Commercial freedom
37signals.com
37signals.com
He works in advertising and felt moderately disingenuous about advising young people to go into a traditional ad agency.
There has never been a better, more stable time to start a business for most of the people in the western world. The internet has absolutely equalised just about every market you can think of. Fixed costs are a thing of the past; seed capital is plentiful (although there are the same number of top and second tier VCs, in Europe at least); being young is no longer a barrier to entry but a competitive advantage; there have been enough radically disruptive technologies in the last 30 years that it's pretty easy to convince seed investors to jump on board; we're living in a period where a lot of the world that was in poverty in the last four or five decades is coming out of poverty; middle classes are expanding all over the planet; with accessible languages like Rails and accessible architecture like Heroku it's a piece of piss to build and deploy a prototype…
The list goes on and on for me. The major barrier to entry for creating things rather than working in corporations is the type of personality people have. I see two types of people coming out of universities in Europe: people who see problems and bitch, and people who see problems and have solutions to them. (As an aside, I follow the hashtag #firstworldproblem on Twitter because first world problems are very often the basis of a great product or service.)
If you're a smart person working in a 9-5 then you're missing the biggest opportunity to do something fantastic, whether successful or not, that there has ever been. Forget the industrial revolution, or the early days of the internet. Now is the time to be building cool shit and telling people about it.
Rare for me to agree with DHH but on this topic I really do.
I think that is related to one of the fundamental mindset shifts you have to go through, and it is a bit of a wrenching one: success is now successfully identifying and exploiting features of reality, such as project feasibility and customer demand, rather than adapting oneself to match the exact published criteria of the decisionmaker who can grant success. (pg has a much better phrase for this in the wealth essay: "wealth does not come from Daddy.")
People flogging that dead horse fail to realize that a word has many meanings, not always compatible with it's original or primary meaning ("sad gay people", do exist, for example).
If they have looked into a recent dictionary, e.g dictionary.com, they would have read, for example:
lit·er·al·ly [lit-er-uh-lee] adverb (...) 4.in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.
Emphasis mine.
There's even a usage note:
Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration".
"c. colloq. Used to indicate that some (freq. conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly, absolutely’. Now one of the most common uses, although often considered irregular in standard English since it reverses the original sense of literally (‘not figuratively or metaphorically’)."
Which is followed by examples dating back to 1769.
I often think about how extraordinarily lucky I am to be living through this technological boom. Computation, automation and mass-communication will continue to transform human society even more for decades. High-end software development skills will become even more scarce. Immersing yourself in the boom by running a software shop with a bunch of good friends - the best of times!
Earlier tonight I was talking to someone about how odd it seems to me that software startups normally aim to operate at a loss. Perhaps I am a romantic, but I like the idea of a business making a good profit. Especially when dealing with something as lucrative as software, a business should be profitable from day one. I have always regarded David and Jason highly for having a similar attitude.
It's not obvious to me. Can you explain your reasoning?
My first premise is that we are still in a relatively early stage of the technological boom signified by things like electronics, computers, robotics and the internet. These technologies have changed life on Earth dramatically, but I think there is at least as much to come. In any case, for the next two or three decades, more and more aspects of life will be the object of automation, computation etc. So the demand for software development will continue to increase, and probably by a lot. Software will become an even greater part of the economy and continue to crowd out other types of business.
My second premise is that only a small percentage of the population have the talent and inclination to become very good programmers, and children with these traits often do not get proper encouragement and guidance. So from the beginning, it is very hard for society to produce a large number of programmers. More importantly, the ratio of people who can become good programmers is probably more or less a constant, while the need for software development will grow much faster.
I also see reasons to believe that we are getting worse at producing programmers. For example, software is become more mature, hiding more and more of the internals. I started programming at age seven, in the eighties. In local stores I could buy glossy magazines with articles about programming, often with entire programs that I could copy into Basic etc. For sure, there is the internet now, but what kind of programming culture for kids is there? I could pick my first computer apart and learn all about how it worked. The kids these days learn to use iPads long before they learn to speak, but they never get to see what's inside. Who knows where this will lead? We already know that a lot of graybeards are retiring and they are often impossible to replace since the current generation of programmers is not nearly as hard-core.
If programming were painting, it's probably easier to become a housepainter now, but the percentage of Picassos is probably the same.
Things like the Raspberry Pi is great for reaching the nerdy clique, but I agree that the latter does not seem to be growing. On the other hand, I hear autism rates are way up in the valley - perhaps we can increase the size of the clique by selective breeding? =)
They're going to become more scarce because computing is being used in more and more places. The demand for developers is increasing - not decreasing - and I don't see any change in that in the next decade minimum.
Yes there are more folk coming into the field. Yes there are more places where smart code is letting people do more with less. Despite that I think it's harder now to find good developers than it was ten years back because the spaces where you need developers us growing stupidly fast.
Contracting?
Glad to be a "just a programmer" right about now.
Today you don't need a programmer to setup your online website with a store attached to it (and that could be 100% of your business), imagine what you will be able to achieve in a couple of years by yourself.
I do have a bit of a biased perspective though, instead of looking for a non programming solution I just jump into the code an make it work the way I want. It is amazing sometimes to see what tools people have cobbled together on a website to get away without programming knowledge.
This is the difficult part, in my opinion.
Sure, "Ideas are all around us" but finding one that people will genuinely pay for, in a market big enough to be profitable yet not already saturated with high quality competitors, is very difficult.
However, if you know anyone in an industry other than software development, this can be a great source of ideas. Just ask a few questions about what their day to day job responsibilities entail. Then sit back and let them talk. I find that most people pretty quickly start talking about the pain points. Some of those pain points are likely to be something that people would pay to solve. Plus you give your friend/family member/acquaintance a chance to vent which they probably appreciate as well.
Like many things in starting a business, what "sounds" simple is in fact pretty difficult.
Learning to ask the right questions is also difficult in just figuring out the needs of your "acquaintances/friends."
If you can find just one small annoyance factor, and ask a secondary question just a little bit deeper, then a little bit deeper, then a little bit deeper, you may hit a wall of "I don't know," and that could be a potential solution.
Like regular conversation, questions tend to tree from one another.
So in SV a lot of people abandon these kind of ideas because majority of VCs and incubators will not invest into these ideas. So young entrepreneurs ends up chasing non-profitable "get eyeballs" first think about profit latter ideas.
And, no - market is not saturated with high quality competitors - for example, you can make Basecamp for "industry X" (i.e. teachers?, doctors?) you will make money to live quite comfortable.
For certain definitions of startup. NB if you ask a VC what they'd call a startup, it's in their interests to funnel you into thinking startups only ever go through VCs, go for growth rather than profit, and must end in an exit event (IPO or sale to another SV company). If you choose to accept that definition, you are limiting your choices dramatically.
If not being a startup can be a very good business, why not try it out? What have you got to lose? Not much. What have you got to gain? Valuable experience, and maybe some profits. Most startups actually began as just very good businesses (very small in scale), and take years to grow to something more substantial, changing along the way.
So in SV a lot of people abandon these kind of ideas because majority of VCs and incubators will not invest into these ideas.
37 signals (for example) is a successful company which many would call a startup (at least in their early days), but was not funded by VCs or incubators. That's not the only way to start or grow a company.
> you can make Basecamp for "industry X"
Every few decades there is some revolution, but there is very rarely one that is as revolutionary as the one we are living in now.
The argument can be made that the shipping container did something similar (with respect to distribution) that the internet is now doing - but that's only half of the equation.
The other half is building the product. Before the internet, sure you could find a public library near you and hope they have the right information (for you) that will help you learn the skills needed to build the product you want from scratch.
Now, everybody has access to not just the right information, but the best information - and it just gets better every day.
It's like having the library of congress at your street corner, no matter where you live, 100 years ago.
It is unprecedented how much we can do right now, how many people we can reach, and how much of an impact a single person can have with such few resources.
This is why I love economic progress. Without 'economic growth', we would have never reached here. People don't get that economic growth is synonymous with advancement. If we don't grow, we can't advance - and if we don't advance we can't grow.
I don't get why people would advocate not focusing on growth. If we don't grow, we die - if only for the fact that population growth is not slowing.
But also for the fact that in order to push civilization forward, we have to grow which creates the environment for these types of disruptions.
We're incredibly lucky to live in this time and build stuff with minimal hassle.
They still are getting their cut!
If bitcoin is going to change that, it is also going to create opportunity!
IANAL, I don't know why my mind jumps to such things... I doubt any website's been prosecuted for not having some kind of country blocklist.
Also, a trade sanction is sometimes limited to certain types of trade.
And about your career counseling, I'd rather have DHH building niche web software with nice UI than have him build life supporting medical equipment.
You could propose him a venture on life supporting devices and see what he tells you.
There's a (tiny) chance he hasn't gotten into life supporting devices because the opportunity hasn't shown itself. On the other hand it might just be that this area is too far out of his domain of expertise or he's just not interested in it. Maybe he doesn't feel like immortality is a worthy goal to pursue. Maybe he donates thousands monthly to whatever charity he feels truly help people. Maybe he drinks all that money with friends after race driving.
Damned good show if he does. The world needs more young, selfish playboy millionaires who make absolutely no public show of being philanthropic. Leave that stuff to the billionaires. (No irony or sarcasm intended; I love to see the rich having fun, as long as it's not to anyone else's detriment.) Matthew said it well in the Bible: "Take heed that you give not your alms before men, to be seen of them." He didn't have much to say on car racing, but even Jesus liked a boozy wedding.
> Maybe he doesn't feel like immortality is a worthy goal to pursue.
It's usually only the most awful people who do think it's worth pursuing. We'd all like a few more years, but it takes a special sort of narcissist to think their presence will be appreciated after 200, 500, 1,000, 1x10^6 years...
Yeah, we need more playboys. The kid with cancer or malnutrition and his family should just learn to cope with death.
Anti-death people are such narcissists. The financiers like you are the true heros. You get a lot of hookers and blow and we should be thankful for you consuming them.
You get people to contribute to good causes by being able to influence them and not nag or harass or bully them.
Please get this book and read them because not all talk = influence:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Robe...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/...
I believe in what you profess but you are going about it the wrong way and even me who believe in your course find you annoying.
It's a hard job, but someone's got to do it. Glad you're appreciative.
Ignoring all that (and many more questions of the sort) I'm left with only one question: how exactly is Musk helping "the poor"?
The tax issue can be resolved by luxury taxes. If people decide they'd like $100 million yacht, tax them $200 million for it. Countries like Singapore already have punitive taxes like that on cars.
If you think it's such a travesty that the guy has money and enjoys it, then maybe you should go to all the people who consensually traded with him and tell them what bad people they are for buying his products and services.
That's one of the less efficient ways to solve most problems, even after discounting corruption.
And now for the things you haven't addressed. Why is the government the most efficient way to solve the problem? Why cancer or immortality or space exploration are more important than food or malaria or sex education? Just because you like them?
I think you should stop and think real deep about the questions I've stated and implied in this thread, and answer them in length, with references where appropriate. Then share them.
Else all you end up doing is coming across as a naive angry fanatic with not too much reading comprehension skill (remember all this started because you misinterpreted DHH's essay) who doesn't even get to see the problem and is boasting about solutions.