movix

It's a curious contrast with how most people reading HN are working at the absolute cutting edge of 21st century technology. Curiously, art has always been driven by advances in modern technology; whether that be in metal casting, developments in pigments and dyes and of course, the invention of the lens.

Enlighten me please.

Now I feel encouraged to build that 'dating based on your favourite music' website we've been thinking about.

http://www.movix.co.uk/muzixs.jpg

If I could see what the site did, before you signed me up, I might go for it. All I know so far, is that I've told you my three favourite foods, and that I want to go on a "Camping trip at Yosemite".

I'd love it if you'd answer my question to you.. where do you get your first sign-ups for your social networking site? If there's no one to network with, what am I doing here?

Just as a machine to use, I find it very efficient, I couldn't care less who made it.

Minor niggle, change the tacky stock photos in the header and footer of your web page. People make subconscious judgments on the quality of your product by subtle clues they pick up on in how you present it. You've done all that hard work in the coding, seems a shame to not to maximise your potential sales by not giving your full attention to your sales page.

Nice design though.. so that intrigues me. I'm guessing some sort of social networking, but there's no way you're going to force me to sign up before I find out what you site's about.

Tell me, if it is a SN site, how do you get your first 10,000 users, so it gives the slightest chance of me finding someone I want to network with?

Assuming that you started on day one, with just your nearest and dearest signed up, where do you get your real customers (are they customers I still don't know if you're providing some sort of service) or users from? I'd love to know.

I would never go back to PC now, and I can't even give you a succinct or informed reason why, there's just something about using a Mac, when you get used to it, that just feels 'right'.

I'd go Mac.

The cleverest app, or piece of coding is useless if the user doesn't get what they want from the experience of using it.

Brilliant design doesn't have to be flashy or clever, and of course, the simplest interfaces are always the best. There is a huge amount of skill and intelligence involved in taking what is a potentially complex idea or concept, and expressing to the user, not only how to use it, but also what the app is capable of, in a simple, graphical way.

There's been a of of discussion on HN about the new Sequoia site. I think I'm one of the few who think it's brilliant, because it already assumes a lot about its users, and that if they're on the site, they probably have a pretty good idea already of why they're there. The site is tailored to those people, they don't need to be hand-held with descriptions and explanations. This would be completely out of place in many other instances, but the designers knew their users, and what their needs were, so built accordingly. The web is a graphical interface for information, great design is crucial.

The OP made the point about a team...my point is that this has to a be a balance of skills, each member understanding their value and importance to the project, and understanding and valuing the importance of their colleagues. Teams made up of entirely one skill set will never be as productive as one with a wide range of skills.

Old school tape recorder

Then I played the demo video - @OwlHuntr...I didn't last more than 12 seconds before I died of boredom. If I need a video lecture, you have to make it something I want to watch, and it shouldn't take more than 30 seconds to give me the info I need.

Mercedes can convince me to buy a car with a 30 second TV ad, (not literally, but you get the idea). My time is too valuable to watch the long-form directors cut of your promo.

1. how many of these huge social networking sites are there out there, and how many of them (like this one) have I never heard of?

2. yet again it's free, so what's their revenue model.

If this posting was just spam to HN, or put here to generate discussion, I just can't tell.

I appreciate his concerns for the environment, but isn't this taking things a little too extremely? Judging by the comment he makes about the pollution of his urban area by fireworks, I'm assuming that he has to drive to the trail... presumably past houses where people are sitting next to their domestic air filtration systems, in the hope that they can breath air with all the motor vehicle toxins removed.

We should all be concerned about protecting the environment, but maybe a campaign against the pollution caused by international freight shipping may be a better point to start than with fireworks.

FYI ships at sea create more greenhouse gas emissions than the whole CO2 output of the UK, yet there is no fuel duty on the fuels used in these vessels.

Although you could propose that the Beetle follows the Corbusian 'form follows function' ethos, the end result taking it's shape from it's purpose so elegantly illustrated by the original Beetle itself, strapping a whopping great jet to it does not.

The bicycle on the other hand, has obviously been lovingly crafted to be an aesthetic whole, even though two disparate technologies have been employed - therefore = win.

You could of course argue that Corbusier didn't follow his own ethos and 'fie rules' either though.

I actually think that the Beetle/jet combination is a very appropriate metaphor for many types of technology we use.

"Here's thing A, which only does X, if we add thing B to it, it now does XYZ, just not very efficiently, and it looks awful"

For the ultimate in elegant, jet powered simplicity, I think Mr. Maddox and his pulse jet bicycle is leagues ahead:

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2009/06/02/pulsejet-bicycl...