Ask HN: How much did you pay for your brand identity? - <AUTHOR> Aside from the ones that hacked somethinf together themselves: how much did you pay? What did you get? Was it worth it? <comment><USER2> Just an FYI to other commenters, Branding/Identity is design work (not just a name or domain name), typically resulting in versatile logo work, writing style guides, a tagline, typefaces, colors, visual language development, business cards, comprehensive print collateral, and a set of branding style guidelines.

The foundations should exist so that you can easily develop this into an application or web style guide as well, and make 90% of your future design decisions from this foundational work.

The typical team (in the US) would charge about $15,000 – $100,000 (depending on the size of the client and scope of work). You're getting 1 person for a few weeks @ $15k, and a small team for 3-6 months on the high end.

You're not really paying for the individual pieces here. What you're really paying for is a lot of research, experimentation, development, and refinement. When you pay $100,000 for a world-class brand/identity, 90% of what you're really paying for is for very talented people to try things, fail, and discard them for something much better.

Funded startups with customers & product-market fit tend to go to the $25k-$50k range. That's not going to get you world-class, but it's going to get you "polished & consistent". You might do this again post- Series-A.

If you don't yet have customers (to research and understand), or product- market fit, invest much less. If you have these things, investing in branding will accelerate your marketing, and reduce the cost of future design. It's definitely worth it, and you're going to pay to have it done eventually, whether you explicitly hire someone to do it, or you let your designers frustratingly "figure it out" as they go.

Not establishing branding and identity work early is like allowing your programmers, as you hire them, to each make their own decisions as to what technologies they want to use. You wouldn't seriously invest in developing a large application without architecting it, and you don't design a large application without foundational branding and identity work to support that.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

<comment><USER3> Meh. You provide a great strategy for keeping professional branding people and agencies in business, but not for growing the product company's sales. You are just confusing people.

$100k invested into improving the product offering to better solve problems for the customer WILL "accelerate your marketing".

<comment><USER4> God forbid other talented professionals charge rates compared to the value they bring to the table. Just imagine!

Better marketing beats better products most of the time so it's hardly wasted money and in fact may be a _better_ way to spend some of your start-ups $ than to spend it just on development.

<comment><USER3> Stop the presses! My apologies, I thought we were talking about product companies actually making money, not "talented professionals getting paid their 'value'".

The original comment was about "branding", not marketing, as you appear to have misread.

And don't worry, I understand completely well how many talented professionals actually make money. You are illustrating the point nicely.

<comment><USER4> Branding (and Brand Management) is an important part of a marketing strategy.

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

And will - when applied properly - definitely help promote the company's sales (contrary to your original comment).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The first version of the Twitch brand, space-themed, was created by Jacob Woodsey (our only designer at the time and now owner of all social features at Twitch), in approximately 4 hours spread over the course of a single day. So probably equivalent to $1500 to get a high quality designer for a single day.

For the second version of the Twitch brand (Purple!), one year out and post- series-B: we had 3 designers on the Twitch brand, not quite full-time, for about 6-8 weeks. Plus a lot of Jacob's time. I'd estimate the total cost around $50-$100k to hire a high end design firm to do the same work.

In both cases, it was the right level of investment for Twitch at the time. Something quick and dirty to get us going in the first year, and something with some depth and quality once we had enough momentum to commit to a brand direction.

<comment><USER6> Great info.

But what would you say was the drive that made you decide to go from Step A to B?

I guess I'm asking for tips (ignoring finances for the moment) as to when business/design wise you need to be looking at a larger and more involved option? Did the old design grow stale? Were you running into more real world use cases where you needed design elements that were missing originally? Or had the original just included more and more elements over time until it no longer seemed consistent?

<comment><USER5> The first design was expedient: we needed _something_ in order to launch the website. So we did a really minimal amount of work. It was never great -- nothing done in four hours can be great -- but it sufficed to be able to launch a product.

After about a year, we had clear product momentum, so it was worth investing in a better brand design since we understood our direction and customers at that point well enough to do a good job that we wouldn't have to change later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> $500 for [https://kidisms.com](https://kidisms.com) pricey, but I wanted it for a cute family, and friends side project, and that was less than half of what they started asking. That was all there was to it.

Edit: If any you decide to you use it, and are concerned about archiving of your kid quotes, I'll be adding an export button, so you can dump to JSON easily.

<comment><USER8> Off topic: I had the exact same idea for a site, except a darker version. It was going to be thisfuckingkid.com and would be a collection of quotes, just like your site, but that all had to start with "This fucking kid...". I nearly registered the domain at 3am after a few sleepless hours of bouncing on an exercise ball trying to soothe my daughter when she rewarded/tested my patience by biting me instead of falling asleep.

<comment><USER7> lol, yeh I have about ten different kid quote related domains at this point. I settled on this innocuous one, for now :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We paid a local designer ( Alexis, [http://www.retrieverfamily.com/#/](http://www.retrieverfamily.com/#/) ) for our brand identity at [https://keveo.tv/en/](https://keveo.tv/en/) (we were cheap and didn't pay him for the website, so he's not to blame), about U$ 500 but that's after he gave us a discount.

He worked iteratively, first going through some concepts, then based on our feedback worked and delivered several logo concepts, and a brand identity manual, several versions of the logo (for use in mobile devices, inverted versions, etc...), as well as fonts and a brand manual with.

\- Basic logo use

\- Typography

\- Security area and sizes

\- Color palette

\- Best practices - using the logo correctly and incorrect uses

</comment><comment><USER10> I had an idea for a survival/outdoor/science themed website years ago. Brainstormed some names, found something available and bought [http://www.survivalscout.com](http://www.survivalscout.com) for $13 (and [http://www.srvlsct.com](http://www.srvlsct.com) for another $13). Worth it so far.

<comment><USER11> Awesome resource. Thanks for sharing your work!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not trying to be a jerk here, but: Identity is not something you purchase. Logos and all that are intended to communicate your identity, but your identity is who you are as a company and you cannot really buy that. (If you buy that, what are you? A puppet? A charlatan? I don't know.)

I worked for Aflac for over five years. That was an interesting experience and informs my view of this. I got a lot of insider info on how the company was established, created value, found ways to get market advantages and so forth. I also learned a fair amount of backstory behind their branding with the Aflac duck, the decision making process involved in that and so forth.

So, while designers and what not can play an important role in packaging your identity (aka "branding"), be careful with thinking about this as "buying your identity." That idea might go bad places and that might be part of why some folks here are kind of shooting down the idea of hiring designers and what not. If there isn't really anything to package, a beautiful package doesn't really do much for your business. First, you need a real product or service to offer. After that, you can add great packaging to enhance sales and mindshare and all that.

<comment><USER13> > Not trying to be a jerk here, but: Identity is not something you purchase.

Brand Identity is definitely a defined service offering that is sold by individuals and agencies.

<comment><USER14> You can pay for a stylist to buy your clothes or cut your hair, but it won't change whether or not you are a fashionable person. That's you and your personality and you can't pay for a service to change that. The same is being said of businesses with no substance in which to create identity out of.

<comment><USER12> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is really topical for me as I'm looking for answers to this question too.

As someone in early bootstrapping stages, I want to develop some basic branding (colours, logo, sample applications etc) but I need to be realistic about budget. I'm happy to pay market rate and reduce the scope of what I'm after to to make it affordable.

Does anyone have experience striking the right balance of cost and quality?

<comment><USER16> shop around locally, really investigate with phone calls what you can expect roughly.

I would also help to create an RFP, request for proposal or request for estimate so you outline what you are looking for, what you have, and then see if various contacts bite at all and give a proper estimate or itemization.

You can get a lot of ideas quickly from using the 99 designs type sites. Basically logo farms kind of pull stuff from their reserves and some of them might stick. You'll get plenty of garbage but I doubt you'll say it' was a waste because you'll probably get some great baseline ideas to work from. It's really affordable, though admittedly a bit exploitative. Still it's those group's choices that they want to participate / submit so it's not like you're forcing them to submit. Find a way to pay out so not to be too exploitative, hows that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not exactly what you are asking, but I found a great name/brand that sounds like if it had to be the name of a big corporation. Strangely enough, the .com is registered but not used, and there are no companies using that name.

I tried to contact the owner, but I can't because of Whois privacy.

<comment><USER18> You can!

The anonimized email address must work by ICANN rules, so if it isn't there or working you can report the domain for faulty/incomplete whois data. I suppose reporting to the registrar first would be courteous, or you can go to ICANN directly:

[https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/w...](https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy- form)

"If the registrant knowingly provides inaccurate information, fails to update information within seven days of any change, or does not respond within 15 days to an inquiry about accuracy, the domain name may be suspended or cancelled."

[https://whois.icann.org/en/primer#field- section-3](https://whois.icann.org/en/primer#field-section-3)

<comment><USER17> I just tried to send an email to the "Registrant Mail" and...

 __* ATTENTION __*

This email is being returned to you because the remote server would not or could not accept the message. The registeredsite servers are just reporting to you what happened and are not the source of the problem.

The address which was undeliverable is in the section labeled: "\----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".

The reason your mail is being returned to you is in the section labeled: "\----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".

This section describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered.

Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail administrator.

<comment><USER19> Registrants are required to have a working contact address and reply to, at least, communications from their own registrar in a timely fashion. They don't have to reply to everyone from the general public, but if you got a bounce, that's a good sign the email address is legit dead.

You can file a complaint at

[https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/w...](https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy- form)

and ICANN will follow up with the registrar, who will follow up with the registrant or cancel the registration. I'm pretty sure this is exactly the intended use: a domain squatter can't register a name and disappear completely.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amish Hackers - <AUTHOR> http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/amish_hackers_a.php <comment><USER2> > [...] use a propane powered fork lift with metal wheels (no rubber so you > can't drive it on the road) to cart around stacks of heavy metal as they > manufacture very precise milled metal parts for pneumatic motors and for > kerosene cooking stoves, an Amish favorite.

That is impressive but that is just insanity. I visited an Amish parish in central Ohio. It wasn't just visiting the gift shop. It was a long story but we ended up sharing a meal and spending the day with them. They are great and warm people. Very good food. Women are reserved and never really talked to us much. The place was fascinating in how clean and pristine it was. Now going back to technology -- yeah they are crazy. I don't have any other way to put it.

See I don't mind artificial handicaps. Like say, ok, let's see if I can program a web server in assembler for fun, or use an editor without syntax highlighting with the delete button disables, or spend the weekend without making any left turns. Those can be fun learning experience or just fun things, goofing around.

But, structuring the a whole life around arbitrary restrictions (can use pneumatic tools but not electrical, can use a car but have to paint it black, can't own a car but oh, you can hire a taxi, can own a tractor but has to have metal wheels, can't use electricity for light but can use it for power tools in the shop) I see it more about abuse and control of minds than anything.

This is especially interesting to see if you look at other countries. Countries where there is pervasive poverty . They would love to get their hands on new tractors, electricity, cell phones, better education and I wonder what would they think about these groups of people in a developed country going out of their way to avoid all those things.

<comment><USER3> > But, structuring the a whole life around arbitrary restrictions (can use > pneumatic tools but not electrical, can use a car but have to paint it > black, can't own a car but oh, you can hire a taxi, can own a tractor but > has to have metal wheels, can't use electricity for light but can use it for > power tools in the shop)

Arbitrary? The _entire article_ was about showing the nuances and reasoning for the very things you cite. Electricity is not OK if it's on the grid, because it creates dependencies on the outside world. If you're dismissing the "handicaps" as arbitrary, I fear you've missed the entire point of the article.

And it's never been about handicapping anyway. These people want to be as productive as possible. Do some reading about Mennonites (similar philosophies) in Russia; they were some of the most industrious and cutting edge farmers in the nation. It's always been about preventing harm to the community from new technology, not about deliberately making their work more difficult.

<comment><USER2> > Electricity is not OK if it's on the grid, because it creates dependencies > on the outside world.

So do cell phones, taxi drivers to take your kids to school every morning, and half million dollar computerized precision CNC machines. GMO corn?

> These people want to be as productive as possible.

They are taking regular Chinese mass produced blenders and sticking hand crafted pneumatic motors in them. Or tractors and then cut their tires out and replace with metal wheels. I can't see how that makes them more productive. If anything that makes them less productive, no? Isn't that the other justification for their way of life -- don't become too productive, it will hurt you, and ruin your way of life?

> It's always been about preventing harm to the community from new technology,

Unless preventing harm from technology becomes the main identity and the main occupation of the community then well, one can ask, why have the community?

> Do some reading about Mennonites (similar philosophies) in Russia; they were > some of the most industrious and cutting edge farmers in the nation.

So were many German and Dutch farmers if you talk about the turn of the century and before. At least compared to many British immigrant farmers. I would also agree that in extreme conditions (far north, in Siberia, mountains) technology might not be reliable or as usable and sometimes just using dog sleds or simpler methods can work better.

<comment><USER4> Actually the rationale is simpler: it's more efficient to buy something up front for them and manufacture spare parts. You adapt the items straight away so you know immediately how to repair them, not when a tyre bursts or a motor burns out.

From my readings, one problem they had was engineering large permanent magnets which are usually magnetised using induction which is a bastard off the grid. This pretty knocks motor production on the head. You manufacture compressed air equipment with a lathe/mill easily (I've done it and I'm a shit engineer).

While I think the religious side is batshit (I'm a rampant atheist), the self- sufficiency model is pretty spot on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Thirdly, Amish practices are ultimately driven by religious belief: the > technological, environmental, social, and cultural consequences are > secondary. They often don't have logical reasons for their policies.

I don't think this is fair. Their choice to refrain from certain technologies is religious in nature, of course, but it comes through the filter of not wanting to be distracted by the rest of the world. They do not believe that there is a divine order that leads directly to the seemingly arbitrary list of can-haves and can't-haves, and as far as I know, they don't even believe that their way of life is necessary for salvation or condemn the rest of Christianity.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. As Kevin even admits later in the article, their list of allowed vs. not is determined chiefly by the observed side-effects on already existing relationships, attitudes, etc, which they put high importance on.

<comment><USER5> Yes. Their communities are naturally limited in size (since they meet in their own homes and barns), so they are probably very responsive to the needs of the specific community. On top of that, everything is voluntary, and rule-breaking is handled non-violently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _To fulfill the Amish model we 'd have to get better at relinquishing as a group. Social relinquishing. Not merely a large number (as in a movement) but a giving up that relies on mutual support_

This is interesting. We have regulations (eg smoking bans), boycotts, fashions and individual choices. How fundamentally different from all that is what the Amish do?

Understanding their take on technology requires answering this question. This article raised it, but did it answer it?

<comment><USER8> The article says that relinquishing things is decided by the elders, and the community must follow. This is very different from an individualist society, where things my be encouraged or discouraged, but ultimately the individual decides whether to follow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Makes me think of a talk I had with a German railway security expert. He told me that everything which needs to be absolutely error-proof is air-powered, even in modern-day locomotives. Some even feature mechanical compressor "CPUs" (especially in locomotors which may be at some time be deployed in coal mines and must therefore remain electricity free).

</comment><comment><USER10>
      In their goal to remain off the grid, yet modernize, some
      Amish have installed inverters on their diesel generators
      linked to batteries to provide them with off-grid 110 volts.

110 volts? Interesting. Why use the American standard, if they're not grid- tied? Why not use 220 volts? Do Amish homes have to pass state electrical inspections? You can plug essentially any piece of modern electronics sold in the US into 220 volt mains and it'd work fine.

<comment><USER11> Because powering auto-switching electronics is not their primary use case. Toasters, power tools, lighting, etc., do not auto-switch.

<comment><USER10> Ah, that makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yes, it's all very quaint, except that they're denying their children opportunities in the real world by not having computers around the house. Nobody can leave the community of farmers and woodworkers because they're so dependent on it and they've never known anything else. In particular, I can't imagine how horrible it would be to be an atheist in that community.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its not so much different than living in a city then and denying children the ability to learn to be farmers. it is easier to learn a computer for the first time as an adult than learn how to run a farm. Amish take varying attitudes towards technology like computers. The more progressive Amish now have computers but no Internet access. It is a community that takes a very slow and deliberate approach to technology. They debate how technology will affect society before adoption instead of adopting and seeing what happens.

<comment><USER13> But they are not contributing to technological progress.

<comment><USER14> From the article, it sounds like they're contributing to technological progress in some pretty remarkable ways. Their pneumatic diesel-powered factories sound incredible. They're not necessarily any better than your standard factories, but from an engineering perspective these sound like fascinating research laboratories.

Of course, these research laboratories are churning out a lot of high-quality modern furniture.

<comment><USER13> Pneumatic power tools are nothing new:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_tool](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_tool) "Air tools were formerly unpopular in the DIY market, but are becoming increasingly popular, and have always been ubiquitous in industrial and manufacturing settings."

Its sad that my statement is being down-voted without being refuted in any way.

<comment><USER14> A few things:

> advanced the forefront of technology

This is a loaded phrase which makes some unwarranted assumptions. Are Ikea desks that can be made at 1/5th the cost but last 1/10th as long representative of the forefront of technology? I'd argue when it comes to furniture manufacturing, the Amish actually are at the forefront of technology. The Amish are Apple and Ikea is Sony.

> at least extremely sub-optimal.

This doesn't matter. Laboring under the assumption that tools X, Y, and Z are indispensable makes your average shop much less likely to discover tool Q that does all three jobs at once for a quarter of the effort and practically for free. The best technology often looks like nothing at all because you don't even know it's there.

> Pneumatic power tools are nothing new

Neither are computers. Your entire arguments are based on the unstated assumption that electricity and computers are required to make anything that is on the forefront of technology - this is not true. Electricity and computers are all well and good. There's nothing wrong with specialization.

If you look at things from the "good of scientific progress" perspective, it's a great thing that we have people like the Amish who arbitrarily cut off ties to certain technologies but not others. By necessity, they become the absolute experts at the technologies they keep. To us the better pneumatic drill is worthless, but it's still valid technological progress.

<comment><USER13> >Are Ikea desks that can be made at 1/5th the cost but last 1/10th as long representative of the forefront of technology?

I refuted the example of technological progress being use of pneumatic tools, just look at car manufacturing, they're are an essential tool.

>Your entire arguments are based on the unstated assumption that electricity and computers are required to make anything that is on the forefront of technology.

No, my basic assumption is that education and freedom of thought are required for progress. The Amish have neither.

<comment><USER14> I'm not saying that they're the only people using pneumatic tools out there, I'm saying that they're building new pneumatic tools every day, and some of them probably are pneumatic tools no one has ever built before. That's valuable to society at large if engineers from your car factories are visiting the Amish and swapping ideas.

Yeah, the Amish themselves aren't going to reap any benefits, and they probably aren't going to work as fast as people in a fancy lab, but they're also likely to find some one-in-a-million ideas you would never come up with in a fancy lab.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Was this posted because of the story on NPR earlier today? [http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/217287...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/217287028/amish- community-not-anti-technology-just-more-thoughful)

</comment><comment><USER16> Do they have some kind of list of technology they're allowed to use and which not?

E.g. they seem to be allowed to use the wheel, but would using a rotating wheel of copper wires inside of magnets be allowed if that would output electricity? What if someone completely independently discovers electricity based on the materials and technology they have?

Are inventions allowed? What if they invent a new mechanical way of doing something? Or what if they invent a new combination of herbs that cures certain diseases, would that be allowed?

I'm just interested :)

<comment><USER3> It's not about who discovers the technology. They're completely fine using others' inventions. The main difference is that they live by the motto "just because we _can_ , doesn't mean we _should_."

They treat all new technology with suspicion because they are afraid of the negative impacts it will have on society. And it's not like that's completely unusual...think about how many people, even on HN, bash Facebook for the detrimental impact it has on human interaction. Lots of people have "unplugged" from Facebook. The Amish just take this attitude to the extreme, and make it a community choice, not an individual choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> For those looking for a more recent perspective, from today's NPR broadcast:

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/217287...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/217287028/amish- community-not-anti-technology-just-more-thoughful)

</comment><comment><USER18> isn't this from some book? could have sworn i had read this somewhere, but no credit is given here.

edit/update: ah, ok, so this is from kevin kelly's site, and he's the author of [http://www.kk.org/books/what-technology- wants.php](http://www.kk.org/books/what-technology-wants.php) which contains either this text or something similar. not a bad book.

<comment><AUTHOR> There was a chapter in "What Technology Wants" about the Amish and I believe was written similarly.

<comment><USER18> yeah, thanks, just remembered / updated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Should mention this post is from 2009.</comment>


Searching for a Discount? - <AUTHOR> http://www.squarespace.com/coupons/

<comment><USER2> I've seen a superior pattern employed elsewhere: a "grab code" hyperlink on the label of the promocode's text input that brings up a modal or opens a new tab that promises a 10% (or similar) discount in return for sharing on twitter/facebook etc. It can solve two problems - people looking for promocodes can find that tab instead of websites that show your promocodes while redirecting users to your website with their referral link, AND your website will get a bit of free publicity.

</comment><comment><USER3> Squarespace claims: "You won't find a better deal on any third-party site."

This statement is not true; the current offer code on the Back to Work podcast is for 20% off.

<comment><USER4> And I believe the codes on the TWIT network are not limited to a single term like this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very possibly because of this: [http://venturebeat.com/2013/08/12/the-big- ugly-affiliate-mar...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/08/12/the-big-ugly- affiliate-marketing-scam/)

It doesn't look like squarespace offer an affiliate programme right now, but it seems they did and this is sensible if they'll ever want to again.

</comment><comment><USER6> Probably better advice would be to just get rid of coupon code fields altogether and have special links during sales.

The fields are what trigger most people looking into that in the first place after all

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if this means the end of their affiliate marketing.</comment>


Wealthfront Introduces 2.24% APY Cash Account - <AUTHOR> https://blog.wealthfront.com/introducing-wealthfront-cash-account# <comment><USER2> > The cash balance in the Cash Account is swept to one or more banks (the > "program banks") where it earns a variable rate of interest and is eligible > for FDIC insurance. FDIC insurance is not provided until the funds arrive at > the program banks. FDIC insurance coverage is limited to $250,000 per > qualified customer account per banking institution.

This is the first time I have seen this sort of product. It seems to be a well understood one though. [https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/largebankdim/swee...](https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/largebankdim/sweep- accounts.html)

<comment><USER3> They aren't too uncommon, Fidelity has had one for a while: [https://www.fidelity.com/cash-management/fidelity-cash- manag...](https://www.fidelity.com/cash-management/fidelity-cash-management- account/overview)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How is this not just a straight up advertisement?

<comment><USER5> Seriously, I have a 2.20% rate in my savings account.</comment></comment>


How CRE made SEOmoz $1 million - <AUTHOR> http://www.conversion-rate-experts.com/seomoz-case-study/

<comment><USER2> The best thing about this post was the case-study description of the full, 'first principles', customer development-type approach to landing page optimization including lessons learned from face to face selling, and a handful of very specific surveys and customer conversations. Usually, these kinds of case studies focus on either landing page opt. or customer development, but don't put it all together.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is one of the best content-to-sleeze-ratio posts you will _ever_ see about Internet marketing.

</comment><comment><USER4> My favorite part of the whole sale page (that this article did not point out), was the cutesy little "Warning!" at the bottom that tells people they are absolutely going to be _OVERWHELMED!_ by the amount of tools and features they're going to get...

I actually first noticed this sales technique in one of those late-night fat- loss commercials where the chick starts out by saying "WARNING: Hydroxycut (or whatever) is only for people who need to lose a _serious_ amount of weight and should _not_ be used by average dieters!"... absolutely brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER5> I initially missed it, but the page itself is at <http://www.seomoz.org/pro_landing.php>

<comment><USER6> What is it about these "clickbank"-type self-contained pages that purportedly lure so many to part with their cash? Anyone that have one of these long-ass- single-page-big-bold-font-with-testimonial-blurb pages explain the allure of these things? What is the attraction? Is it the big bold typefaces? Is it the shill-y feeling testimonials? I have to admit, it does stir something non- negative in me to read on, but I just can't quantify or describe what it is I'm feeling. It's kinda like an attractive revulsion to it. Weird.

There's a gotta be a study on the efficacy of these pages, I'm sure; but I bet I'll have to pay $19.95 to read it.

<comment><USER7> One of the biggest keys to the technique is the headlining. If you look at a typical geek blog post or article, you'll get a title, then perhaps a few subheads with paragraphs of text in between.

In these long sales letters, you get perhaps 10-30 different "headlines" all the way through the piece that, on their own, attempt to sell the product. These pieces are ridiculously easy to scan and use either positive, targeted language, keep asking questions (a key tactic), or allude to interesting things within the rest of the content or in the actual product.

Examples from the SEOMoz page:

 _"When eBay, Disney and Marriott need SEO help, here's what they do..."_ (you want to know what that is now, right?)

 _Boost your website's rankings within 30 days–Guaranteed_ (Hmm.. these guys look legit and they're making that claim? They must have something serious going on.)

 _We'll give you the tools you need to quickly boost the website rankings for any website – on demand._ (Speaks for itself. This is one helluva promise.)

 _Every month, ask your burning questions to our team – and get prompt expert replies_ (So even if I don't understand the product, I can ask about it and know these guys are keen to give me a response.)

 _Plus, get these 8 must-have SEOmoz PRO guides—worth over $250_ (A classic _dirimens copulatio_. Learn more about this at <http://www.copyblogger.com/but-wait-theres-more/> \- they've already convinced you the product is cool but now they're piling up the perceived value so they can gently hit you with the price..)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I appreciated the self-referential nature of the page.

1\. We created a web page long enough to tell the story

2\. We infused the headline with curiosity rather than overt "buy me" language

5\. We augmented the message with video

Et cetera.

If it works for SEOmoz and CRE...

Awesome marketing and meta-marketing.

</comment><comment><USER9> And there is a negative option $1 trial, $79 monthly rebill: stay classy SEOmoz.

<comment><USER10> Did you read the article in detail? It's clearly and unambiguously communicated as a $1, one month trial, as a way of offering a minimal risk option to people who might like to try but are unwilling to risk the $80 they charge upfront.

<comment><USER9> Yes. The $1 one month trial is automatically followed (the negative option part) by a monthly $79 charge (the rebill part) unless the user cancels by the 29th day of the trial.

A (usually large) proportion of customers will be confused and unintentionally pay for at least one month of full priced service: perhaps they don't understand they need to cancel before the 30th day, perhaps they forget to cancel, perhaps they try to cancel and fail.

There is a more honest alternative. Amazon Prime requires user input after the trial before their first $79 subscription charge is made. This is called positive option billing.

<comment><USER11> There is absolutely nothing dishonest about clearly communicating to the customer what you're going to do, then doing it. You may run your business differently and wish others did the same, but that doesn't make intro pricing dishonest. This is doubly true when you're marketing to internet marketers.

<comment><USER12> To me, if the intent and main effect are to basically trick people into paying for something they don't really want, it's at least sleazy, if not outright dishonest. There are legitimate uses for trial offers, so it's a bit of a judgment case, and I think depends to a large extent on just how clearly the terms are communicated. In particular, it should be very clear to customers of average sophistication exactly what will be rebilled, and exactly what they need to do to avoid the rebill if they'd like to cancel--- and the cancelling should be easy.

<comment><USER13> I agree. If you genuinely feel that your product is worth the $80/month and that your customer will feel the same way, why not send them a reminder a few days before the trial stops to let them know? Maybe give them a freebie if they continue the membership.

I used to have a subscription to a UK magazine where apparently automatic subscriptions are not legal, so they have to sell you the magazine again, every year. I thought this was great, as opposed to the situation in the Netherlands where you have to cancel at the right time, or else you are stuck with another year. (There are laws in progress to change this, so clearly many people are annoyed by it)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _We of course knew that a $1 offer would boost subscriptions but the real goal was to keep these users active beyond the trial period._

I suspect it didn't work. I just did a search and I got this e-mail back in February 2009. If the $1 idea had worked, I'd expect them to still be running it. (It'd tempt me to upgrade my account, I think. I've considered upgrading to PRO but keep putting it off as $70/mo is a lot for something I might not have the time to tinker with.. I think I need to get a better "live" feel of it to be sold on the tools.)

<comment><USER14> I paid the $70/month and dumped it after a few months. I just wasn't using all the tools to make the cost worth it (an issue of time mostly). And to make matters worse a lot of the tools simply didn't apply to how I sell my services/do my business.

I do know that given the time and investment I could get good value out of the services but for now it's just too much to spend each month it goes under- utilized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This article points out exactly why the "above the fold" debate is an absolute MYTH when you're building a sales page with a specific function.

In my experience length wins out 99% of the time.

<comment><USER16> I've always wondered why almost all(relatively speaking) affiliate marketers use long pages - Sales pages. Now I know why.

<comment><USER15> If you've got a site and want to test a long-page ad, here's a template that works pretty well:

\- Here's what I got: Just say what you have, don't sugar coat or spend a lot of time dancing around.

\- Here's what it will do for you: what problem are you trying to solve?

\- Here's what it did for other people like you: testimonials.

\- Here's what to do next: Just come right out and ASK for the money, tell people what to do. Don't ruin the close.

<comment><USER17> You're implying that it's written in the first person, but you're missing the gif of the entrepreneur character's signature at the bottom right above the paypal button :)

<comment><USER15> LOL - spot on ;-).

What's interesting though is to observe a monster organization like Fool.com leverage this exact same style - it scales, believe me!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have personally interacted with Conversion Rate Experts and they are a fantastic team, solely dedicated to the art of conversion rate optimization. They do their job excellently and as you can see from this post they write great content too!

Really well done, Karl (from CRE) - if you are here on HN, that is.</comment>


Authy Brings Two-Factor Authentication To WordPress Sites - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/31/authy-brings-two-factor-authentication-to-self-hosted-wordpress-sites/

<comment><USER2> If you're thinking about installing this plugin, you might want to hold off for a bit: <https://twitter.com/duosec/status/297054601042096128>

</comment><comment><USER3> Daniel from Authy here. Were a API company, but wanted to allow non-technical folks to also benefit from Two-Factor Authentication, thats why we built this plugin.

Ask me anything.

<comment><USER4> Will it be available on wordpress.com or wpengine? Are you in talks with any of them?

<comment><USER3> We'll reach out to them.</comment></comment></comment>


Wall Street vs Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://blog.zlemma.com/2014/02/04/wall-street-vs-silicon-valley/

<comment><USER2> How many people actually have a net worth > $30 million due to stock options from a Silicon Valley startup? Assuming a billion dollar exit, you would need 3% equity (post dilution) to end up with that net worth, or 5% if you want that net worth after-taxes. The average startup is going to have maybe 2-5 people with that level of equity. There aren't that many billion dollar exits, so my gut is that the total number across all startups in the last 5 years isn't going to be more than about 1000.

I would guess the number of wall street traders with a net worth > $30 million would be higher.

Does anyone know of any real statistics on that?

<comment><USER3> Hard to get any stats on this, but it would be indeed interesting to see. In the valley, there are also quite a few 9-digit exits with 2-digit equity percentages. My gut is that in today's scenario, the Silicon valley count would be higher.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting views. Just to add:

Early on in your career, you get "transferable" skills in both the industries. So, shifting from one industry to another cannot be very costly. So, one can always decide for one self.

But shifting also requires a change in mindset. Wall Street is a lot of money/bonus talk. Silicon valley would not like people who think only about money every day. Silicon valley is less shit work. Wall Street would not want people who do not smell the coffee well. So, the attitude should definitely be checked.

My 2 cents.

<comment><USER3> Yes - the personality element is indeed very important. Wall Street definitely requires a thicker skin. But then Silicon valley cushions people too much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> the depiction of "wall street jobs" isn't very accurate...most people are not wearing many "hats", and quantitative modelers certainly aren't getting coffee for execs. outside of a small trading firm, you're likely to have a specific role as a programmer, quant, or trader. making 500k after a few years is very unlikely, and probably involves as much luck and being in the right place at the right time with the right people as startup options paying off.

<comment><USER3> things are definitely changing in the post-2008 world. Much of what I wrote is colored by my own experience at Goldman 1998-2008. I must say that even today, on the Goldman/Morgan trading desks, people do wear multiple hats and junior traders still get coffee. And the talented ones still ramp up to $1M+ pretty quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here is some interesting stuff that only exist in valley :)

[http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/23-things-that- could-...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/23-things-that-could-only- exist-in-silicon-valley?bftw=)

</comment><comment><USER7> I've always thought the expected value on wall street seems way better. (probability * payout) since the equity in most startups ends up being worth zero.

</comment><comment><USER8> Would like to add another point, about how important is a company's vision/mission to you.

</comment><comment><USER3> It will be interesting to see how this tussle plays out in the next 5 years.

</comment><comment><USER9> It doesn't cover one important aspect though i.e. learning; I think one stops or is forced to stop real learning. Also stress levels is quite high at wall streets compared to valley.

</comment><comment><USER10> Nice Read.</comment>


Walt Disney's MultiPlane Camera (1957) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdHTlUGN1zw <comment><USER2> Old instructional videos so much more informative than today's. They're so simple. Clear narration, simple animations, music is appropriate and minimal. They don't overload our senses in the way modern videography does. It seems to me that everything today is optimized for the highest cognitive load - sort of similar to the "loudness war" in music, but for videos. Popular videos on YT are optimized for clicks and likes and subscribes.

For example, compare Mythbusters first season vs the last. Another example is "The secret life of Machines"; amazing BBC series on how things work.

I love old videography so much. I could watch highly technical instructional videos like this all day without fatigue. Such a great pleasure. Thank for sharing this!

<comment><USER3> If you like old instructional videos and documentaries, the Internet Archive has a bunch of them, particularly in the Prelinger Archives.

Here are a few favorites...

Private Life of a Cat (silent): [https://archive.org/details/PrivateL1947](https://archive.org/details/PrivateL1947)

Back of the Mike: [https://archive.org/details/Backofth1938](https://archive.org/details/Backofth1938)

How a Watch Works: [https://archive.org/details/HowaWatc1949](https://archive.org/details/HowaWatc1949)

Using the Bank: [https://archive.org/details/Usingthe1947](https://archive.org/details/Usingthe1947)

<comment><USER4> One of my favourites is this 1953 explanation of the workings of mechanical analog computers used by the US Navy: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4)

<comment><USER5> I was going to link this. I think we should seriously consider how the skill to produce such clear and didactic explanations to complex concepts has seemingly degraded nowadays.

Specifically I wonder: who was making these videos? how where they trained? where they attached to the different unit or was it a dedicated group that was commissioned by the different units?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you are interested in this or anything Walt Disney, I _strongly_ recommend visiting the Walt Disney Family Museum in the Presidio of San Francisco ([https://waltdisney.org/](https://waltdisney.org/)). It even has an original MultiPlane camera in the gift shop! I also recommend taking the Walk In Walt's Disneyland Footsteps ([https://disneyland.disney.go.com/events- tours/disneyland/wal...](https://disneyland.disney.go.com/events- tours/disneyland/walk-in-walts-disneyland-footsteps/)) guided tour at Disneyland which I just did this weekend and greatly enjoyed.

<comment><USER7> The Walt Disney Family Museum in SF is indeed amazing! Notably, there are many fascinating things to see on the technology behind animated films and the EPCOT concepts.

It is also worth noting that it is run by 501(c)3, not directly affiliated with the Walt Disney company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Camera itself was actually invented by Lotte Reiniger and then improved (and patented) by Disney.

Source (and more about Lotte Reiniger): [https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/the- animation-genius-youve-...](https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/the-animation- genius-youve-probably-never-heard-of/p05t9bsn?playlist=unsung-heroines)

<comment><USER9> That was the predecessor not the multiplane aspect of it with moving layers, definitely inspired it. Lotte mostly just used it to swap out colored backgrounds on her silhouette cel style to adjust placement and color.

 _A predecessor to the multiplane camera was used by Lotte Reiniger for her animated feature The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926). Berthold Bartosch, who worked with Reiniger, used a similar setup in his film L 'Idee (1932)._

Ub Iwerks invented the multiplane camera with movable layers to create parallax and zooming [1] which created immersive depth. It also saved on budgets, tedious background animation and allowed animators to focus more on the character cels, the star of the show.

 _The first multiplane camera, using movable layers of flat artwork before a horizontal camera, was invented by former Walt Disney Studios animator /director Ub Iwerks in 1933, using parts from an old Chevrolet automobile. His multiplane camera was used in a number of the Iwerks Studio's Willie Whopper and Comicolor cartoons of the mid-1930s._

Fleischer Studios (Popeye/Betty Boop) also made one or copied in 1934 [1]

 _The technicians at Fleischer Studios created a distantly related device, called the Stereoptical Camera or Setback, in 1934. Their apparatus used three-dimensional miniature sets built to the scale of the animation artwork. The animation cels were placed within the setup so that various objects could pass in front of and behind them, and the entire scene was shot using a horizontal camera. The Tabletop process was used to create distinctive results in Fleischer 's Betty Boop, Popeye the Sailor, and Color Classics cartoons._

William Garrity took Ub Iwerks invention further and that iteration was used in many large successful movies they made [1]

 _The most famous multiplane camera was invented by William Garity for the Walt Disney Studios to be used in the production of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The camera was completed in early 1937 and tested in a Silly Symphony called The Old Mill, which won the 1937 Academy Award for Animated Short Film. Disney 's multiplane camera, which used up to seven layers of artwork (painted in oils on glass) shot under a vertical and moveable camera, allowed for more sophisticated uses than the Iwerks or Fleischer versions, and was used prominently in Disney films such as Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty and The Jungle Book_

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

<comment><USER10> You said what I came here to say - "this really should be called Ub Iwerks' multiplane camera"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I can only imagine how much work is put into modern 3D animated movies and that it's far from being easy or quick to produce.

On the other side, if I look at the creation process of hand-drawn animation movies and the involved physical man labour, which is so vastly different from labour in front of a computer, that makes it so much more worthy as a memory than any modern animation movie. Or is this simple nostalgia tricking me ?

Regarding that MultiPlane Camera. I never though about the parallax effect in those old movies and just dismissed it with "well they just draw it frame by frame". Watching this was a real eye-opener.

<comment><USER11> The feeling and texture of the stop-motion animation or hand drawn animation is not matched by the computer animation. Since we can feel the materials, labor and the _natural features_ of such animations. As a result, we feel more connected.

Computers are the other hand isolated from us by their very nature. Resolution, details and other things are higher and better, but they are not natural. So it feels more distant from us.

Because of the same reasons I use a mechanical watch, because I can feel the materials, labor and naturalness of the device.

edit: Fixed some grammatical errors.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh yes you're right. The feeling of texture and natural imperfection is a big part of my feelings.

I love to spot the shortly being animated parts of an animation movie. Those parts always show a _slightly different coloring_ so that you know that _something is happening_ soon.

I bet this is coming from the classic layering shown with Mickey at the beginning in the video.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> You have to listen to him no longer than 2 minutes, to realize it doesn't matter how good of a drawer Disney was; first and foremost he wan an engineer!

Just listen how he explains the problem with the Moon, and then goes to explain solution. Clear cut: problem we faced, and solution we applied. That's where genius of people (and financial success) like Mr. Disney comes from.

This guy might have been put in Lockheed's Skunkworks labs with the task to design a solid rocket booster, and he would be just fine.

<comment><USER13> Walt Disney did not invent the multiplane camera personally. He is just the narrator here, probably working from a script. He was a visionary though and understood how technology like this could aid storytelling.

<comment><USER12> I'm pretty sure Jobs wasn't designing PCB boards or touch screens himself; he had whole team of people doing it for him. Very sure Musk wasn't sitting by CAD desktop and draw engines himself, although involved I am sure he didn't engineer it all himself, he had teams of people doing it for him. I think you missed my point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This makes me fonder of the parallax website effects. By that I mean those done for creative purposes suitable to the website content, such as a game or digital art. I don't mean the needless visual distraction of everyday websites trying to look impressive.

I particularly like the side-scrolling forest in this film. Computer generated 3D forests can look great, sure, but missing from the aesthetic of CGI forests is that painterly illustrated look which adds warmth and atmosphere.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is technology that has a clear benefit over the old. The effect that is shown from Bambi is a huge leap forward. Current 3D movie technology has not been as big a leap for me. Whenever I watch a 3D movie I always think that it would have been mostly the same in 2D and it would have been more comfortable to watch the movie without the glasses/headset. The effect of the multiplane camera however lifts the scene to a completely new level without the comfort disadvantages.

Also, this might be one of the best informational videos I have seen in a long time. The ease with which the issues and solutions are explained shows us that the producers of this video understand the domain very well.

<comment><USER16> I watch movies in 2D exclusively, including the big Marvel features. I have watched my fair share of 3D movies, but never noticed it except when the crew went out of their way to include a scene where a sword blade comes very close to the camera for a split-second. I'm not paying extra charge for this. Plus, with 3D, if you're not in the center of the room, you will have weird distortions because the separate images do not match the perspective from your location.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting how none of the workers in the video use gloves to handle cels and glass plates. I would be afraid of leaving visible fingerprints.

<comment><USER14> I noticed that too, but then figured the area being photographed is well and truly inset from the edges, allowing by design the handling of the glass.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Very interesting and well done video.

This made me think of Uridium on the good old C64, for the reason of parallax scrolling.

</comment><comment><USER19> Oddly enough last week I showed this video to my 9 year old daughter who has a passing interest in animation and she understood the technology clearly.

That fact alone means that we have to step up our game in modern technical documentation.

</comment><comment><USER20> I can't imagine how painstaking it is to do every frame through the panning camera backdrop, and the amount of work gone through the planning phase. It definitely seems like Disney invented interesting technologies back then.

<comment><USER21> Nerd me wants to yell, "Walt, drive all the planes with stepper motors and you can record/playback sequences from a computer!"

Or better still, "Digitize all the artwork for each plane and composite them in a computer!"

Seriously though, it is amazing what patience and ingenuity can accomplish.

<comment><USER22> "Walt, are you aware of how much money you can save if you just did some ray tracing? This is crazy."

Seriously, though. Despite having seen this video before, I am glad it is posted again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Now all Magic Leap needs to do is put two of these babies on your face and...

</comment><comment><USER9> Ub Iwerks invented the multiplane camera with movable cameras and parallaxing/zoom [1]

 _The first multiplane camera, using movable layers of flat artwork before a horizontal camera, was invented by former Walt Disney Studios animator /director Ub Iwerks in 1933, using parts from an old Chevrolet automobile. His multiplane camera was used in a number of the Iwerks Studio's Willie Whopper and Comicolor cartoons of the mid-1930s._

Ub Iwerks is the same guy that created/drew Mickey Mouse[2] and Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, two cartoons that got Disney animation going.

 _American animator, cartoonist, character designer, inventor, and special effects technician, who co-created Oswald the Lucky Rabbit and Mickey Mouse. The works Iwerks produced alongside Walt Disney went on to win numerous awards, including multiple Academy Awards_

Iwerks was instrumental in getting Disney started. Walt was the Steve Jobs and Ub was the Woz.

Even though Ub and Walt were best friends, Iwerks pretty much got effed over by Disney and later left to go to MGM to make Flip the Frog [3] and other animations.

It is sad most people don't know Ub Iwerks created Mickey Mouse and parallax via the multiplane camera tech/machine and many other things, nor his impact on animation and animation technology.

Ub Iwerks son, Don Iwerks [4], later worked at Disney and on 20,000 leagues under the sea, and some other neat stuff and is a Disney Legend member. Like his dad he later went to start his own thing in Iwerks Entertainment after 35 years at Disney.

 _In 1954, Iwerks got a camera technician position for the film 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, starring Kirk Douglas and Peter Lorre. He would spend the next 30 years driving film innovations for the Disney company. Notable contributions include the first 360 film techniques, 360-degree camera, and first Circle-Vision 360 film, America the Beautiful, and developing the process for creating seamless live action shots with animated backgrounds._

 _In 1985, after nearly 35 years at Disney, Don left to form his own company called Iwerks Entertainment. Iwerks became a leading developer of special films, special venues, and virtual reality theaters throughout the world._

Ub Iwerks really should get more respect as he created early Disney and it wouldn't have happened without him probably. Typical doer that ended up getting effed over and should be more recognized for the guy that created Mickey Mouse and Disney tech, he just didn't have the business prowess that Walt had.

 _Despite a contract with MGM to distribute his cartoons, and the introduction of a new character named "Flip the Frog", and later "Willie Whopper", the Iwerks Studio was never a major commercial success and failed to rival either Disney or Fleischer Studios._

He did attract the legendary Chuck Jones[5] to work with him though, Chuck went on to create some of the best animation and cartoons ever with WB.

 _Newly-hired animator Fred Kopietz recommended that Iwerks employ a friend from Chouinard Art School, Chuck Jones, who was hired and put to work as a cel washer._

Ub would probably hate what Disney has become but he was instrumental in helping create the magic of the early days.

If Ub was alive today he'd probably be making adult swim/cartoon network type cartoons or stuff like Pixar made pushing tech limits. His granddaughter made the documentary 'The Pixar Story'[6]. The Iwerks family and legacy towards animation/movie tech should be more known, especially Ub.

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

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

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

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

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

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

</comment><comment><USER24> That looks like a lot of work to make a movie, all hand drawn.

<comment><USER25> It's an enormous amount of work.</comment></comment>


Mark Cuban Calls on ISPs to Block P2P - <AUTHOR> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Mark-Cuban-Urges-ISPs-to-Block-P2P-89635

<comment><USER2> <http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/11/23/p2p-part-3/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Mark Cuban made his money on a content distribution network - no wonder he hates p2p.

<comment><USER2> Mark Cuban made his money on irrational exuberance. I wish I could have got in on that.

<comment><USER3> I once got in an email argument with Mark...the guy is crazy. He is the most opinionated, brash, and arrogant person I have ever dealt with.

It worked very well for him though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's super gay. I don't download or distribute P2P content, but still.</comment>


Vidyard (YC S11) serves 1 million videos/day - <AUTHOR> http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/01/vidyard-hires-new-marketing-director-to-continue-growing-past-1m-pageviews-per-day/

<comment><USER2> What on earth is a "MM". I've been seeing this pop up on HN recently as a replacement for M (ie million or mega - they both mean * 10^6).

MM? Does it mean mega million (ie 10^6 * 10^6 = 10^12, otherwise known as a trillion)? If you take the SI system it might be megamoles perhaps?

If someone has a justifiable reason for using MM to represent million, I'd love to hear it.

<comment><USER3> It comes from the financial industry, and means a million. M stands not for million or mega, but for mille, which is Latin for a thousand. So it is in fact 1000*1000 = 1,000,000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> They have mentioned only youtube on home page. If they do not have integration with vimeo, I won't call it good because Vimeo is being used lot more for commercial purposes. May be for their easier terms and conditions. .........That's where analysis will be more required. Youtube and Dailymotion already have good analyitics information. <http://syncfin.com/youtube-vimeo- dailymotion/>

</comment><comment><USER5> I keep my eye out for Vidyard video's around the web, but the lack of branding makes it hard to tell where it's from. But I guess that's the point.

Congratulations on the milestone.</comment>


Why is cycling so popular in the Netherlands? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23587916 <comment><USER2> There is only one, and one reason: their country is flat.

A lot of Dutch people come on vacations in Walloon (french speaking part of Belgium) and they never ever can be seen riding a bike because our hilly landscape make it a tiresome activities. Even for inner-city short distance trip.

This reflects in the technological development of their bike: heavy frame, few gears, additional front basket while every teen here rides mountain bike made of carbon fibre, 21 gears at least and state of the art front shock absorbing mechanism. I am only slightly exaggerating. And jealous.

<comment><USER3> If you think so, it means the author did not emphasize enough that cycling is a life-style and a voluntary effort from the Dutch. There are many flat and dense cities with much less bikes, think New-York, but the Dutch seem to have decided together some time ago that biking was cool and cars not.

They were just in advance. Right now the top-du-top of the "bo-bo" chic in Paris is to not own a car. It means using the bike renting service (velib) and renting a car when you go outside.

Oh, and as I live in Beijing, I can tell you how much I would love the Chinese to take early this bike-turn: they have plenty of them, and many Chinese cities are flat. It's just that for most people in China riding a bike is sign of the past, poor and hungry China, while driving a German multi-ton mammoth is a sign of the future.

<comment><USER4> I think don't think many New Yorkers love cars. And they have just started a new bike share scheme, so hopefully things will change.

And Parisians still love there cars, which is damn ridiculous. If one city needs to take action, it is Paris. Far too many cars, so many they can park anywhere and not get in any trouble. Awful narrow streets, and badly designed as well. One way streets heading into each other. They have the Velib, but most people I know are just too scared to use it. I do, and I have no problem with cars, but I have ridden among cars since I was a kid. Even on a beautiful sunny day, as we have had the last few weeks, people would rather take the underground. They need to take some clues from London, introduce a congestion charge, lots more bike lines. But they will not. Paris would have been a nightmare if it had the olympics instead of London.

<comment><USER5> I've been told that cycling in Paris is a lot safer than in London.

<comment><USER6> That's because they drive on the left in London!

<comment><USER7> But they're phasing in driving on the right in the UK -- first all the lorries, then once everyone gets used to that, the rest of the cars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Gas is expensive, land is flat, weather is nice...all true, but then again, the same could be said about Paris, Barcelona, Milan, etc. The most important factor is that they accommodated them.

Cities should always accommodate the lowest common denominators of society first and foremost (starting with pedestrians), and then progressively accommodate more, but never more at the expense of those that came before. It is very difficult to harm pedestrian activity with public transportation and bicycles.

When it comes to cars, the picture changes drastically: people clamoring for free parking are implicitly raising the price of housing for people that do not drive. Wide boulevards and high speed freeways divide cities geographically, increase noise to the point of hindering inhabitability (also increases housing costs), and inhibit movement (which essentially limits trade in the same way that national borders do). Accommodating their preferences for traffic light timing drastically increases walk times for pedestrians. And their speed preferences and right-of-way preferences increase death risks.

That isn't to say that cities shouldn't accommodate cars. They should just stop doing it at the expense of pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation users.

<comment><USER9> > weather is nice

People keep saying this all over the thread but it rains so damn much in Amsterdam! The Dutch don't seem to mind, throw on some rain gear and bike 10km to work. Almost no one does that in the US, I think it's just a big expression of cultural differences.

<comment><USER10> Rain is not a problem - temperature is. In Poland we get two completely opposite extremes. Today it was 40C outside and I can't imagine biking anywhere, and in winter it can go as low as -30C. Again, almost impossible to bike. It leaves you with a few months when biking to work is a reasonable to choice. In the UK though, I could bike to work every single day of the year, because it's never too cold or too hot to cycle. I imagine that the Netherlands are similar.

<comment><USER11> You do realize that we just got past the heatwave here, and we also got quite low temperatures in December? The Polish winter is a bit harsher, but not that much.

I am _from_ Warsaw, and biked there, and the difference in infrastructure quality and planner priorities is huge. I mean, people still think it's a good idea to build elevated highways in the cities there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> barry-cotter 1\. Because they're very serious about making it easy and convenient.

2\. Because the Netherlands are very, very flat and densely populated.

3\. Because cycling is completely normal

<comment><USER6> 4\. Because it's often faster for short distances

In the city I used to live (Eindhoven), I often had the situation that trips were shorter by bicycle than by car. This happened especially when I had to move around the city center, where they have many one-way streets (one-way for cars only) and many red lights (you don't always have to respect those when on the bicycle).

It sucks though when it's around between 1 and 5 degrees Celsius and it's raining...

<comment><USER4> > Because it's often faster for short distances

Every city I have lived in this has been true, cities in the UK, Europe, US and Australia, lots of distance are a lot faster, when you don't have to worry about finding your car, getting through traffic, and then finding a park.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> By far the most important factor is that it's flat and population density is high (meaning most bike trips aren't necessarily very far).

An out of shape person riding a bike a few kilometers over very flat terrain is fairly easy, even with a crappy bike. Throw in more hills or longer distances and things change dramatically. Even a single small hill or overpass on a bike journey changes the amount of effort needed by a huge margin and increases the fitness minimum that would result in that journey feeling comfortable.

<comment><USER13> Outside the cities people still cycle. It is no uncommon for highschool students in the country to cycle over 10 km to and from school (for some up to 20 or 30 km), do the same to meet friends after school, to go clubbing, to go to parties, to go to do things and so on. In the Netherlands there is no such thing as a school bus. There is no driving a car without an expensive and difficult licence after you're 18 years.

And the flatness has a downside too: strong headwinds, always it seems. Certainly, it is easier than riding over hills or mountains, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it ain't all roses and sunshine either.

Then again, my fitness when I was young was great. Heck, I don't think I've ever seen one of my schoolmates fail the Cooper test during physical education class unless sick or disabled somehow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've lived in Amsterdam since 1997 – since I was 6, so I'd like to voice my opinion as I do not completely agree with everything that has been written in the article.

> _If you chain your bike in the wrong place you could find that it is removed > and impounded, and that you will have to hand over 25 euros to get it back._

Unless it says that you _can 't_ lock up your bike in the area, you pretty much can. I have never heard or experienced anyone's bike being impounded for chaining it up to a pole or post that is not officially "a designated area to chain your bike."

> _In that kind of relationship it is longevity that counts - so the older, > the better. It 's not uncommon to hear a bike coming up behind you with the > mudguard rattling against the wheel. If anything, having a tatty, battered > old bike affords more status as it attests to a long and lasting love._

Wrong. Cheap bikes are just that, cheap. That means that when your bike is stolen it's not as painful. It also means that buying one…is cheap (I'm repeating myself, I know). If you're going to get a bike for 20-50 EUR don't expect it to be some kind of fancy machine. There's no love affair with bicycles, it's simply a matter of utility.

> _Of course, the cycle paths lend themselves to sauntering along in summer > dresses in a way a death-defying, white-knuckle ride in rush-hour traffic > does not. It is also partly because of this that people don 't need showers > at work to be able to commute by bike - it's a no-sweat experience._

I know PLENTY of people who sweat on their bikes and who constantly carry around deodorant. I sweat like hell on a bicycle because I own a mountain bike. Especially with a backpack on it's a sweaty ride. Maybe it's also because I _hate_ riding at a moderate pace. I'm constantly pushing my bike. Then again, I don't ride my bike every single day.

> _The fact that everyone cycles, or knows someone who does, means that > drivers are more sympathetic to cyclists when they have to share space on > the roads._ > _In turn, the cyclists are expected to respect and obey the > rules of the road. You may be fined for riding recklessly, in the wrong > place or jumping red lights._

Lol that is if the cops are around. People who drive cars are annoyed and afraid of cyclists because if anything were to happen, the driver would be at fault. When I was getting my driver's license my instructor kept telling me that I should never let a cyclist pass if I have the right of way. Cyclists are arrogant in this regard, I've been on both sides of the table (road?) and I can tell you that when you're on a bike, you know the cars are going to be careful around you because if anything happens, it's usually their fault. Running red lights or engaging in risky maneuvers happens all the time.

What strikes me as odd is that this article doesn't mention one of the most important reasons for cycling within cities: It's not attractive to own a car. Owning a car is expensive. Gas is expensive. It's almost impossible to park and maneuvering around the city center is very very difficult.

Have a look: [http://goo.gl/maps/wRRoZ](http://goo.gl/maps/wRRoZ) . It takes skill to drive around the canals, _especially_ with the cyclists and scooters buzzing around you.

<comment><USER4> The guy who wrote this article does not sound like a cyclist at all, where as you do.

The real question is why are bicycles not popular in more places. In Australia especially, wide roads, the cities are not that big, the weather is mostly nice, and so few people cycle.

<comment><USER15> I think the biggest reason is the lack of good safe bike paths and infrastructure most places. As someone (in the US) who bikes nearly every day as my primary form of transportation I'm quick to admit that bike commuting is dangerous. I love it, but it requires constant vigilance and careful attention not to get hit by a car or a door (and I live in Portland which is much more bike friendly than most US cities). Bikers frequently share lanes with fast moving cars and it's very common for bike lanes to end unexpectedly, leaving the cyclist in a dangerous spot.

I'm willing to accept these risks, but for most people it's not worth it. My wife also enjoys biking, but hates to ride on busy streets for fear of ending up on the wrong end of a distracted motorist. This limits her options to weekend pleasure rides on dedicated bike paths.

The trick to getting more people to cycle is to invest heavily in bike path infrastructure so that more people will feel safe using it as a primary form of transportation.

<comment><USER16> For zillions of examples what investing in infrastructure means, see [http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com](http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com)

Road redesign: [http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/making-a-1960s-...](http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/making-a-1960s-street- grid-fit-for-the-21st-century/)

Parking facilities: [http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/modern- indoor-b...](http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/modern-indoor- bicycle-parking-facilities/) (and, in a few years time: [http://www.bouwpututrecht.nl/bu/2013/06/21/largest- bicycle-p...](http://www.bouwpututrecht.nl/bu/2013/06/21/largest-bicycle- parking/))

[http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/amsterdam- cycli...](http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/amsterdam-cycling-in- the-1950s/) shows that things have been even better, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This was actually filmed for Newsnight last night, it was quite interesting. Mostly it was in the context of 'why is cycling so popular and great in the Netherlands and what can we do to get people cycling in the UK', but it felt like it ignored a whole host of social factors that'll make it difficult in the UK.

Potentially, we could have had a similar experience to the Dutch however during the 70s/80s the car was raised to be as important as house ownership (there's some specific quote from a member of the Conservative government to that effect, but I cannot for the life of me remember it). Cars are massively important in British life, the roads have been designed specifically for them, traffic lights (new ones) are designed more for drivers than pedestrians. The car lobby is _huge_ , there was a guy from the Association of British Drivers who basically said 'why would anyone cycle, it's one of the most risky occupations you can undertake, you should have a car'.

It's nice to see how well organised the Netherlands is (despite what I'm sure are many flaws in the system), but it'll take another oil crisis to shake British love for cycling.

As a postscript, I've just started cycling part of my commute recently (9 mile round trip), and whilst cycling in Britain is definitely doable, it's scary how close some drivers get to you at times. I think it's a lack of respect of the distances, and a little blindness to anything outside of your bubble rather than malicious intent, but I can't imagine any parent being happy about sending their teenagers out on the roads.

<comment><USER18> I also cycle my commute. When I used to cycle to the old office this was 14 mile commute on a variety of surfaces. When I initially rode on the road I would gutter crawl; cars would pass real close.

Then I read a few tips on cycling safer and realised that my gutter crawling was actually very dangerous as cars will try to squeeze past to overtake. I don't know how confident you are but for me, riding a third into the lane at all times has improved my safety as cars will now only overtake if they have a ton of room and they'll always go way over into the other lane to do it. I will also take the full lane if I feel I need to. I essentially just needed to be more confident. YMMV

<comment><USER17> I've actually started moving further out and establishing my area on the road, and it has helped, but I'll often have to slow down and move in. Without typecasting it's often people in 4x4's (Range Rovers, X5s etc), I don't believe it's always down to the person driving it being, well, an asshat but due to the size of the vehicle changing your perspective.

Thankfully a lot of my commute is on cycle paths, but the quality level of road surfaces is some what variable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> 1\. Because car tax is between 300 and 1800 euros a year, with a few exceptions (some "green" cars are exempt).

2\. Because new (and imported 2nd hand) cars have an extra sales tax applied, which can be up to 40% of the price.

Coming from the UK, the price of driving was the biggest culture shock.

<comment><USER20> Ireland also has a high car tax (of about the same rate as you mention for NL), but has similar driving/cycling culture as the UK.

<comment><USER21> Having cycled for years here, I would rather pay for a car than continue to put my life at risk, neither are many Irish towns as flat as Netherlands

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's arguably a sign of larger happiness: [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/06/17/danish- happine...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/06/17/danish-happiness- bicycle-infrastructure), or at least that's one reading from American Philip Greenspun.

See also his post on "Danish Happiness" and its relation to relatively low material needs, at least by American standards: [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/06/18/the-secret- to-...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/06/18/the-secret-to-danish- happiness/)

</comment><comment><USER23> I lived in Breda, The Netherlands for a month several years ago. I agree completely with the article: its a matter of both culture and safety. There are dedicated bike path lanes--fully separated from the roadways. Moreover, both cyclists and drivers alike follow the law.

Compared to New York City, where I live now, it's the exact opposite. Bike lanes, in the few places they exist, are rarely anything more than a faded paint line on the road. Very few people (pedestrians, cyclists, or drivers) follow the rules of the road. Even as a twentysomething male--presumable predisposed to a higher degree of risk--riding a bike in NYC seems downright reckless.

A contributing factor to its dangerousness may be the city's density; you have trucks at all hours dropping off newspaper deliveries, Amazon.com packages, FreshDirect orders, and so on. These may be some of the worst offenders--not necessarily because of the drivers but also how the vehicles lack visibility.

Some recent examples: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/nyregion/6-year-old- fatall...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/nyregion/6-year-old-fatally-hit- by-truck-in-east-harlem.html) [http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/bicyclists- fami...](http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/bicyclists-family- criticizes-police-handling-of-fatal-accident/)

<comment><USER24> I find biking in NYC pretty calm as long as I'm not running red lights. To me it feels safer than biking in San Francisco did. There is a significant set of protected bike lanes and there are a fair amount of bikers on the road. Drivers not signaling is certainly a problem and it is important to not follow traffic laws when it's safer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's the synergy of all pieces that exist. Their population is healthier (in part because of cycling, and quality food, and good healthcare, education, etc), so cycling is a fun and useful activity. They have the city planning designs for cycling lanes that are safe, make you feel safe. And yeah, other incentives and de-incentives applied to driving.

</comment><comment><USER26> Because its weather isn't oppressively hot like the Gulf Coast? (I bike to/from work, and live on the Gulf Coast. Fortunately it is only a couple hundred meters.)

<comment><USER27> Second. I live in Houston, and my commute is 3.5 miles each way. If the sun is up and you're outside, you are sweating. Doesn't matter how slow of a jaunt it is.

For those not familiar with summer near the Gulf, the high the past week has been consistently 95-100 F, with relative humidity ranging from 40% to 90%.

<comment><USER28> Thirding the Houston biking club (we should grab beers sometime!).

The nice thing about moving here is that everything is flat, the roads are fun if you have a mountain bike, and you know that everyone else outside (walking, biking, or driving) is as sweaty and gross as you are.

It's the great equalizer.

<comment><USER26> Good idea. But I'm a little further down the coast from y'all.

<comment><USER28> Well if you're ever in town... :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's not about the flatness or the distances or the weather, it's about the culture.

I can't count how many times I have been called a fag, or a loser, or have been engulfed in a cloud of black smoke from a diesel pick up truck, or have been physically threatened by the driver to make a point that I don't belong on the road. I live in Colorado, but it could be a lot worse.

See [http://www.reddit.com/r/lowcar/comments/1i0dzx/the_sacred_ra...](http://www.reddit.com/r/lowcar/comments/1i0dzx/the_sacred_rac/)

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm writing from Oulu in Finland and we are considered to be a cycling town. The reason why it is so popular is simple. Walking paths double as cycle paths and this works because they are as wide as a car lane. The other reason is because Oulu is designed in such a way where most of the residents live in apartment blocks -- all within cycling distance to the town centre. Most workplaces are also located around town.

<comment><USER31> Turku here, which is also considered to be a cycling town. I was really shocked to see Finland placed fourth on the list of bike friendly countries. I'll admit that most bike lanes on the countryside are great but the bike lanes in cities are generally not safe to ride on. Both pedestrians and drivers have no idea that they should take bikes into consideration when moving around. Most bike lanes are poorly marked and are blocked by bus stops, dooring areas, stopped cars, pedestrians, snow dumps and dead ends. There's no consistency and impossible to follow all the rules and not get killed if you bike as your primary transportation.

Ranking countries in terms of cycling friendliness is also kinda misleading as countries are on completely different levels. The Netherlands and Denmark are leaps and bounds ahead of Sweden, Sweden is leaps and bounds ahead of Finland.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I live in Austria and cycling is very popular here. E.g. I use my bike everyday often multiple times it's the preferred transportation unit and I do not have to own a car and can reach every part of the city and all the things I need in 30m.

There is just no need for a car here. If I want to get further away I can use an excellent (although, admittedly rather expensive) public transport system.

</comment><comment><USER33> Obviously, because they live in flatland.

In Spain I lived in Granada, Oviedo and Gijón(north), Madrid(center) and Alicante, all of them near big mountains.

Every single time I took my bicycle, and I love it, I will have to go up or down 200, 400meters. I log it with the GPS.

Electrical bikes improve the issue, but it will take time until they are cheap.

</comment><comment><USER34> It surprised me that Slovakia is among 10 most cyclist friendly countries. There's almost no infrastructure like bike lanes or bike stands and the country itself is mostly mountainous. Strange.

</comment><comment><USER35> As a dutch person, i want to correct some of the arguments made.

Bikes are popular in _old cities_, and _with kids_, but adults living in suburbia will drive and use a car for everything, just like an american in sururbia would.

In old cities, they are the best form factor. And if Holland weren't flat, we would all be driving scooters (like they do in Rome, Paris or Greece). It's the form factor that works best in old cities, because the roads are simply _too small_ and the population density is _too high_. Cars are for moving furniture and deliveries in old cities, not for navigation. I live in Utrecht where you would sometimes have to navigate around the city for 30 minutes to reach a place you could walk to in 2 minutes. Then you pay 3 to 7 euro's an hour to park your car, after looking for 10 minutes to find a free spot. It's a hellish experience, you will only opt-in to, if you really need to.

Secondly, we raise our kids with freedom and independence, and that starts with trust. That means, between the age of 5 and 10, your child will start navigating to and from school, their sports club and friends, by themselves, using their bike. And yes, we were doing this for decades before mobile phones even existed. If your child was late out of school, you would generally just assume they were with a friend, or working on a school project. And most of these kids live in suburbia. The reason few people choose to raise kids in the city, is exactly because you can't allow them to navigate freely: you would be more inclined to escort them.

Now, suddenly, its clear just why these bike paths are so safe. Our children are riding there: unsupervised. They are not just safe in terms of traffic, but also safe in social terms. The paths are always in the view of shops and houses and other traffic. They aggressively clear bushes and dark corners. So people can keep an eye out on the kids.

And getting a driver's licence is much harder in Holland. You would have to be at least 18 years old, pass about three exams and spend hundreds of euro's, and the legal amount of alcohol in your blood until you are 21, is 0,000000000% If you make a big mistake, you'll loose the right to even apply for a new licence until you are 21.

So bikes are used in old cities, because those city planners didn't know cars were going to be invented the next century, and they are used by pretty much all of the youth in Holland, everywhere.

The american style, of navigating your child from your prison home, using your prison family car, to the prison school, is not the dutch approach to raising children. People that drive their kids to school get a serious talking to, and schools are often in fuck-off-cars neighborhoods, optimized for child safety and free exploration. Places where cars shouldn't be going faster than 15 km/h, and where all kinds of obstructions are placed to slow them down.

It's not about health. It's not about having a pro-bike culture. It's about what's a usefull form factor, and how do we raise our kids.

</comment><comment><USER21> hmm let me see, one reason would be is petrol is at €1.90/liter

thats about 2.5x to 3x more than in US

<comment><USER36> That probably helps, but most of Europe has relatively high gas prices, and yet the popularity of biking as a method of daily transport varies widely between countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Because it's so flat and tiny.</comment>