Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamess | Hacker News Reader

This is exactly what I was thinking today. I've spent the last couple of weeks implementing TLS (This is the second time I've had to do this now, it's endless fun) and this time I'm sort of "cheating", because the platform I'm writing for already has high quality ASN.1, crypto and X.509 libraries and enough of PKCS#1 that I scarely have to lift a finger.

Web programming is horrifically dull scut work to my mind, I'd far sooner be writing the heavy lifting in the back end.

View on HN

Web programming is only boring because companies have been focussing on using the newer frameworks and tools to reduce the amount of time it takes to develop typical projects instead of setting loftier goals to use them to develop bigger, better, things. We should be building cathedrals, but instead a lot of people/companies are focussing on churning out the same old brick building; only faster and cheaper with a better paint job.

That's an interesting idea - what are examples of things you would consider a cathedral? I get the sense that what you're getting at might not just be a failure of ambition but a failure of imagination.

One idea in general, is jumping out of the browser, and not in the Silverlight/Apollo way. It's important that we begin thinking of the Internet in more abstract ways instead of the current primarily visual experience. We've reached a point where a lot of objects we deal with on a daily basis are augmented by computers (e.g., our cars). We're on the cusp of these devices and many more being augmented by the Internet. What does it mean for my fridge, book shelf, or weight-lifting equipment to have Internet access? Questions like this have been left in the domain of so-called futurists or academics. But I think it's time for industry to start taking these seriously. The technology is here.

The problem with that is that while there are millions of computers that can connect to the internet, hardly any cars/fridges/whatever can do that right now. The technology is there, but not widespread. So as a young startup trying to get attention, the millions of potential users from traditional computers pulls much more strongly than a few thousand internet ready fridges.

Is it ever good for a startup to anticipate the future, or should they try to surf the wave?

Of the successful startups I can think of off the top of my head, few - if any - were first to market. Especially with new technologies being riskier and more expensive, it seems the wisest thing for a cash-strapped startup is to stick with whats popular. Though avoiding risk is probably not a common trait among tech entrepreneurs.

I guess if I want to be cutting edge I have to either be academia or military, huh?

Actually my local YMCA does have Internet-connected weight lifting equipment.

Interesting. When I listed the examples, I wanted to choose things that were probably in prototype somewhere but maybe not in widespread use. Can you tell me about that equipment? I'm genuinely interested and my Google queries didn't bring up much.

http://www.fitlinxx.com/ http://www.expresso.com/

A fridge should: know its foodstuff contents, recommend recipes based on user profiles, order food JIT using Amazon Grocery et al. A car needs wifi, should connect automatically to open channels and service user profiles; if there are n passengers, the car should help triangulate which media to play; if n profiles indicate it's lunchtime, the car should pull from Google (or its cache) suggestions for restaurants and directions. I can navigate Leopard by voice so why not keep a subset of its tools in my car, connected to open wifi and myriad API? People often have questions when they're driving: why not establish a Mechanical Turk presence, to augment onroad decisions? Exciting times ahead.

Agree. although you do feel a bit removed from the satisfaction of people using your stuff directly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com