ivanplenty

I would be surprised if a regulatory body didn't come after this setup. There is a very bright regulatory line around gambling and investing in most countries that a typical person should have known about. What am I missing? Why should I sympathize with Sand Hill Exchange?

[Edit: Thank you to OP for sharing, and my heart goes out for your exp]

i understand someone has to pay for the servers and development time, but would it be possible to give a hint for the types of things you plan to charge for? Even just a rough sketch of "we will offer private repositories" or "we will offer support." I appreciate the "reassurances" that nothing will change today for me, but the ambiguity prevents my latent paranoia from going away.

[Edit: Keep it up, and I wouldn't describe any of this as critique!]

Slide 9, "Notice how de-emphasized Start is." Following the arrow, I see that "Find" and "Start" are the same size and believe are emphasized similarly in the header. What cue am I failing to notice that one is de-emphasized?

A subtlety that's lost is between Slides 26 and 28 the user has two separate flows and browser sessions. It doesn't come across clicking next,next,next without reading your text.

[Edit: I didn't notice there were titles, so the only recommendation I have is to put something in the center of focus -- a graphic, a blurred out gmail inbox, a "later that day" film satire, etc.]

On 35, I had a different reaction to the facebook button there. This flow seems like it's based on creating a non-facebook account -- most people here in the flow already have signaled to Meetup they don't want to use fb. Why ask again? It seems like an unnecessary widget that may carry overly strong emotions for some customers. I wonder if this hook successfully converts non-fb users to fb users.

On 44, what was the initial goal for creating an account? Wasn't it to do something specific within the group? At 44 it feels like this flow was a glorified "sign-me-up-for-the-newsletter" form instead of joining a community. Do you have any thoughts about what should be changed at this step in the flow? Should users get dropped back on the PDX meetup page? Should users get introduced to actual neighbors, much like a host would when you show up to a party? Does slide 44 always work that way for all meetups?

[Edit: Good point on 45-47, I guess I expected to see the whole page 48 be in orange pen! That flow looks very confusing to me, and I think I was trying to nudge you to call it out if you thought so, too.]

That said, quietly using partner/alumni investment as a signal for VCs doesn't quite fit the "Startups are a perfect meritocracy" narrative I'd prefer to believe...

[below]

Interestingly, searching for "Matt Maroon" (on Google, Crunchbase, AngelList, etc) yields results like [0] that only mention Blue Frog. Same for your blog. Wouldn't care otherwise, but I wanted to know if your story could be true or to dismiss as an internet rant.

However there was one interview-like-thing [1] still hanging around the Google Index that connected DraftMix [2] with a "Matthew Maroon" as the CEO [3]

[0] http://www.crunchbase.com/person/matt-maroon

[1] http://en.wikioffuture.org/DraftMix

[2] http://www.crunchbase.com/company/draftmix

[3] http://www.crunchbase.com/person/matthew-maroon

Consider, this is a _US invention_: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

Microsoft sent a patent demand letter to B&N. B&N went public as part of its defense. Microsoft countered with two separate deals:

1) Settled the patent issue privately for a revenue-sharing deal and cash payment.

2) Microsoft committed to invest in the Nook business (called New Corp by B&N) which eventually led to Microsoft purchasing Nook for a premium.

So, while the immediate settlement was probably measured in hundreds of millions, the total outlay from Microsoft shareholders to B&N shareholders was close to 1 billion even though it was spread over multiple and disparate deals.

Prior to the patent letter neither company had a significant relationship.

Most interesting quote to me, and thank you so much for the candor.

> After several months of testing and refining, we reasonably concluded that we were executing well and collecting good data—it told us that there wasn’t enough demand to support the cost model. Our monthly operating deficits were too high, and even though we continued to get better at acquisition, each small success actually saw our cash curve decline further because our density remained flat. For longer than we would be willing to tolerate, we would lose money for each additional customer we gained. Despite the massive interest in our company, we learned that the product we built did not find fit in the market we targeted.

P.S. I am doubly sorry to hear that the USPS shut down the partnership due to threatening unwanted!! ad revenue... this is making me feel even more sad.

Really? Oh, wait... http://www.whatsapp.com/faq/general/23014681

As an American who only heard of TenCent late in 2013, I also did not know that WhatsApp was a subscription service. Holy batman that feels either evil or genius.

Makes sense why the app asked for my cell phone digits when I first installed, and I'm happy I never gave it...

Why geeks, upper-middle-class, etc? That's where the perception of easy money is, and you see a lot of it here because this is one of the target audiences.

Why startup community or fellow geeks? There is a mantra to solve a problem you have, which means there are a lot of geek- or startup-related apps.

I would also ask you to believe that there are many people who are working on products outside of the "consumer app" space that doesn't advertise, per se, on this site.

I've always wondered how differently municipalities would behave were the fines forbidden from funding operations. For example, what if all fines had to be paid to a trust, and only the interest from the trust may be used for capital projects? Then only taxes could be used to pay for operations. At the federal level this change wouldn't make a big difference, but at the local level it would affect 50% of some budgets.

I imagine a lot of what seems like frivolous ticketing would shift towards something else.

Edit: @stinkytaco -- Agreed. Maybe frivolous tickets would be replaced with frivolous taxes? The money does have to come from somewhere, and I agree that the vast majority of civil servants are just enforcing otherwise reasonable laws :) Still a fun thought experiment.

> "talks began in October"

> "they [HandyBook] had a much better and well-defined marking model and they had already developed what we were trying to iterate, but better."

Is this related to the departure of the people behind the https://giveit100.com/ around then? The non-technical founder was responsible for marketing at Exec, for example. I could imagine were I in her shoes and heard this back then I also would be looking for new work.

About the tone -- I think you're right to criticize it. I liken the situation to competing against a sports player who uses steroids when you do not. The other player gets the press, the accolades, and the reputation even though he cheats. So when the player gets caught with a failed drug test and suspended from the sport, of course it feels great to be vindicated.

The Everpix team was dumping its product on the market and either lying or ignorant about it. They and the others left my team with the very hard decision to abandon our own sweat and blood for no fault of our own. We loved our product and wanted to be able to compete, but we saw we would not get a seat in this game of musical chairs. We resented the other competitors and their high capitalization, and we prefer to limit VC pitch tours. Failing to include that bias would have been dishonest, and the resulting tone was cathartic. I have no apology for it.

Swisspol's reply reinforced to me that the team was unaware of their underlying failed business model -- nothing in my analysis assumed constant costs or even distributions as suggested -- and selling a product for less than variable costs throughout 2013 was major business sin. It's forgivable for the first months or so, but the fact it persisted until the day they closed the doors is very telling. And yes, they should have closed their doors "immediately" when it was obvious from very early in the data they could not get positive margins, just as we did. Remember, this was a paid product and not an Instagram clone. My analysis was not hindsight, it was confirmation of hard work I did in April 2013. The VC-related emails had a similar tone attacking the analysis as "unfair" or "inappropriate" for a web-based startup.

Everpix should be a cautionary tale for other startups to make sure their gross margins are positive! My other research has a much more neutral tone, but in this case photos are very emotional.

> "[Administrators' primary concern was] making YC [Yale College] course evaluation available to many who are not authorized to view this information,”

> "[Administrators also asked] how they [the site operators] obtained the information, who gave them permission to use it and where the information is hosted."

Edit: Agreed, I don't buy these are the real reasons.

You may or may not be right about this or the rest of VC-istan. But I LOVE the fervor and color of your posts. I love hearing a contrarian view. And I would love to buy you a cup of coffee or beer to say thanks for making my time of HN so much more interesting.

Edit: Thanks for the reply, and I'm relieved to hear others share my sentiment. I have seen you refer to rankban elsewhere, but this was the first time I understood what you meant.

Also, yesterday I published research about Everpix shutting down and I got two groups of feedback:

1) From startup founders generally positive comments or clarifying questions. All were constructive conversations.

2) From VC-connected people generally defensive FUD and ad hominems.

It was very interesting to watch, and you are certainly not alone.

This last year I worked on a project with people from the valley, we used Go, and everyone contributed quality code. This is because people in SF area know Go.

A year ago I worked on a project with people from the midwest, we used node, and got the same quality. Much fewer people in the midwest know Go.

Independent of my feelings about both environments, CSP, callback hell, etc, at the end of the day my team and I have to build a product, and I try to pick the tool that best matches our combined skillsets.

* Go

* Node.JS (with Promises while we wait for generators!)

I personally use node for large-scale stuff since more people know JS, but a lot of this comes down to personal preference.

The only point I would make is that I did not assume constant photo sizes, even distributions of users, or constant costs in the long term. I did assume these variables changed each month. What I tried to do was match what actually happened each period to determine if there was an operating profit.

I agree had the business expanded to other revenue streams or had been able to migrate to a different infrastructure it may have become a profitable ongoing concern. It just doesn't look like you had been able to get to either in the time you had.

But I think you will in the next venture. Again, I cannot stop thanking you and wishing all the best!

You're right that capital should seek the highest returns, but one way to measure the likelihood of getting that return is by evaluating the marginal costs and revenues of a product. When a company sells each product for a loss, it is impossible for the company to provide a positive return on the capital. In those cases, like with Everpix, it becomes a question of "when" and not "if" the business will fail and the return will be zero. The only rational way to play the game that way is to hope for an acquisition.

That's why I look at detailed parts of business models like this, it helps elicit the overall picture in the same way functional a test case elicits overall product health. There is an art to ensuring proper overall coverage with multiple tests.

> I don't think they didn't know they were burning their reserves, that their cost structure was unsustainable.

This is where I disagree and why I wrote the analysis. I think the company didn't understand they were selling their product for a marginal loss:

> "Long story short, the infrastructure was paying for itself through subscription revenues." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7041640

> "AWS infrastructures costs were already being covered by subscription income." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6676906

From the numbers neither statement was true, and from the confidence in the tone it seems like they didn't know for a while. Subscriptions did not cover AWS costs. It looks like it might have become known internally when asked directly from others taking a look:

> "The reason we were getting closer and closer to being positive on variable costs ... is, yes, improved monetization, but more importantly AWS optimizations." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7043555

We just have different opinions and philosophies about building businesses: For me it's important to sell products at a marginal profit generally. I don't think whether the business is VC-backed or bootstrapped makes one difference: I look at both of those are tools to finance fixed costs, not to subsidize ongoing variable operations. The underlying economic principles are the same to me. But, that's this man's humble opinion.

I'm not sure I buy that the "marginal loss" [was] "easily" fixable through infrastructure [changes]. If it were easy you would have done it that way from the beginning or sooner in 2013. I buy that the infrastructure changes required more investment or planning, but in general in software "easy" things are the things you've already done. Otherwise we'd be experts at planning and estimating :)

Best of luck in the next venture, and again thank you so much for releasing the data!

http://research.ivanplenty.com/2014-economics-everpix-shutdo...

(Submitted to HN a few hours ago as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7052593)

tl;dr Everpix sold its product at a marginal loss and closed its doors after the financing ran out. Since the marginal costs always exceeded the marginal revenue we now know that Everpix should have shut its doors immediately as it never could be a viable business in either the short or long runs. There doesn't appear to be a what-if cost structure change that it could have made realistically to stay in business. Shutting down was the right decision for the business, and this evidence suggests it should have shut down a long time ago.

You may be surprised how much of what does get posted here is full of bias (confirmation bias, selection, survival, small sample sizes, etc). We're human, it's normal. I've seen some posts about YC competitors get flagged off the front page while other YC-related firms tend to get more airtime, so-to-speak. Is it intentional or just a reflection of the community? I don't know, but I do know you can't take it personally.

Thank you for contributing and helping round out this complicated discussion.

1. How many other customers were affected by the server upgrade?

2. Why was this not caught at the time or after?

The customer response bug

1. What steps are you taking to correct the issue it took a front-page HN story to get traction?

2. Will you commit to writing a post-mortem blog post?

If you don't learn from your mistakes, then you are deeply doomed. I don't want you to be doomed :)

He or others like him may not have sold off all of their coins and need dumb money to keep the price afloat just a little longer...

If it were a great time to buy, he would have. Follow the actions and not the words in markets like this.

Government intervention is just one of a few significant black swans: blocksize changes, verification (i.e. mining) fragmentation (effectively doubles the money supply for each split), and SHA collision attacks becoming practical. None of this should ever happen, right?

However, this line should be clarified in every context:

> took out a student loan and bought in at $225.

In the US, this is generally _not OK_. To everyone else in the US, do not read this as a positive example. Do not use student loans for bitcoin or any other investment.

What can I use my federal student loan money for? You may use the money you receive only to pay for education expenses at the school that awarded your loan. Education expenses include such school charges as tuition, room and board, fees, books, supplies, equipment, dependent child care expenses, transportation, and rental or purchase of a personal computer. Talk to someone at the financial aid office at your school if you need more details. [1]

[1] https://studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/your-federal-s...

(Of course you may have been one of the small percentage who took out an unregulated private loan, but the principles behind those are generally the same).

I think you may want to write a blog post about that: How do you choose which project to invest 100 units into? And, how do you measure the success of that decision both in the short- and long-terms?

For example, do you think the Evernote application had long-run benefits? Did it help you in getting a different job down the road? Those are the kind of stories I think would be interesting to connect to the give it 100 project.

Best of luck on the endeavor!

> This post has no point at all.

Yes, it does have a point. It is an advertisement for her product. Notice the connection between "spending 100 hours" and a product called "give it 100"... that is hardly an accident :)

I must be biased into thinking it is either visual mockups (ranging from paper to balsamiq to powerpoint to adobe) or working prototypes (ranging from a UI builder on the web, a UI builder in an IDE, or HTML/JS/CSS coded by hand).

The former case I would label "design" and the latter case I would label "front-end developer" (with low technical skills and high artistry).

What am I missing? What else is "UX" for freelancers?

Edit and P.S. I just read through http://www.jaysonelliot.com/about/, and I like the candor and approach. One bit of a small friendly feedback: Please add measurements for the outcomes of the projects you want to highlight.

For example, it looks like Preferio (the first example) is no longer around. That's cool, we've all worked on failed projects. What are some of the decisions you made while working there and designing the app? You had to have had some influence... was there a visual style or conversion flow you updated that increased X% of some valuable activity? Of course there was, so add it :) That is the kind of behavior and thinking I want to see from UX people. The entire presentation talks about things you did and omits outcomes. The things you did are great, but please add more outcomes. They will complete an otherwise good message.

For perspective, 100 views is extremely small in advertising. Hobby-small. You'll need a sample size of a few thousand views before you'll get even 100 interactions to compare. The sample sizes of conversion for this experiment are too small to make any conclusions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4685928

I suspect you will see better conversions from this content ad (i.e. blog post) posted to HN. Which, coincidentally, I fear blog ads are a large percentage of the content posted to HN today.... still nice to see others' findings, so thank you for posting.

Anyway, good luck with the product, but I can't emphasize enough that you should be skeptical with any of the results you have. You simply have too few data points to deduce any trends.