Sayter

The important lesson here for HN entrepreneurs to take away is that connections can matter as much as a startup's product itself.

If we are to go with the assumption that your houseSYSTEM was feature-comparative to Mark's The Facebook (and for the sake of argument, we'll assume your assessment is accurate), then Chris Hughes' person connections to The Crimson may have very well been one of the significant variables that resulted to your products having radically different futures. While it's a romantic notion to think that a sufficient amount of blood, sweat, and tears will ultimately lead to success, the reality is that an external factor such as getting into Y Combinator or having a well-timed TechCrunch article can (fairly or not) make or break a startup.

Remember to get out of the office once and awhile and network. Simply delivering a product is not enough.

$200 million for a domain as an investment? Only one domain has ever sold for more than $10 million. You get below the $1 million range before you're even out of the top hundred. Domains are not as valuable as people think they are, and the rules change entirely once the new TLD system hits.

For the record: Color.com was purchased for $350,000

The sky is not falling.

Companies will not lose their trademark if they fail to register the domain in all possible TLD's and/or register and maintain a TLD. Considering the latter requires becoming a registrar, you are essentially asserting that owning a trademark effectively requires every company to enter the domain business. That assertion is absurd.

It's not as obvious as it sounds. If it is, then this will be an easy question to answer:

What will technology be like in 2030?

Used dS4BNB6sRfkHXLdT

Branding matters. Marketing matters. UX matters.

Android/Linux? GNU/Linux? Stop, just stop. This goes to the open source community: If you name it GNU/Linux, don't be surprised when Android hits mainstream instead. Stop naming things Ubuntu when the competition is Windows. Stop naming things Diaspora when the competition is Facebook.

It doesn't matter what is rational or sensible. Branding is survival of the fittest, and so far it's been a massacre.

You are requesting nested circles.

"Public Circle" variation = Facebook Groups.

"Public Circle" concept = Facebook Page with Facebook Groups adding ability.

Apple chose a name with that ambiguity when they gave it the generic-sounding 'App Store' instead of a more brandable alternative. (Quick test on the name: What is the App Store? It's a store for apps.) The quote of Steve Jobs himself using "app stores" in a generic manner really highlighted this point and effective killed Apple's chance of success in this case.

You could almost say it has a 'hardcore' edge to it. Seriously, you would always be in the shadow of Hustler magazine in terms of mindshare. Just do a quite Google search for hustle magazine (no quotes) to see where they would be starting off from a branding perspective.

Not worth having that kind of initial hinderance to overcome.

The major benchmark for browsers has been Internet Explorer, which has had 9 versions in 16 years. Compare that to Google Chrome, which is already on 14.0.803.0 (dev) / 13.0.782.32 (beta) / 12.0.742.100 (stable) after existing for less than three years. Mozilla is moving away from Microsoft's release model and towards Google's release model. While the current timeline for Firefox is a major release every three months, the target timeline is for a major release every six weeks.

Technology gets faster. Version numbers are arbitrary. Mozilla will be fine.

The quick jump in major version is because Mozilla is moving to a rapid release cycle, a la Google Chrome. Firefox 6 and Firefox 7 are expected by the end of the year. Here is one of the relevant blog posts:

http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/04/13/new-channels-for-fir...

The meeting in question was for final approval; ICANN approved plans for opening up gTLD's back in 2008.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/26/icann_approves_custo...

This didn't suddenly happen overnight; everyone was informed three years in advance. Just to illustrate how long ago that was in internet years: the first Windows public beta of Google Chrome wasn't even released until after ICANN's initial announcement.

My thesis is not that people reject OpenID for that reason, it's that OpenID exists as an ethereal add-on to other services. That is to say: it does not exist in and of itself. Facebook Connect is an extension of my Facebook identity. Twitter Connect is an extension of my Twitter identity. OpenID is NOT simply an extension of the listed providers in the same manner.

I'll illustrate the point as such: My username is Sayter. 1) Go find my Facebook. 2) Then go find my Twitter. 3) Now go find my OpenID. You immediately know where to go for the first two, and in fact can type in the url's for my Facebook and Twitter accounts directly. But how about my OpenID? Is it my Gmail? Yahoo account? Windows Live account? All of the above? Whichever I use the most? Or is it the OpenID that I have on one my domains? My identity for OpenID is fragmented (I'm not even sure how many I have, honestly) and does not exist in a single space, while Facebook and Twitter do exist in single spaces (assuming I only have one Facebook/Twitter of course, but that possibility was simplified for the sake of argument).

That is a non-trivial problem that Facebook and Twitter have (mostly) solved, while OpenID is still struggling with it.

Perception is reality.

1) StackExchange - Identity (username/password) that is site-specific to utilize an individual website. This has typically been standard practice for the majority of the web's existence. 2) Google - Identity connected to Gmail and/or Google services. 3) Yahoo - Identity connected to Yahoo Mail and/or Yahoo services. 4) Facebook - Identity connected to social networking service. 5) myOpenID - Identity connected to... what exactly?

People have a reason to use their accounts on Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail/Live, Facebook, Twitter, and etc. The reason why Facebook Connect has been successful is that it is an extension of an identity that many people already use on a daily basis. As long as OpenID remains just an identity provider, it will continue to lose ground. This will especially be the case in the realm of mobile, where cell phones can provide person-specific solutions in a manner that desktops so far cannot.

1) Apple was choosing between Facebook Connect and Twitter Connect for their account integration. 2) Android will naturally use Google accounts as a first choice. 3) Windows Phone will primarily use Live accounts. 4) HP/Palm and RIM need to figure out what they are going to do in this space. 5) Facebook has the ability to leverage Android for a Facebook Phone if they so choose. Currently they are instead trying to become ubiquitous across all platforms. 6) OpenID is nowhere to be found.

We will continue to see integration of this nature across all platforms. OpenID simply does not have the leverage to be successful in the long run. They're still fighting the battle in the browser, while the war is already moving higher up to the device itself.

The user experience for OpenID is NOT just as seamless as Facebook Connect, and to claim as such is absurd.

LulzSecurity.org was just registered today.

startup.vc