Random generated thoughts

The Trouble With Non-tech Cofounders

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:59:12 +0100

“I’ve seen the problem with non-tech founders a few times now, different people, different ages and backgrounds, with different levels of skill, but all with the same thing in common: having to rely on someone else to bring an idea from paper to screen. The most common mistake I think people like this make is to think that they know in advance what they need to get built, and once they’ve paid for that to be done, and a website has been delivered, that they then have a business.”

Web First, Mobile Perhaps

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:57:00 +0100

This was originally a comment to the article titled Web Second, Mobile First on Mark Suster’s excellent blog Both Sides of the Table. While Mark has a consistently high level of quality in his articles I was, to be honest, a bit disappointed with this one. First of all, it states a number of observations that seem pretty obvious to me (and therefore, I believe, to most everyone), such as that a smartphone (or “mobile”) is increasingly the first computing device for many new users.

But more importantly, it’s continuing the false dichotomy of “mobile vs. Web”. Why it’s false? Simply because modern mobile devices — at least those with their own ecosystems — are perfectly able to display Web, and it’s becoming extremely easy to develop for both mobile and Web at the same time, with only a few more resources devoted to ensuring the cross-platform compatibility (which are necessary even if you develop only for “Web”, as you need to take into account different browsers and OSs: e.g. if you’re aiming at China, 77% of your visitors will use IE 8.0 and earlier).

If you’re strapped for resources, there is absolutely no need to develop a mobile app and have to depend on the whims of AppStore and other walled gardens out there — you can develop for the Web, and make your front-end switch the styles automatically according to the device it’s viewed on. You say that you love the new LinkedIn mobile app; but have you seen their mobile Web? It’s pretty much as functional as the mobile app, looks just as well, and has probably required only a bit more resources than the “traditional” Web app.

Essentially, in my opinion, a mobile app makes sense only if it requires no Internet connection to operate properly, so it’s perfect for games, fart jokes and similar use cases. For all the examples Mark mentioned in his article — Yelp, LinkedIn, Foursquare etc — ubiquitous Internet is a prerequisite, which means that there is no advantage over a mobile Web app. Actually, with the modern HTML5 features such as local storage, even a less than 100% reliable connection is not necessarily a problem, as some data can be stored locally and used when offline, syncing it back to the server when online.

So, instead of the “Mobile first, Web second” approach, I’d suggest a different strategy to most new startups: “Web (classic and mobile) first, mobile perhaps (if necessary)”.

A couple early 2012 trends

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 07:12:26 +0100

The new year has barely begun, and I have already started noticing a few tiny trends that might as well be signs of some greater shifts that will develop over the course of the year and beyond:

Non-programmers learning to code: There was a minor slew of tweets by non-programmers, stating that their New Year resolution is to learn to code, mainly using Codecademy. To be honest I am not surprised, as it seems that in the present job crunch and general downturn the demand for skilled coders is in ever rising demand. Even if you don’t aim to find employment as a programmer, knowing how to code is growing more and more useful for a number of smaller tasks in your daily life. I think that the main obstacle in their resolution will be when they realise that “coding” is not a single thing — there has never been more available languages, platforms and even targeted audiences when it comes to programming than today.
Getting back to work: This Joy of Tech cartoon is the latest and most visible example of something I’ve been noticing everywhere around me: people are getting back to work. Probably a combination of the ongoing depression and the optimism of the New Year is prompting people to turn away from looking for ways to entertain themselves and look for ways to create some value and have some fun doing it. Of course, this attitude has always been present in startups, but it’s spilling over to the general population.

The most important skill for software developers

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 15:45:16 +0100

Abstraction.

Of course Web development is broken

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:36:00 +0200

Because Web was never meant to be developed for.

Originally, Web was intended as a collection of resources — actually, a filesystem of sorts. But it grew out of proportions as it became popular since it allowed users to see color and pictures and animations on the Internet, which was up to that point either limited to plain text, or required some heavy-weight, non-standard applications to be installed on the client. Actually, the name used for the application used to access the Web — a browser — tells a lot about how it was intended to use: to “browse” the resources, not to execute them. Could you imagine what desktop development would look like if you were limited to using just some sort of file viewer to program for it?

Each Web application is, actually, two completely unrelated Web applications. One is executed on the host and is preparing the data for the Web server to serve; but there is another, which is running in each of the users’ browsers, only connected to the former one by asymmetric pairs of requests and responses. Even if it consists only of HTML (and CSS), it still has code being interpreted and evaluated on the client; ajax apps only emphasize this.

So it’s not Web development that is broken; in fact, it is a miracle what has been created by the developers to work around the fundamental limitations of the platform, which was never meant to be one.

(This was originally a comment on a posting on Hacker News, linking to an article titled Web development is just broken.)

Opening the valve

Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:59:29 +0200

For quite some time I’ve been a strong opponent of the notion that we are in a new dotcom bubble. While there has indeed been a significant raise in the starup investments and valuations, my position has been based on the facts that this time the things are a bit different: there is only a handful of companies getting seemingly insane valuations, and none of them are available to the public market.

However, today I have ran into a few articles discussing the plans of the SEC to loosen the rules that define who can invest in non-public companies and how. And if these plans become reality, I am willing to bet that this will very soon lead to a new tech bubble, which might pop even stronger then the Y2K one…

For one, startups are inherently risky, but the media is emphasizing the most successful ones, and the public perception is that one can make a fortune on the right ones, like the current media darling Facebook. So when the gates are opened and the public is allowed to invest there will be a rush, which will create a bubble effect we have all seen ten years ago. But this time it will be even worse, as the private companies are not required to have as many disclosures and reports as the public ones, so it will be almost impossible to have the right information. It is safe to predict the it will end up with a lot of small investors blowing up their savings on the gold rush of overblown valuations.

Second, one of the greatest effects of current rules is that most of the funds available to startups are the “smart money”, i.e. they come with experienced investors (VCs and angels) who add quite a lot of value besides the cash itself. Small-time investors mostly don’t have that added value, and the money is usually not enough, as we could have learned on the Diaspora’s case. In fact, we will most likely have the least experienced founders seeking funding from the least savvy investors (as those with experience will by definition have better access to mentors and investors), and without the guidance they will be more likely to fail, taking their investors with them.

Third, even though there is a lot more money available today, there is still some kind of filtering process before the startups are funded. Hell, even Yuri Milner doesn’t throw his money blindly to anyone who knocks on his door — he has relegated the process to the Y Combinator team, who have so far proven that they can pick the best teams. But unsophisticated investors don’t have the skills to pick the wheat from the chaff; instead they have only one tool to help them decide: social proof. And as they mostly don’t have direct access to the experienced pundits, they need to use a proxy, which is the mass media; and we all know how accurate its reports on startup valuations are. So it comes down to only two kinds of companies they will shoose to invest into: either the booming behemoths everyone is talking about, like Facebook or Groupon; or, failing that, any small seed-stage startup dabbling in the field which is hot in the news these days, be it social media, mobile, geolocation or whatever.

And lastly, one of the worst situations a startup can find itself in is to have more money than it needs. (And I’m talking about investment money, not revenue; the latter is a good problem, and when you get there you’re not really a startup anymore.) This is something we have seen in late nineties, when the bubble was at its height, with money being blown on expensive cars, designer chairs and weekly parties. A startup thrives when it has just enough money to scrape it through, and overfunding makes it sluggish and drowsy.

So I believe that the last thing we need is making funding for startups easier, especially if that means involving a wide audience of unsophisticated investors. I’m still certain that we are not in a real bubble yet, but these new regulations will certainly mean opening a valve to the air tank which will blow it up. And this time it might be even worse than the last.

There are no ideas

Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:53:07 +0100

Earlier today, while reading some comments on a post on Hacker News, I had a revelation: ideas, and in particular business or startup ideas, don’t exist. They are just a figment of our imaginations.

An eternal debate has been raging for decades, with those who believe that the business idea is the root of all innovation and progress in business and technology pitted against those who are saying that the idea, while mildly relevant, is completely secondary to its execution, which save a bad idea if done correctly, or spoil a good one if done badly.

But when you think of it — what are the makings of a successful business? There are numerous ways to analyse one, of course; but I’m sure we will all agree that we can isolate three general elements:

The product is the actual thing that is being sold to the customers and is bringing revenue to the company. It doesn’t have to be an actual physical product — it may be a piece of software, a service, anything that gives enough value to someone’s life that this someone is willing to pay money for it.
The way this product is actually produced — which could be called its quality or, if you wish, the execution — is another element, separate from the first one. We may have two functionally identical products, but one can easily be better than the other: will last long, will operate smoothly and without delays, etc.
And the third element, which rounds up our little group, is the market: a more or less clearly defined group of customers which might share different qualities, but the most important one is that they are (at least in theory) interested in our product.

As we can see, there is no idea. So how is it that there are so many debates about something that doesn’t exist?

Actually, I lied a bit — there is something we might call “an idea”, lacking a better word, but it isn’t anything concrete or specific. Most generally, what most people call “an idea” is in reality a more or less vaguely defined combination of the above elements.

In other words, an idea is a concept of a certain product, executed in a certain way, for a certain market. For example, many countries have recently seen a slew of Groupon clones — i.e. the same product and the pretty much same execution as Groupon, only for different markets. Or, applications like The Daily are a known product (a publication) for an old market, only with a new execution (on the iPad).

It’s quite difficult to come up with a truly novel idea, i.e. something that innovates in all three areas. Luckily that isn’t necessary, since it is usually enough to differentiate in only one to gain a significant competitive edge. But often one isn’t enough — while the Groupon clones can work because their model is basically local, previous stabs at local Facebook clones have invariantly failed, since their differentiation — local language — was easily defeated by the original Facebook.

The future of Web browser

Thu, 20 May 2010 12:13:08 +0200

But really, what is the point of Web browser?

Originally, it’s purpose was to format and properly display the documentation which used HTML to mark it up. The first browser — sir Tim’s World Wide Web — didn’t even support images, and tables weren’t introduced until years later.

Over years, browser has grown from a simple publishing tool to a powerful platform for delivering server-based applications. But even now, with ajax and CSS and jQuery and HTML5, it’s still struggling to keep up with the native applications in terms of user interface, performance and interactivity…

It’s funny, really. The Web has brought a revolution, providing standards that allowed anyone to produce network-distributed applications with relatively little effort. Its standards are simple to understand and implement, and they require no tools apart from a text editor.

But when it comes to full-scale applications, the browser still leaves a lot to be desired. Its first disadvantage is that you still need to send the whole user interface along with the data, creating a large overhead. There are some advantages for browser-based applications — like no need to update all the client software — but even that is on one side solved by services like AppStore and on the other made moot by the constant upgrade of browsers.

In my opinion, the browser is going the way of the command-line interface. It will always be here (there is console even in Windows 7), but it will be used less and less, only for those who need to quickly set up an Internet-based application or as an entry point to a larger company.

However, we will see more and more native applications for all platforms which will present a nice interface to the user but will heavily rely on a Web-service powered communication with the main service. The best example for that are all the Twitter clients (which are according to some research used by 85% of all Twitter users), which have no other purpose but to serve as a front-end to Twitter. Many Web sites have developed native clients for their data — mostly for iPhone and other mobile devices, but increasingly there are ones for the desktop as well (and devices like iPad arguably start to erase the difference).

What has happened to innovation?

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:22:16 +0200

Previously, a “technology startup” meant a company founded in order to develop and build a great new technology. Just look at the original startup — Fairchild Semiconductor — or later famous examples like Cisco, Apple or Google — all of them were created to work for years without profit, even without customers, on building and testing some new technology before turning it into a product.

Nowadays, everyone expects startups that are somehow miraculously profitable from day one — as Daniel Markham nicely puts it in his post The Startup Racket. In other industries it is normal for a long time to pass between founding of the company and its profitability — I was shocked when I heard that in pharmacy and biotech it’s quite normal that a company even goes public sooner than turning profit. And it makes sense that in IT those times will be much shorter — but I never expected they will all but evaporate.

VCs are looking for “traction” and profit before considering investing — but where is the R&D supposed to happen? Just look at the hottest current startups: Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Dropbox… While they have a ton of users, none of them is really innovating; they’re using existing Web and mobile technologies and stretch them to the brink. Perhaps it’s not completely fair to assert that they’re not innovating — it’s just that tere’s very little technological innovation going on; what we have is confined to usability, social aspect of applications and the like.

But I still think that at one point we’ll have to start inventing again.

Is there a Moore's law for bandwidth?

Sun, 04 Apr 2010 11:41:00 +0200

We all know about the Moore’s Law: in 1965, the Intel’s co-founder Gordon Moore has stated in a paper that the number of transistors which can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years (since 1958), and made a prediction that this trend will continue for about a decade. Surprisingly, this assertion generally holds true even today, over half a century later — and it’s expected to continue at least until the physical limits of miniaturization are reached (but, with the advances in quantum computing, it might continue to hold if we replace the word “transistors” with a generic term “logic units”).

However, I’m curious if there is anything comparable to Moore’s Law with relation to the Internet bandwidth — let’s formulate it as “the speed at which an average person could inexpensively access the Internet at will”. Is there any research which tells us how did that kind of bandwidth increase over the years?

Expandable hardware

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:22:30 +0200

The company Bug Labs is building a modular set of hardware devices which can be plugged in to each other to create a larger set with a number of features. However, I don’t think this is where the future lies.

Instead, what is needed is a generic, open protocol for transparent interconnection and data transfer between various hardware devices, regardless of the manufacturer or the included modules. The best way to achieve that is wireless communication, so the only required module should be a WiFi controller.

With this, we could connect our iPad to our microwave oven, or our car alarm to our Twitter account, and with the right software they would communicate perfectly, enhancing each other.

Google is becoming like Apple

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:53:24 +0100

They’re more and more taking already existing and established products (email, Twitter, online maps…) and making them better and easier to use. The difference is that Apple designs their products, while Google engineers theirs.

Why iPad might fail

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:56:54 +0100

When we look at Apple’s past successes, we see a recurring theme: each time Apple made a hit when they entered an existing market with a product that was more elegant and fun to use than most of the current players. That happened with the Apple ][, then the original Macintosh and of course the MacOS X revival; that also happened with the iPod and of course the iPhone.

On the other hand, each time Apple launched something new, going into new territories, their product was received poorly and it failed. Just remember Lisa, Newton and AppleTV (the latter is arguably not a failure, but has not been a raging success either).

On the future of iPad and tablet PC

Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:10:45 +0100

The iPad will motivate other manufacturers to produce similar devices. They will mostly be generic, PC-compatible computers in (more or less) cool-designed cases (although none will match iPad in production quality).
Most techies will prefer those generic devices over iPads (apart from those in for a really hard challenge, who will try to make iPad run Linux or othe generic OS).
On the other hand, iPad will become nowhere near a success of iPod and iPhone.

My latest favorite startup quote

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:05:00 +0100

Founder is both a noun and a verb…

My tablet PC wishlist

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:28:17 +0100

With all the iFad going around, I keep thinking about the ideal tablet PC. What are the features I would need and like to use all day and which would make me retire my laptop?

Open platform: Above all I would like a generic PC which could easily run Linux or Windows OS, provided it has appropriate drivers. It would then be (relatively) trivial to develop a front-end similar to the one on iPad for less experienced user, and I believe that it might become a new rage among the developer — to develop front ends for various purposes. So we could have a education-oriented frontend, a retail frontend, an entertainment frontend, a business-specific frontend etc.
Connectivity: It has to include all the important wireless connectivity options — today it would include wi-fi as the base, and optionally Bluetooth and/or HSUPA modem. USB 3.0 should be a standard, but there is no need for more than one or at most two connectors (see the next item why).
Expandability: I’ve heard that iPad has too few expansion options and connectors, while there is too many gadgets and adaptors. I generally agree with the latter assertion, but not with the former — if you need to be able to connect a dozen USB appliances, a wired network and a kitchen sink all the time, you don’t really need a tablet, you need a desktop PC. I would use the tablet the same way I’m using my laptop: moving it between a couple places where I have all the necessary infrastructure (printers, monitors, scanners, power etc), while using it occasionally in the wild, with no additional options, as necessary. This means that I want it to be as light as possible when moving around, while having all the possible options when stationary, and the latter is easily achieved with a docking station so common for laptops. (A colleague of mine states that if he could connect his iPhone to a keyboard and a large monitor, he would need no other computer.)
Options: Ideally, tablet PCs should come in all sizes and equipment options, from different makers. That way the manufacturers would be able to segment the market in more detail, as the time of general-purpose PCs for general audience has long gone. Similar — but even more accentuated — to what we have in laptops today, there would be medium-sized tablets with basic features aimed at general workers; large widescreen portable entertainment centers with built-in BlueRay drives and Wiimote controllers; specialized tablets for artists, coming in various sizes and featuring pens and appropriate software (essentially, imagine cramming a PC into a Cintiq); all the way down to small, pocket-sized units which could, with a stretch, be called mobile phones. The borders between mobile and PC computing would become quite blurred, and the only differentiation would be by the way of the screen size and processor power.

You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one… ;)

Miniblogging FTW

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:56:47 +0100

I did blogging, and was left wanting (too much hassle, too much flexibility)… I did microblogging, and was left wanting (140 characters are to few to say anything really)… Now I’m going for the middle ground. We’ll see what happens next.