.

</comment><comment><USER32> "If we've learned one thing from funding so many startups, it's that they succeed or fail based on the qualities of the founders. The economy has some effect, certainly, but as a predictor of success it's rounding error compared to the founders."

This is confusing -- wasn't Y Combinator started in 2005? Was PG funding startups before that?

<comment><USER33> Yes, and I have no idea. We should see in 3-5 years whether that statement is true or not. I'd guess not, although I'm not sure to what degree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Your article is very timely. In fact I have a start-up that I have been building with a small team paid by sweat-equity. I also have an excellent and motivated business partner & co-founder who I trust and I keep on admiring his dedication and motivation despite having the most difficult time in raising seed money (apparently a requirement/excuse for VCs to event get involved). We are building a Web utility that facilitates information consumption. We are testing it with friends and family and the results are very encouraging. Given the state of the economy and the lack of financial resources, we have decided to continue to boot-strap our business and we will be releasing our Web tool for people to use. By the way, I found your article this morning using our product. The idea is to introduce it and demonstrate its usefulness through actual usage and viral distribution. We are also reducing our initial set of features to reduce the risk and wait for a measurable adoption rate to make a stronger case for funding. We are not serial entrepreneurs and deeply believe in what we have. We are convinced that with our passion, on-going re- enforcement from our users, the academic community and peers, we have what we need to fuel our passion and success. We are confident that we will succeed regardless of the investor community's current mood. Thanks for a great article!

Thierry Hubert

</comment><comment><USER35> This post is almost entirely dead WRONG. It's revenue that matters, period. "People" are not what matters. Satisfied customers matter. If you provide a product or service that people are willing to pay for, then nothing ... NOTHING can take that from you. You don't NEED investors. Get off that trip. This article mentioned that, "the reason Larry and Sergey are so rich is not so much that they've done work worth tens of billions of dollars, but that they were the first investors in Google." Sorry, but again WRONG. The reason they are so rich compared to the rest of us is that we've lost track of the concept that we live in a Shared Fate world. We're all in this together, but we've forgotten that fact. It is physically and philosophically IMPOSSIBLE for any individual human being to be worth BILLIONS more than any other human being. We all put our pants on one leg at a time and we all only have 24 hours in a day. "All men are created equal." Remember that? It's called the Declaration of Independence. I believe your writing eminates from the right motives, but it fosters many of the wrong reactions and sentiments. Find a customer. Provide what the customer requires. No customer, no business. End of story. Yes, this post is intentionally terse and dialectical in order to to elicit meaningful dialog instead of pointless ass kissing.

<comment><USER36> I agree that felt-value constitutes reality in business, on both sides, the value of having a vendor and the value of having a client, both orbiting a meaningful transaction.

However I balk at the Declaration of Independence as the basis for this. It is part of cosmic law that seemingly disparate parts be unified as events in time and space.

The time prior to now was more available to this awareness, but incompletely conscious of this underlying basis for justice, commerce, etc. We have no pants, basically.

The internet has exposed this issue we have of whether to actually work for the true common good, for the Universal interest and no a niche freedom like americanic liberty or romantic imperial entitlement, or whether we are doing the fun thing - being king, being the man, being the world authority, but not the real, messy, selfless, egoless world leader. The leader serves the universal interest. The merely free do not have this underlying responsibility to the people. Whether in america, rome, babylon, sumaria, russia, the little people and the heavy heavies must be on the same platform, or there is no genuine premise of law.

So that is the dynamic under the problem internet companies have. Solving the underlying dynamic will be required to solve the problem on top - revenue. Once this dynamic of congruence with the universe fruits, as it is today, there will no longer be quixotism in human interactions.I agree that felt- value constitutes reality in business, on both sides, the value of having a vendor and the value of having a client, both orbiting a meaningful transaction.

However I balk at the Declaration of Independence as the basis for this. It is part of cosmic law that seemingly disparate parts be unified as events in time and space.

The time prior to now was more available to this awareness, but incompletely conscious of this underlying basis for justice, commerce, etc. We have no pants, basically.

The internet has exposed this issue we have of whether to actually work for the true common good, for the Universal interest and no a niche freedom like americanic liberty or romantic imperial entitlement, or whether we are doing the fun thing - being king, being the man, being the world authority, but not the real, messy, selfless, egoless world leader. The leader serves the universal interest. The merely free do not have this underlying responsibility to the people. Whether in america, rome, babylon, sumaria, russia, the little people and the heavy heavies must be on the same platform, or there is no genuine premise of law.

So that is the dynamic under the problem internet companies have. Solving the underlying dynamic will be required to solve the problem on top - revenue. Once this dynamic of congruence with the universe fruits, as it is today, there will no longer be quixotism in human interactions.

<comment><USER35> 9Keme wrote, "The merely free do not have this underlying responsibility to the people."

Beautiful. Declaration of INTERdependence time?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _"Last year you had to be prepared to explain how your startup was viral. Next year you'll have to explain how it's recession-proof."_

You should have to explain how it's going to make money, no matter the economy. Founders need to stop thinking they can just magically monetize later after reaching one fobillion users. If it happens, awesome, but don't bank on it. Google was an anomaly, but you wouldn't know it from the attitudes of others towards them.

<comment><USER37> Do you have examples of sites with a "fobillion" (or close) users that still failed? I'm really curious. The examples I can think of, like friendster, really went under because of lack of users.

I agree that you shouldn't bank on getting this fobillion users and after that monetizing them. But that's because the real hard part is getting that much users in the first place.

<comment><USER10> That was an obvious hyperbole. The point is: 50,000 or even 100,000 users =! success, and you don't necessarily need users to make money (although it helps!).

<comment><USER38> The grow-users-before-revenue strategy has several spectacular success stories: Google, YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, MySpace, etc. etc.

That's not to say it's the only valid strategy, but it's certainly a valid strategy. In fact, it probably has the highest payoff, albeit with the highest variance.

<comment><USER39> From my pov those are anomalies, rather than the norm. For every Google, Youtube and Facebook, there are thousands of startups with similar strategies that fail.

I think it is safer to go the long route and start small, working your way to the top, charging a price right from the beginning. If your application is useful, users will pay for it.

<comment><USER40> By doing that you limit your growth rate, and your maximum size.

Charging up front puts people off, whereas if you slowly incrementally introduce revenue later, they will probably be hooked by then.

<comment><USER39> When you're introducing revenue later, you have to provide extra value. This means more features and so you're endangering your core values.

When you're starting to charge for existing features, by limiting the free accounts, you will surely upset your existing users. Google tried to introduce advertising in YouTube videos, and the community was not happy about it ... and imagine a site like YouTube placing a limit on how many videos you can watch. No matter how hooked your users are, you still can lose them, not to mention that popular services like YouTube got cloned and there is competition waiting for those users.

People have been charging money or other goods in exchange for products/services since forever. I don't really understand this trend of releasing products for free. The only viable exit strategy is for your company to be acquired by a big player, but if you want your business model to be sustainable you should question this trend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Personally I believe a recession is the best time to start a startup. Thinking of the amount of time and effort it takes to get a good startup going (typically), the economy could be coming out of a recession by the time you're ready to seek capital. Sure, you'll have to bootstrap, as angel investors will be far and few between, but it's definitley do-able.

I've got 3 different ventures going on right now that I've been working on for 2 years, 1 year, and 6 months, respectively. The one that's 2 years old I won't be ready for venture capital for another 2 years probably. The one that is a year old could theoretically be ready for funding in another year, and the 6 month old I'm hoping to not even seek funding, but to just grow from the ground up into a profitable business a year from now as well. The three somewhat interconnect and can use features of each other, which will hopefully help propel each towards success. Either way, I'm taking advantage of the current recession as best as I can. Pageviews are up, my alexa traffic rankings are going the right way, and revenues continue to increase. All good signs that sometimes it's a recession that helps startups. :-)

</comment><comment><USER42> I totally agree. I used to be dilbert in a cube working for Charles Schwab writing code 10 to 12 hours per day (and weekends) and then poof I got laid off and my job went to India. But before that my co-workers were jumping ship to work at startups and I thought they were nuts. I'm now working on my third startup and this one has a chance because I'm competing with eBay (4cheetahs.com). Even working for a billion dollars company on multi-million dollar project with egotistical personalities decked out all in black attire and goatees doesn't guarantee you won't get laid off or canned for not writing code fast enough. Now is the perfect time to start a startup becuase you can recruit more people who will work for experience. My first startup was Big Bear and I recruited engineers off of craigslist for free to compete with Tivo. In a year they had built a new technology to modify (in one minute) any vcr or dvdr to be programmed from a computer through wireless or usb or over the web or a cell phone. Just couldn't get funding. Then I tried competing with Match.com and the site never launched and I focused on recruiting do- nothing MBAs from our countries finest business schools (another waste of time). This time I only care about programmers. I've interviewed more than 100 MBAs they are as different in their views as economists are about the economy and most couldn't write a line of code to save their life. All I care about is building a team of good programmers. Thus far I've found two to join the cause. Site goes up next month and I'm pretty jazzed about that. If I had a well paid job I wouldn't take the plunge in a startup. I'd be too chicken. But since I've been out of work since 9/11 it's much easier to take the plunge and I don't care nor thinking about the risk. Everything and anything you do in life involves risk. You only live once. You might as well be rich that's my motto.

</comment><comment><USER43> I searched this comments page for "food" and interestingly, I didn't see any comments pointing out that starting a tech startup is a (temporary) vow of poverty. This is exacerbated in a recession, when it's often more difficult to find investment capital for rapid growth.

A point that seems lost in pg's recent start-the-startup cheerleading is that you need to be able to eat, pay rent, etc. Even if you're in your 20's and have a good chunk of money saved up, how long will it last? A year? Two? What if you don't see a paycheck for that long? Will there really be that many tech jobs available to "fall back on"? Part of the definition of a recession is a contraction of employment. That means tech jobs are less available, too.

These reality checks shouldn't stop anyone, but it'd be nice to see a reminder from Graham once in awhile to do the maths (personal budget etc.) and be realistic. A lot fewer tech workers are in the financial position to start a startup than they realize.

Ramen money indeed!

<comment><USER44> Velshin,

That is reality. But it is also reality that these kind of amounts (if you're careful in what you're spending), can be earned in a few days a month doing something you're good at. Just trust in your own qualities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I believe that beyond 'creating a startup', it is rather INNOVATION that is something that is more than ever needed in times of crisis and recession. That is both true for startup companies and may be even more so for major corporations and brands. And even more during deep crisis when internal resources are lacking and budget shrinking, major corporations will have no other choice than managing innovation in an 'Open and collaborative' new way, and especially collaborating with innovative startups... These major corporations will therefore have to transform themselves into 'Open innovation' champions faster than what they would have done in a more 'comfortable' economy. From a crisis to an opportunity ? PS: this change management mission is the 'raison d'etre' of bluenove (www.bluenove.com), and as its CEO and founder i still consider we are in a startup phase so this article is for the least quite supportive ;-)

</comment><comment><USER46> I just went ahead and did it, irrespective of what the economy was doing. Twice, no four times. On two continents. Damn the torpedoes and all that. OK, I did niche consulting and picked a business model which very much tried to save the client money. Problem is that niches come and go, and the challenge now is to find a new racket.

I suppose I could try inventing something new. Now is a great time to do it. Of course, I will probably fail, but so what. If I make time to do it, I will certainly have at least a bit more time to ride my bike around and stall that looming congestive heart failure.

But seriously, if you have a little bit of cash, or better, still have a bit of cash coming in, extra help won't get any cheaper than it is now. If I'm in Europe, I'll outsource to the USA.

We never tried to make money - it just happened. Sure, it was much closer to Stallman than Billy Goat, but it paid for the house and will send my kid to MIT.

</comment><comment><USER47> I believe there is no good or bad time to start a startup. As far as economy is concern, it's more dependent on the perspective you take to look at it. I work for a software maker up in northwest, and everytime I think about opening a startup, I meet a few people suggesting against it with economy as the reason. When the economy is good and our company's stock is going up, the normal advice is:"you know you will be much better-off sticking here for some more time because we are doing so good right now." And now when the economy is down and our stocks are hitting the bottom, the advice is: "this is not the right time to leave the company and open a startup. You won't get funding and with our stocks so low, you will be broke bootstrapping your startup." My perspective: well I got a good idea and great co-founder, let's go for it. We will figure how to survive the economy on the way.

</comment><comment><USER42> How could I forget. Setting up serve space and a database takes time and money too. And then there is setting up a credit card account so people can pay more easily on your site if you are taking money. Then there's the setting up of the business account at the bank and waiting for eons to get a Federal Tax ID number. I switched over my previous FTID to my new site from my old site because my old site never launched (thank God) but banks do drag their feet in opening up a business credit card account which is needed to set up a merchant account with Amazon Simple Pay since I won't be allowing PayPal since eBay owns them and I'm competing with eBay. The biggest drawback of a startup is the lack of sleep but the biggest benefit is no commute time so you save a fortune in not driving much. So it's a lot more then merely writing code. You need shelter (a place to live) and money for food and rent and utilites and gasoline for the car. Then unexpected bills like speeding tickets, car registration, smog check, and car insurance it all adds up fast and at a frightening pace. So I don't go insane I visit one of my brothers who's studying for his PhD in CS at UC Santa Cruz and I've promised him a job when he graduates. He thinks in C and Lisp and can write bug free code. He's not human. So I spend money keeping him well fed. So sacrifices need to be made. And if your site grows you're going to need more servers and more databases and they run on electricity not oxygen and that costs money. I would think it would be educational and a good thing for all universities to house startups on campus to study them and learn from them but I agree with PG that it's the founders, dedication, determination and not stubbornness. There is a lot of uncertainty too. I just visualize the site working and it keeps me going. I watch videos of soldiers in Iraq fighting on YouTube and then I don't mind so much writing code. At least nobody is shooting at me when I'm writing code. And it's good to take breaks and relax sometimes because you need to unplug from the matrix so that you have a life outside of your code.

</comment><comment><USER48> Thanks for the informative and inspirational message. I linked to it from [http://ploneglenn.blogspot.com/2008/10/where-angels-fear- to-...](http://ploneglenn.blogspot.com/2008/10/where-angels-fear-to- tread.html)

You are right. It is all about cost containment in times like this and providing a cheaper alternative is the ticket. That is why I started <http://www.dynamicalsoftware.com> with its flagship product <http://www.code- roller.com> whose vision is a marketplace of entrepreneurs, evangelists, experts, and enthusiasts of software development that uses time tested, best- of-breed SDLC deliverables and work flow for a higher quality, faster time to market, yet more affordable alternative to getting custom software done.

</comment><comment><USER49> Great point. For some more anecdotal evidence, check out the first tech company I worked for:

[http://finance.google.ca/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds...](http://finance.google.ca/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=1&chdet=1224187200000&chddm=1274660&q=NASDAQ:OTEX&ntsp=0)

Immediately after the dot com bust, they were acquiring companies and hiring like crazy. The general pace of the stock market had little to do with how they were performing. It was a bit surprising considering they produce an enterprise software package and you would expect sales to be heavily tied to the market. But they produced a quality product that people wanted, and were able to push the knowledge management/collaboration angle well enough that companies felt like it was an investment they were making.

<comment><USER50> Yeah, buying on recession is great. But you have to have the cash first. Not exactly a startup situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I disagree with comments attacking a money motive. If you don't want to get rich, than do something significant with your life - if you can, then give the money away or help others in some way. And I don't think you really meant greed or you would have said that, and the essay doesn't say go be greedy.

I also agree strongly with the consequences of fear, and how everyone else seems to be cowering in the corner. I am on the tech train and I have it almost entirely to myself. I recently attended some security functions, and it suddenly hit me how this field is begging for innovation. Of all the products and all the big name providers, it was nothing but me-too and do-it-again in a different package. Everyone I talked to from sales to tech, wanted one thing and one thing only - to play it safe and keep their job.

</comment><comment><USER52> I agree completely. I have done startups before during recessions, and never had any problems because of them. Cofounders are a little harder to find, at least those who listen to the gloomy news and are scared because of it. However, good cofounders are easier to spot during recessions.

<comment><USER53> Agreed. Recessions flatten the mediocre but reward the great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Interesting article: Your are absolutely correct about "the state of the economy doesn't matter much either way"---I personally believed that starting up a company in today's economy is an advantage because as you mentioned in your essay there are less competitors in the market place-which makes it easier to growth a business!! Ultimately, before you go into a business –it is necessary to do your research about the market and your competitors, such as, marketplace trends, problems with product and services, how problems can be corrected, get ideas for new products and applications-submit your own questions to discussion groups to get valuable feedbacks- it is up to the business owner to be successful. Again, Thak you for your article www.empresademercadeo.com

</comment><comment><USER55> One of the underlying things here is that there is very little use saying 'bad economy' & leaving it at that. Bad what? What are the actual effects.

A startup might be affected by:

Customers/market - These are not necessarily the problem. True. Particularly if you are evolving in this economy, Like a Neanderthal in an ice age. This point is probably neutral on average.

Investors - This may be a problem. This is a _market_ that can shy. But only a problem if you need them. This point is negative.

Buyers- (Of some description) Definitely a negative. But you don't need them right away & you can probably be more flexible waiting for the right time. If Cockaroach doesn't do it.. endospore.

You can't have everything. Comeptitors - A plus. Fewer investors (including founders as the essay implies) by definition means fewer startups.

</comment><comment><USER56> I agree totally about starting up something in a down economy. It's a great time to test the waters, position yourself for growth and then scale like crazy when the economy thaws. No good surfer ever catches a wave while it's breaking...by that time, it's too late and your eating coral reef. Good surfer bob up and down watching the horizon for the good wave... the big one. They see it before it ever starts to break and they're paddling at just the right time to nail it. Such is the start up entrepreneur in the bad economy. My company, InnoGage, will be able to weather this storm in the higher ed market, but we will be positioned for the global economy when it thaws.

Tom Williams <http://blog.innogage.com>

</comment><comment><USER57> I don't necessarily think PG is all about making money. In fact in a recent London talk ([http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/142733/Audio/Lectures/future_of_w...](http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/142733/Audio/Lectures/future_of_web_startups_pg.mp3)), he talks more about hackers' freedom. Hackers are animals shackled in corporate zoos, and they need to be freed to express/invent! He also goes on to say, you can even pay them less, as long you provide them the freedom to release their energy! PG's mantra is a super powerful one: Make something people want, which also translates to 'Create something, make money while making something you love and your customers love'! That's empowering...

</comment><comment><USER58> I've always found that large competitors tighten up and don't release progressive new products during downturns. At the same time, new/small competitors are reluctant to start. That means there's no better time from a competitive stand-point. Now, investors will be reluctant, but if you are in a position to not need investors (self-financed), then I think it's an optimum time. Once up and running, with products released, the inevitable rising tide of the new economy will float all boats. Continue keeping expenses low and other disciplines ingrained during the downturn, and ride the new tide up.

</comment><comment><USER59> As usual, wise words. Thanks. ;)

You just reinforced what I have been saying to people about what I'm doing as a one-man startup with phreadz.com in these tough, cold times.

People are out there building, or trying to build solutions to problems I have already solved on my own. So, now I can save them a whole lot of time and money by providing a solution for them right now. Hopefully this will help get them where they want/need to be without over-spending.

Also, the fact that investors and clients will get a good deal now, if they jump on board now is a good thing, so we can all reap the benefits on the up- swing.

Thanks for yet another great article.

Kosso Founder : Phreadz.com

</comment><comment><USER60> I like how when PG writes an article, there about about double or triple the comments on hackernews compared to any other random submission.

The line I found most valuable, is the reason I first decided to start a company. 'Markets don't "reduce headcount."' the most security you can have is working for yourself... or the government... but I think most of the "startup types" dread the idea of the bureaucracy. We like the freedom to rise or fall based on our own abilities, the freedom to make something that is going to change the world. The majority of hackers I know are revolutionaries, not reformers.

</comment><comment><USER61> Paul, I think you are wrong with that one. Who would lend NOW a bunch of (IT) guys money for a startup. A bank ?!?! No! Rather the mob. The reason why Viaweb/MS/Apple were succesfull is that they invented / did stuff that didn't existed at that point. You /They created a market where there was none. Back in these days there was a small amount of technology and a small group of people who understood it. Nowadays it's much tougher with competition from anywhere and anyone has access to loads of information and technology. Regards, Anes

</comment><comment><USER62> Interesting read...I just found an interview of a CEO of a business development firm who say the economy is BS. And in fact, it is not only a good time, but the BEST time, to start a business in a rough economy. You can call BS on his opinion even here: [http://downtobusiness.com/bs-meter/start- business-bad-econom...](http://downtobusiness.com/bs-meter/start-business-bad- economy/)

</comment><comment><USER63> pg: i agree once again.

the exogenous nature of technological progress has always been independent of GDP growth. When the economy grows and consumption is booming, tech firms and start-up founders benefit yes, but then it's like waiting for a sunny day to go for a walk.

You could go for a walk any day and get the same benefits: exercise and sight- seeing. In fact, too much sun might hurt you but you could always learn to get creative against wind/rain (coat and umbrella).

I guess what I'm saying here in case you're lost is that a recession is bad weather than need not distract tech start-ups from flexing their muscles. If you could make it in bad weather, chances are, you could enjoy more success in the sunny weather!

I don't want to say I agree that one has to launch a start-up during recessions only. Obviously, the most ideal time to start one is to know you can make decent money and a product that solves an important problem, be it in a good or bad economy, because, statistically, recessions are shorter and milder than before and expansions longer.

In the end, it is not a question of when, even. It remains a question of how.

</comment><comment><USER64> Exactly one of the following is true:

(1) The probability of success is equal whether you start a startup in a good or a bad economy.

(2) The probability of success is greater if you start a startup in a good economy.

(3) The probability of success is greater if you start a startup in a bad economy.

This latest essay is a bit ambiguous as to whether it's defending (1), (3), or (2)-but-not-by-much. Which is it?

</comment><comment><USER65> I think this is spot-on Mr G. I wrote a similar blog recently, although targeted more broadly than just IT: [http://www.aliveworld.com/members/pengo01/blog/archive/2008/...](http://www.aliveworld.com/members/pengo01/blog/archive/2008/10/21/why- you-should-ignore-the-gloom-and-live-your-dream.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER66> Very timely. And it's great to read a "glass half full" approach with some keen insight and advice.

We're certainly planning on your main thrust to be true with our new platform. To that point - here's our latest blog post: <http://tinyurl.com/6blrvl>

Potential investors welcome!

</comment><comment><USER67> I agree. Startups that start now and are able to come out strong after the recession would have proved their mettle and hence will be successful. Also, this is the right time to form a strong team, coz most of the good hackers are looking for something interesting to work on (less competition).

</comment><comment><USER68> My suggestion is to be sure to advertise and push your project especially hard when your competitors are dropping like flies. If you mearly hang on you will come out the other end with a whole new slate of competitors that will be funded so you need to be in a strong position to take them on.

</comment><comment><USER69> One things that helps too is that in recession time large companies have no available resource to stomp you out of existence. They're fighting to survive, cutting jobs and getting completely disorganized, and no one realizes there's a little guy out there who's stealing markets and clients.

</comment><comment><USER70> These times are great and many of us are loving the recession. For some ideas how to startups should take this positively, see [http://kaljundi.com/2008/10/28/10-reasons-startups-love- rece...](http://kaljundi.com/2008/10/28/10-reasons-startups-love-recession/)

</comment><comment><USER71> Very good article. I was wondering if this is actually a good time to start some sort of business or not and I stumbled on this article by accident. It is good to be optimistic and on the positive side of what is in the news than being discouraged. I command you for your good advise.

</comment><comment><USER72> In a bad economy, companies are busy trimming expenses and cutting staff. Finding a job is like finding a needle in a haystack. Why not start a start- up? If you are rolling down a mountain in a car that has no brakes, wouldn't you prefer to be the one behind the wheel? I would.

</comment><comment><USER73> The blog seems to depict a case in hand I have with my project. Paul Graham should see what I am working on these days. Only thing is, as much as I need a VC partnership, I am slowly clearing free of having one due to the skill and the little financial support I already have.

</comment><comment><USER74> Exactly my sentiments. Well said. Maybe you will like this video I made to express my sentiments. [http://sanjaydattatri.blogspot.com/2008/10/its-not- all-doom-...](http://sanjaydattatri.blogspot.com/2008/10/its-not-all-doom-and- gloom-out-there.html)

</comment><comment><USER75> I am of the same opinion. You may want to check out my new book, Entrepreneur Journeys (Volume One): [http://www.sramanamitra.com/2008/09/09/entrepreneur- journeys...](http://www.sramanamitra.com/2008/09/09/entrepreneur-journeys-now- on-amazon/)

Sramana

</comment><comment> tac-tics > The economic situation is apparently so grim that some experts fear we may > be in for a stretch as bad as the mid seventies.

Eh? Every expert I've heard lately is fearful we're headed towards a repeat of the great depression. The one during the 1930s... not the 1970s.

</comment><comment><USER76> I'm not sure I follow that bad times being a good time to invest means that its a good time to start a company. Investors want a low price, but for founders I would have thought the amount of effort (price paid) is fairly much independent of the economy.

<comment><USER77> Opportunity costs are lower.

If the economy were good, the opportunity cost of building a startup would be a high paying job as a quant.

Since it's bad, all I'm missing out on is a shot at postdoc #2 or a faculty position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Wow, way to call me out just as I am preparing for the GREs and grad school applications. In my defense, I've previously wanted to go to grad school also, and even then, because I wanted to meet more people that would be potentially good cofounders.

<comment><USER30> The cofounder issue is also why I'm not starting another company (yet). I thought about going to grad school, but now am looking more towards getting a job at one of the big tech companies in the Valley. That at least will get me into the right geographic area, and with any luck I'll find some smart coworkers or friends there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Exactly, I also feel so and have written a blog on it [http://barakbangla.com/index.php/Is-it-good-time-for- entrepr...](http://barakbangla.com/index.php/Is-it-good-time-for- entrepreneurs-to-venture-out.html)

</comment><comment><USER80> Starting up a tech company in lean times is certaintly different from any other business whose products are tangible. The startup and operational costs are much lower and surely, making wise choices the startup can outperform competitors.

</comment><comment><USER81> "The cheaper your company is to operate, the harder it is to kill."

That's one of the most bad ass business quotes I've heard in 2008. Nice PG!

(btw, I started a new company this year and would add that it's much easier to hire GREAT people in these types of markets.)

</comment><comment><USER82> In my eyes an important factor is the psychological one where as an entrepreneur the ideas you have and the way you shape them tend to be more realistic in bad times then in hype times. I guess it is something of the survival nature.

Dudu

</comment><comment><USER83> I wrote my 2 cents before seeing PG's $2

<http://www.pollenizer.com/?p=25>

And as Chris Hitchen from Getprice.com.au said the other day;

"A recession? Is that when a user comes back to your site again and again?"

</comment><comment><USER84> Good article with few wisdoms.

It is all about mind over matter.... good or bad.... A positive minds looks at problems as opportunities and other mind vice versa...

As you mentioned the success or failure depends on founders rather than outside....

</comment><comment><USER85> Thank God, finally some reason in the room. Run lean + create value + Targeted marketing = Success = MarkTend.com

We were ahead of the curve on this one.

Michael Kassing MarkTend.com <http://marktend.com>

</comment><comment><USER86> If I would develop something that could help people with their education, it should probably be recession-proof. Also, while US may suffer recession, some other countries probably still enjoy economic growth.

</comment><comment><USER87> Chinese translation: [http://www.ruanyifeng.com/blog/2008/12/why_to_start_a_startu...](http://www.ruanyifeng.com/blog/2008/12/why_to_start_a_startup_in_a_bad_economy.html)

</comment><comment><USER88> Great post Paul. There will always be room for good ideas that actually solve problems. If you position the start-up now, it will be ready to reap even greater rewards as the economy recovers.

</comment><comment><USER89> I completely agree. I cant wait to outwork everyone in this market. I have a feeling that this is the time when the brave, bold and smart rise to the top and that is fully what I intend to do.

</comment><comment><USER90> Thanks PG. I've have the same idea about this economy problem and startup. This article gives me to lots of passion! I'll send this link to all of my co- workers.

p.s. Can I translate this article to korean?

</comment><comment><USER91> Thank you, Paul! Russian translation here:

[http://www.web30.ru/2008/12/04/zachem-zapuskat-startap-v- kri...](http://www.web30.ru/2008/12/04/zachem-zapuskat-startap-v-krizis/)

</comment><comment><USER92> Russian translation [http://spring.jumpidea.com/2008/10/paul-graham- badeconomy.ht...](http://spring.jumpidea.com/2008/10/paul-graham- badeconomy.html)

</comment><comment><USER93> Very, very, interesting! Is it only about making money though? Sure that is essential, but what about the journey we take along the way? That is where the wealth lies.

</comment><comment><USER94> There is about to be a whole raft of federal packages for small plumbing companies; that is the real reason to get started. Apparently you don't even need a license.

</comment><comment><USER95> Good enough article, especially for "one step before" entrepreneurs.

Fabian <http://cupofstartup.blogspot.com/>

</comment><comment><USER96> This is off topic, but this seems to be something PG would be interested in. I would like to see his take on the idea.

www.overcomingbias.com/2008/11/fund-ubertool.html

</comment><comment><USER97> excellent points!

One thing I would like to add: In India, during booming times one problem startups face is finding good people at affordable rates. The demand supply equation is so bad that someone with 2 years experience in any sort of hacking will land a job that pays x+n where x is the current pay and n substantial percentage of it. Now in tougher times people would be willing to join and also stick around.

</comment><comment><USER98> pg - once again - you're right on - i might add though that passion is also an ingredient that founders need to survive a nuclear winter - if you don't love what you do or love what you are building you wont survive the best of times and you're doomed at the worst of times as every passing day will test your will power to stick with it and make it happen whether its sunny outside or raining fire.

</comment><comment><USER99> I did quit my day job and decide to pursue my long-time goal of building a startup vs. getting a grad degree. Great article.

</comment><comment><USER50> Very refreshing and rational. Thanks PG!

</comment><comment><USER100> As someone who quit my job 4 months ago to co-found my first startup (not funded yet), this essay is chicken soup.

Thanks PG.

</comment><comment><USER101> Are many of the startups by yc the viaweb sort? Free lisp on free unix with no relational database?

</comment><comment><USER102> These are the best of times.. these are the worst of times..

For sure, these are not average times.. :)

Thanks Pg, keeps our spirit going!

</comment><comment><USER103> of many examples, Sony (created after WW II in a bombed building) reminds me of how great innovators are not affected by transient disasters. I guess we should feel lucky that we only face economic crisis, and not the terrible destruction the world has faced before :)

</comment><comment><USER104> Well now, we are in a Bad economy for the first time in History in the whole world.

</comment><comment><USER105> As bad as the mid '70s? The commentators I'm reading are talking about the '30s.

</comment><comment><USER106> heh, as a self educated hacker from mississippi, with over 12 startups under my belt, you talk a lot of sense...

(8 dismal failures, twice wealthy, once almost made the rainbow)...

keep it up...

you're almost my hero... :-)

(really hard to beat out my father :-)

</comment><comment><USER107> Great Article...

Working on a site web2.0fuckedcompany.com if you want to help....

<comment><USER108> I wonna help

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> Russian translation of this essay is <a href="<http://k-vladimir.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post.html>">here</a>.

</comment><comment><USER110> Paul, a timely and encouraging article, thanks.

\- Varun www.homecamera.com

</comment><comment><USER111> nice artcile that gives inspiration to people like us to venture into startups at these difficult times! really an insightful one!

</comment><comment><USER112> could it also be that the cloud gang saw this coming? or just as you (pg) say - tech, stocks are not strongly interdependent

</comment><comment><USER113> What does

"Technology trains leave the station at regular intervals"

mean?

</comment><comment><USER114> the thoughts are very much in synch with what my mind revolves for the past few weeks. Nice indeed.

</comment><comment><USER115> Thats exactly what i have done

www.abhayatech.com

</comment><comment><USER116> Thanks for a very good post.

</comment><comment><USER117> looking for investors..... interested?

myteev.blogspot.com

</comment><comment><USER42> The poverty part about a startup is true. To save money I bought a mountain bike and soon afterwards sprained my ankle so I couldn't ride my bike (to save on gas money) and then I caught the flu and I've been down for the count for 2 weeks recovering and didn't have the strength to pedal. Little things like comcast bills and tmobile bills add up. Starbucks adds up but that's the only place next to Cafe Borrone that I brainstorm and relax enough to write code and design web pages and mess around with ColdFusion8. None of my great ideas came to me in my apartment. They all happened while sitting in a cafe relaxing. My neighbors at my apartment complex are not american and not programmers but they do seem to have a keen interest in bad loud music and burning out with their cars in the parking lot. Founders At Work is a good book and a good read but another book I'd like Livingston to write is about failed startups. Also, a lot of the stories in the book are software projects and not true startups. In a startup you have to embrace failure and change and headaches and it's a demon of a roller coaster. So though it's a startup I still have costs like car insurance, gasoline, food costs, 1,100 a month rent, utilities for electricity. I have a programmer executive chair, a desk from Scandinavian designs and a camping air mattress from REI and a sleeping bag and blankets and great pillow from Bed Bath & Beyond. Shopping at Costco is recommended rather than Safeway or Longs Drugs to save money. So starting a startup doesn't take into account the 3,500 I shelled out for a Macbook Pro (which I bought thinking I was going to become a teacher) and I do use a wind up flashlight from REI for light but I'll switch over to candles soon. Cutting costs is the name of the game. But finding dedicated programmers is the key to victory. I don't recommend anyone start a startup by themselves because there is so much you have to think about and get feedback from friends. I changed the entire design of my site just a week ago and writing requirements is a pain but a necessary pain. Also, milestones work. It's easier to tackle one pebble at a time rather then a whole boulder which is just too overwhelming. Daily progress and weekly progress is the only way it will work. Also, I have recruited many of my friends to help out when the site launches in terms of testing, and accounting, and customer service and they're all going to work for free but none of my friends are coders. Everyone I used to know that wrote code doesn't write code anymore. They either got carpal tunnel or just cut coding cold turkey.

Having money is key. I'm funding this startup with my inheritance but if I don't get funding or the site isn't making enough dough by Valentines day the site will crash and burn and then I'll have to sell my car and I don't want to do that. I sold my car for my first startup and that was the biggest mistake I made in my entire life. Life is much more difficult without a car.

</comment><comment><USER118> What about having savings instead of "investor funding" ? If you have developed a great product why in the world would you like to share your company with VCs anyway ? Why you need somebody to invest in your company ? I mean come on people, you can save $10k in vacation as a college student waiting tables and have 100% pie for yourself. I don't understand the logic here. Never did.

<comment><USER119> Not everything is yet cheap enough to run on 10-50k of savings. Take semiconductors for example. Some software technologies are also quite expensive to develop, not everybody is doing web apps, thanks God :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER120> you are absolutely right, my friend. i'm starting up right now, and am looking forward to the challenge.</comment>


The Techcrunch Web Tablet Project - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunchit.com/2008/07/21/the-techcrunch-web-tablet-project/ <comment><USER2> Thats how Kindle should have looked like, instead of that 1980s looking contraption amazon came out with

<comment><USER3> Kindle was designed to do a completely different job. It uses a specialized screen -- I think it's ePaper, or something similar, based on some work from MIT a few years back -- that's designed to make the text as easy to read as a printed book.

AFAIK, there's no color support on that kind of screen technology yet, or if there is, it's prohibitively expensive.

<comment><USER4> Correct. That screen utilizes eInk (ePaper, whatever currently the hype word is for it). The main idea behind this technology is readability and minimal energy consumption. Next generation of this technology will probably be OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) with which it will be possible to have thin and colorful displays. Sony has developed interesting prototypes which you can see e.g. here. (<http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=NcAm3KihFho>)

<comment><USER5> Very nice link. It's incredible how thin and flexible they are. Do you know what the time frame of launch is on these and the prices?

<comment><USER4> I am not an expert in this topic but they sell this here already. You can e.g. find here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_light- emitting_diode#So...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_light- emitting_diode#Sony_applications) some information about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It sounds like the techcrunchies haven't actually used the Nokia N810. Just like their dream web tablet, the N810 already uses a Linux kernel, runs Firefox, Skype and plays Flash and other media. It also just hit their $299 price point. They dismissed it, however, and said they want a bigger screen, even though it has has a fantastic 800x480 resolution and 225 pixels per inch (compared to the iPhone's 480x320 resolution and 160 pixels per inch).

Then Cubrilovic and Arrington deleted their comments. Go figure.

<comment><USER6> It sounds like the techcrunchies haven't actually used the Nokia N810. Just like their dream web tablet, the N810 already uses a Linux kernel, runs Firefox, Skype and plays Flash and other media. It also just hit their $299 price point.

They dismissed it, however, and said they want a bigger screen, even though it has has a fantastic 800x480 resolution and 225 pixels per inch (compared to the iPhone's 480x320 resolution and 160 pixels per inch).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's a very ambitious project. Doable although I think something like this really needs leadership, guidance and a project timeline.

</comment><comment><USER8> """... when we were discussing the ultimate web browsing/cloud computing client hardware..."""

WTF is a 'cloud computing client'. Personally I'm sick and tired of hearing the word 'cloud' being used in every hyped project now.

<comment><USER9> There's a marketing play here, you see how the slash separates two types of future customers?

"Cloud computing" - for those who believe in it and "web browsing" for the rest of us.

:-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> That page crashes Firefox and Safari. edit: no one else?

<comment><USER11> Fine on FireFox 22.214.171.124/WinXP. Which Firefox are you using? If you're on 3.0 make sure you upgrade to 3.01 as it's a lot more stable.

<comment><USER10> Good call, I upgraded from 3.0 to 3.01 on Leopard. And it doesn't crash anymore, though it doesn't crash Safari either anymore, so I'm thinking it could have been something on their end that's since been updated.</comment></comment></comment>


The PC That Cracked Europe – Amstrads PC1512 and 1640 – Computer History - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PYpMXseflM <comment><USER2> Nifty little vid. Good careful teardown and reassembly, complete with gloves.

Couple of small cavils, though...

There are a few mistakes in there to point out.

* The OS that came with it...

The original 'Strads came with _two_. Digital Research's DOS Plus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_Plus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_Plus) ... and MS-DOS. DOS Plus was very obscure -- the only other machine I know to come with it was the Acorn BBC Master 512 -- but it was a forerunner of DR- DOS, which was a huge success and much later became open source.

* That isn't WordStar they show.

Well, it sort of is, but it's not the WordStar that they correctly describe as the leading DOS wordprocessor until WordPerfect came along.

Amstrad bundled a special custom wordprocessor called WordStar 1512. This is a rebadged version of WordStar Express, which although it came from MicroPro Corp, is in fact totally unrelated to the actual WordStar program. The rumour was that WordStar Express was a student project, written in Modula-2. It is totally incompatible with actual WordStar, using different keystrokes, different file formats, everything. But it did allegedly get the student a job! It didn't sell so Amstrad got it very cheap.

[https://www.wordstar.org/index.php/wordstar- history](https://www.wordstar.org/index.php/wordstar-history)

* WordStar was originally written for CP/M and ported to MS-DOS, meaning that it didn't support MS-DOS's more advanced features, such as subdirectories, very well. MicroPro flailed around a bit, including developing WordStar 2000, another unrelated program that looked similar but used a totally different and incompatible user interface, thus alienating all the existing users.

(And WordStar users are almost fanatically loyal. George R R Martin is one -- all of "a Game of Thrones" was written in WordStar!)

After annoying its users for so long that various companies cloned the original program, MicroPro eventually did something marginally sensible. It bought the leading clone, which was called NewWord, and rebadged it as "WordStar 4," even though it wasn't derived from WordStar 3 at all.

So what Doris had there is a shoddy alternative app from MicroPro, and a better 3rd party alternative that in fact later became the "real" product.

* Locomotive BASIC 2

This was sort of a sop, a bone thrown to Locomotive Software who did almost all the original Amstrad CPC and PCW 8-bit business apps. BASIC 2 is pretty much totally unrelated to, and incompatible with, the ROM BASIC in the CPC range, or Locomotive's Mallard BASIC for the PCW, but it was written by the same company. It was the only high-level language built for PC GEM, I believe. It was sold on nothing other than the Amstrads and so disappeared into obscurity.

IMHO, rather than BASIC 2 and the fairly awful WordStar 1512, Amstrad ought to have offered LocoScript PC, the DOS version of the Amstrad PCW's bundled wordprocessor. This was a very good app in its day, one of the most powerful DOS wordprocessors in its time, with advanced font handling and very limited WYSIWYG support.

* No RAM expansion in the 1640.

That's a plain mistake. There's no expansion possible. The 8086 can only address 1 MB of RAM, and the upper 384 kB of that space is filled with ROM and I/O space in the PC design. 640 kB is all an 8086 PC can take, so there is no possible expansion. Thus, no point in fitting slots for it.</comment>


Staging That Scene from 'Eyes Wide Shut' - <AUTHOR> https://www.vulture.com/2019/06/eyes-wide-shut-orgy-scene-oral-history.html <comment><USER2> If you're interested in this article / Kubrick, I highly recommend you watch the documentary Filmworker[0], which is a beautiful portrait of Leon Vitali [1], Stanley's long term assistant quoted in this article.

He was cast in Barry Lyndon in 1974 and, after experiencing Kubrick's genius and work ethic up close, gave up a promising acting career to devote his life to helping him achieve his vision— at great personal sacrifice. It's moving, and helps explain the true cost of artistic excellence.

[0] [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PEZ2r1YGKSA](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PEZ2r1YGKSA) [1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Vitali](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Vitali)

</comment><comment><USER3> I often hear that this director or that film was genius/groundbreaking/important and upon watching it fail to understand what I was supposed to be looking for. To those of you who are better versed in this sort of thing than I am, how did you come to know what you know?

For example, I had a friend a few weeks back tell me that a particular scene in the movie we were watching was the first time a cinematography technique (whose name, along with the movie in question, I've now forgotten) was used. Knowing the history of it might simply be an exercise in good trivia retention, but understanding the technique and even knowing its name would seem to be something very different. How do you learn that?

<comment><USER4> Its likely that most people watch a movie with an aim towards tracking the plot, so that the movie makes sense. Still, you get a sense for the director or cinematographer's talent/style by watching a film even more broadly. It takes a few examples and then you are sensitized to the idea.

Consider the opening shot from Boogie Nights (1997) which is available here [0]. If you watched it and came back here, would you have noticed that it was done all in one take (without a single cut, until the one right before the end of the video) aka the 'long take' technique. Apart from the fact that it was a crane and a steadicam being used, think of the immense work required to coordinate all the actors and crew so that a minimum of takes were required to achieve this desired outcome. (And, that director Paul Thomas Anderson was about 27 when it was shot.) This is the stylism of the director shining through.

One blog's assessment of the best movies openings is in [1] and might offer some insight as well...

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiXtFyZqvQQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiXtFyZqvQQ) [1] [https://youtu.be/dEXX7w2la0Q](https://youtu.be/dEXX7w2la0Q)

<comment><USER5> Loved your comment.

And before Boogie Nights there's a history of it in Cinema:

[http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2016/the-10-longest-unbroken- sh...](http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2016/the-10-longest-unbroken-shots-in- cinema-history/) the ones earlier than Boogie Nights:

Nostalghia (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1983, 9m20s) Rope (Alfred Hitchcock, 1948, 1h20m)

and this came out about the same time, so I'm pretty sure they had overlapping production:

Snake Eyes (Brian De Palma, 1998, 12m57s)

<comment><USER6> > Rope (Alfred Hitchcock, 1948, 1h20m)

As Hitchcock explained in the Hitchbook, that is not an unbroken shot, merely an illusion of one. Film reels at the time just weren't long enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Kubrick films often have amazing optical illusions of the "once you see it, you can't unsee it" form. In EWS, it's the mask on the pillow. Watch the film enough and you'll suddenly realize what Bill really sees when he walks in that room: he sees his wife sleeping with another man (the mask is the other man). Somehow the way the wife and the mask are positioned, you can "see" the entire outline of the other man, even though he's nothing but a mask. And now, you'll never see Eyes Wide Shut as the same movie ever again :)

<comment><USER8> The Shining also has many of these [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u4A5tJ2j3o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u4A5tJ2j3o)

<comment><USER9> To save anyone else this pointless click: that video is total nonsense and the ramblings of a moon landing conspiracy theoryist.

<comment><USER10> It's an excerpt from a feature length documentary called Room 237. Taken as a whole, it's a pretty fun, non-judgmental tour through some colourful interpretations and theories surrounding Kubrick and The Shining. I don't think it's actually intended to convert anybody to moon landing skepticism.

<comment><USER11> [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/movies/aide-to-kubrick- on...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/movies/aide-to-kubrick-on-shining- scoffs-at-room-237-theories.html)

> "I stood staring at all that stuff for weeks while we were shooting in that > room. It's a downhill skier. It's a downhill skier. It's not a Minotaur."

Etc, etc. Room 237 is not only the ravings of madmen, it has a bit right st the start where a guy is talking over The Shining shots, a baby starts crying on the background (of the guy talking) and they stop and discuss that. I turned it off in disgust after that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The article dismisses the various theories ("Illuminati", etc) about the film by pointing out that powerful people in fact have fairly sordid affairs rather than satanic/black mass/ritualistic events.

It's worth pointing out that Sydney Pollack's character uses this same exact argument _in the film_ (in the billiard scene). "We fucked her brains out, the end." Clearly, that was not what was happening in the movie, and that wasn't the point of the movie either.

The article mentions Jeff Bezos, but they might have mentioned Jeffrey Epstein instead. For instance.

<comment><USER13> Regardless of what the article posits, the movie was based on actual secret societies. I'm pretty sure Kubrick was trying to tell us something.

 _Anthony Frewin (assistant to Stanley Kubrick):

I had a friend who lived in the south of France, G. Legman. He supplied us with a lot of information about secret societies and sexual mores in Vienna at the time of Schnitzler. He also sent over a lot of illustrations of secret- society rituals and the Black Mass, mainly from the 19th century. We had a lot of illustrations, contemporary and even much older, of some ceremonies._

<comment><USER14> That's a tautology. The film involved a secret society with sexual elements, so they lifted the recognisable _aesthetics_ of some secret societies, particularly ones which involved, or purported to involve, naked ladies. There's no philosophy in there, and the costumes and rituals were a lightweight confection from a bunch of different sources. It's not like he was going to have them dress up in giant rabbit outfits and play kazoos.

Unless your point is that he features a monied sex cult so he's saying that they're somehow endemic. That seems rather a stretch.

<comment><USER13> That's an oddly specific response to something that was never said. My point and the overall arch of what I think Kubrick was implying in EWS is that these people exist and people in positions of power we would otherwise hold in high social regard are no different or ethical than anyone else and more often less so. What's the difference between a corrupt elite "secret society" verses the Mafia and organized crime syndicates? Socially we tend not to view them as morally equivalent because one group is at the top echelon of society while the other are just lowly "criminals" when in fact there is no difference.

<comment><USER14> "that these people exist"

Thats what I was responding to. I disagree, because the cult in the film is a device, not the central point of the film. The same logic would conclude that Kubric believes that there are obelisk gateways to hyperspace orbiting Jupiter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "No Botox, no breast enhancements, anything like that. I made it very clear to everybody who came and their agents. But there were a couple of times when we [agreed to use] somebody and their agents actually made them go out and get breast enhancements. "

Hollywood is vile. "Let us mutilate you because you have a dream that will otherwise die." Yeah they're all adults. It's still vile.

<comment><USER16> > _Hollywood is vile. "Let us mutilate you because you have a dream that will > otherwise die."_

If there was a way to condense that one to just a few words, it would make one hell of a T-shirt slogan.

<comment><USER17> If you don't wake up, the dream never dies.

Or

Body chop, dream shop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've never watched a Kubrick film I didn't like. I don't think there's another filmmaker I could say the same about.

I even found Kubrick's college-aged first movie he made (Fear & Desire) on BitTorrent, which he later tried to buy up and destroy because he didn't like it, and even _that_ was a nice and very watchable low-budget war story.

</comment><comment><USER19> > "You know, there's apparently an Eyes Wide Shut club in L.A. They actually > have women there in masks and guys in evening suits who patronize them. I've > never been. It's somewhere up in the Hollywood Hills, or around that area. > When we were shooting, somebody said — I think it was Tom — "Do you think > these places really exist?" And Stanley said, "Well, if they don't, they > will soon.""

<comment><USER20> Oh, that's "Snctm". Costs $10K a year.

There was more of that sort of thing back in the 1990s. It was never that big. An event organizer once told me that the pool of people who go to things like that in SF was about 400. If you went to the SF Fetish Ball and the London Fetish Ball, you saw many of the same people.

It kind of died off with goth.

<comment><USER21> It's now for sale including a claimed client list of 100,000.

[https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2019/06/hollywood- stars-f...](https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2019/06/hollywood-stars-fear- sale-private-sex-club/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Disappointing that the article doesn't mention the fact that the non-CGI'd version of the movie does exist on DVD, but not Blu-Ray. That scene was beyond-R rating at the time, but in the 20 years since it's certainly not.

Along with the International cut of The Shining, I wish we could get, in the US, what are certainly the best versions of Kubrick's work. In the case of EWS, the CGI people covering the sex is distracting and silly. The movie is meant to be erotic and surreal.

<comment><USER6> I think the fact that the Blu-ray version is non-CGI has to do with the fact that 1) after years had passed, it was assumed that customers know what they are getting into, and 2) over the first decade of the new millennium, studios began supplying "non-rated" cuts to the home rental market – with raunchy scenes beyond the R-rated cut – and it was not met with much outrage from the morals police.

> I wish we could get, in the US, what are certainly the best versions of > Kubrick's work.

You can always torrent a European Blu-ray.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've always like Kubrick's films, but this one was lost on me. I kept looking for some deeper meaning than a big secret get together where rich people have sex and for some reason everyone finds it sinister and titillating.

<comment><USER24> It's about the status-driven whores we all are.

Everyone in the movie is clearly from one social class or another and is made starkly aware of it.

The men are buying power over one another while the women are literal whores - even the doctor's wife - sex toys & arm candy for whomever they can gather the most status/money from.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Highly recommend the novel which provides the basis for this movie "Traumnovelle" by Arthur Schnitzler ([https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumnovelle](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumnovelle)). The novel seems to be heavily influenced by Freudian psycho analysis, I also think the location of Vienna at the beginning of the 20th century is very interesting.

</comment><comment><USER26> I ran in the circles depicted in the movie for a very short while, and although I never attended one, these type of parties definitely do exist. Though I think they use high end prostitutes.

</comment><comment><USER27> The bit about the film being recalled to rescore the music in the orgy scene, because it inadvertently includes some verses from a Hindu scripture...

Led me to this interview which is pretty interesting;

[https://m.rediff.com/%0D%0Anews/1999/jul/26us2.htm](https://m.rediff.com/%0D%0Anews/1999/jul/26us2.htm)

</comment><comment><USER28> This is my absolute favourite film of all time. For those who enjoy it, I highly recommend 'Lolita' \- IMHO it is underwetched and underappreciated. Peter Sellers is absolutely fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER29> > I said to the other girls, "If you do this, that's a completely different > scenario. I would ask for more money if I were you."

So what happened?

</comment><comment><USER30> >>> "The rich are too busy screwing the world over to screw each other with any imagination."

This has been true so far, but the bigger the gap between the rich and poor the more Victorian rich society descend into.</comment>


Show HN: Klarity – an instant A.I. NDA review tool for free - <AUTHOR> http://klaritylaw.com/nda/?hn <comment><USER2> This seems cool. I was trying the demo out, but I had to sign in? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the 'Use Sample NDA' button?</comment>


Unknown or expired link. - <AUTHOR>

Could you solve the "Unknown or expired link." problem on hackernews? <comment><USER2> I absolutely can not stand running into that message. By the time I'm finished browsing the posts and comments on the first page and click the next page link, I run into that error.

Then I click the back button, thinking that will do the trick, and click the next page link. Same error, because I never actually got a refreshed page when I went back.

So then I have to click back again, click refresh, then click the next page, all to go to the next page.

I understand that it may have been intentional, but it really hurts usability.

I sort of find it contradictory that hacker news itself feels a bit clunky, but maybe that's the point. Launch when you have something and eventually you'll know what is needed and what is just an annoyance.

</comment><comment><USER3> Since news entries are constantly being juggled/reordered, I think it was a choice that they made. Whenever I get that error I just start on page 1 again.

<comment><USER4> I don't get that. Reddit nor Digg has this problem..

<comment><USER5> it really is annoying though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if you could apply to ycombinator to build a better hackernews...

</comment><comment><USER7> Yup. Super painful.

I put it down to a (perhaps unintentional) * anti-procrastination device on HN's part.

Eg I'll load up a page worth of links and go read them. If by the time I finished reading and go back to HN to click on 'Next Page' and I get 'Unknown or expired link', this means that I've probably spent far too long reading already and should probably go and do some actual productive work.

* This doesn't always work as intended = /

</comment><comment><USER8> This wouldn't be a problem if I could choose the number of articles per page - 30 articles per page isn't enough. I rarely go more than 5 pages deep on HN. If HN was just a single page with 300 entries that I could refresh (or would auto-refresh via Comet/AJAX) I would be a happy camper.

</comment><comment><USER9> It sucks when you have 20 pages to catch up on and you're forced to open all interesting looking links in new tabs, get to the end before your time runs out, and only then start reading the new tabs.

</comment><comment><USER10> Go back. Refresh the page. Click More.

I think the more important thing to worry about here is getting back to work, not the pages on a social news aggregator expiring for being open too long.

</comment><comment><USER11> Looks like a choice to keep scrapers from being able to deep dive into the list of submissions, etc.

<comment><USER6> It's just a broken implementation of pagination.

A scraper would move on to the next page almost immediately, real humans take a while to get to the next page.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, I considered that (and you are right), but if this is an attempt at pagination, it's a 'WTF' head scratcher as to why you'd make it so complicated. I'm not saying I know, just giving the coders the benefit of the doubt.

<comment><USER12> In any event, an explanation would put me at ease. When I see that I usually move on to my next list of aggregators.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Or, at the very, very, _very_ least, could that terrible error page contain a link to the front page?</comment>


Abstraction and Reasoning Challenge (final leaderboard) - <AUTHOR> https://www.kaggle.com/c/abstraction-and-reasoning-challenge/leaderboard <comment><AUTHOR> For more context, see posts on most of the gold medal solutions:

[https://www.kaggle.com/c/abstraction-and-reasoning- challenge...](https://www.kaggle.com/c/abstraction-and-reasoning- challenge/discussion/154349)

In short, a combination of hand-crafted DSLs and search got most of the gold medals.

Also notable is that ndividual teams managed to solve 49 tasks in total between them which is almost half of the 100 test tasks:

[https://www.kaggle.com/c/abstraction-and-reasoning- challenge...](https://www.kaggle.com/c/abstraction-and-reasoning- challenge/discussion/157640)</comment>


Machine learning algorithm beats experts in classifying suicide notes [2010] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21643548

<comment><AUTHOR> An interview with one of the authors: [http://www.npr.org/2013/05/15/184232472/analyzing-the- langua...](http://www.npr.org/2013/05/15/184232472/analyzing-the-language-of- suicide-notes-to-help-save-lives)</comment>


New Macs' resolutions: The wide range of Mac Display DPI - <AUTHOR> http://www.leancrew.com/all-this/2010/10/new-macs%E2%80%99-resolutions/ <comment><USER2> I wish laptops would go back to 4:3 aspect ratio. The trend for widescreen leaves me wanting for more vertical space. 800px or 900px vertical is too short and requires more scrolling. Yet, it's not wide enough to really fit 2 application windows side by side.

It's only really good for movies. Certainly not good for web browsing unless you want to read long sentences across the screen.

<comment><USER3> I'm glad MBP17 is wide. 1920x1200, ticks all the boxes. No, it's not too big or heavy, remember that the MBP15 is 15.4".

All Mac users should also do themselves a favour and set their Dock to auto- hide.

<comment><USER4> I always keep the Dock hidden, even on my 2560x1440 iMac. I launch applications from Spotlight¹ and switch between them by +tab.

About the widescreen aspect ratio – I'm fine with it. Feels more natural. A 4:3 screen looks like a square. I don't have square vision.

Then again, it's true that less than 800 pixels of vertical space feels somewhat cramped, and purely for web browsing / reading, 4:3 makes sense, and 3:4 would make even more sense. Personally I do much more and the widescreen is better all-around compromise. Two fingers + inertia makes scrolling pretty enjoyable.

¹) Quick enough on SSD'd machines, otherwise a bit slow. Luckily I rarely launch apps. I just keep tons of stuff running in different Spaces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> nitpick: the 15" MBP also has a 1680x1050 option, with a dpi of 129

<comment><USER4> I guess the MacBook Pro lineup will shift towards higher-DPI screens in the near future. The next-generation 15" MBP will probably have the 1680x1050 screen by default.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> One thing he neglects to consider is the difference between a desktop and a laptop - the effective DPI of a screen is dependent on how far away it is from your eyes.

This is why 1920x1200 is a great resolution for a 17" laptop, but only comfortable on a larger desktop screen.

</comment><comment><USER7> Does MacOS X really not automatically figure out the dpi of the screen and adjust font rendering? Ouch.

<comment><USER8> Do you know of any major OSes that actually have resolution indepdence? I've never heard of an OS auto-adjusting the DPI (Windows certainly doesn't, and Linux never has for me), nor have I seen any OS do so correctly even when you do it manually.

However, Apple _has_ started efforts for OS frameworks to support resolution- independent apps that would be able to resized at will without losing proportion.

<comment><USER9> The newer managed code UI libraries for Windows, WPF and Silverlight are built from the ground up to support resolution independence.

Further reading, [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms748373.aspx#visual...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms748373.aspx#visual_rendering_behavior)

<http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2005/11/250723.html>

<comment><USER10> My Vaio has a 143dpi screen (1920x1080 on 15.4") and applications written to take heed of my DPI setting look great, other apps do not - in particular chrome and firefox which you need to use extensions to have it remember your custom zoom settings correctly. It can get quite frustrating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The 13" MBA has the same resolution as my TV (hooked up to a Mac Mini).

Ouch.</comment>