smidwap's comments

I used to work with the Lesson.ly team. New and existing employee training is a big problem space with lots of room for innovation. Many employers want to do a better job of training their employees, but most don't have a systematic way of doing so.

For example, a support team might need continual training of the product(s) they're supporting. Or a sales team needs to get up-to-speed on how to use sales software. Or a distributed workforce needs to learn about company benefits and policies.

In many cases, employers turn to team meetings, email, powerpoints, pdf's, etc. Some will implement a bulky LMS (learning management software, usually over-loaded with features). But a lot are not happy with their current setup and know there is room for improvement.

So enter Lesson.ly, stage right :-)

1. Do not take this statement for granted: "When your page is simple, yes, you don't need that much interactivity. But the market will demand more and more functionality on that page." Simple, fast apps that don't overdose on interactivity seem like a better bet. The vast majority of problems being solved with software do not require the bells and whistles of Facebook & Gmail.

2. A huge aspect of choosing Rails or client-side MVC is productivity. If you're going to build a web app in Ruby, you're going to have to have somebody on your team that is good at Ruby. By layering a client-side MVC on top of that, you're now requiring javascript expertise. Your life is now twice as difficult.

3. It's amazing how powerful DHH's approach is. Just look at the new Basecamp. Does any part of that app feel slow, clumsy, and non-interactive? Absolutely not. I imagine myself being opening up the Basecamp codebase and "getting it" within a day. If you understand your constraints well, you can deliver amazing software with an order of magnitude less complexity.

Couldn't agree more. The bonus reason sums it up best: "It's the right thing to do". This kind of stuff pays off in the long-rug I bet. A few times I have replied to emails from startups and the reply-to is their CEO. I get excited, send off an email, but am disappointed when I see an employee replying to my email which was forward to them by the CEO.

I think the implications are still unclear. It's hard to tell if they're specifically targeting apps that are "badge-arrific" and use Facebook to market themselves, if they're referring to canvas apps, or if this a wholesale attack on all apps that use Facebook data. For instance, I'm working on an application that will eventually integrate (hopefully) data from Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., in a similar fashion as Summify. It is the power of combining all of this data that interests many users.

All that said, there is a shred of logic behind they're actions...Logic in a very self-serving way, however. I am certainly biased, but I can't see this helping anyone but Facebook!

I'll end with the first line of their platform policies: "Facebook Platform is an extension of Facebook, whose mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected."

Right...

Your thoughts parallel mine. At the very least, if this idea is so brilliant, why can't a company like Dell or Apple begin mass-producing these little tikes? Even with patents and all that legal mumbo-jumbo, I'm sure they could find something to sell. Makes me wonder if this product really will sell, or if the biggies just lost out on an early opportunity.

My ignorance will show here, but I would imagine engineering one of those devices is nothing trivial (duh), let alone something that a small company could afford. I wasn't even aware that TechCrunch developed consumer products. Can someone enlighten me on how a company such as TechCrunch can reasonably expect to design, develop, and sell (they have 2/3 of those down) a tablet (netbook) and profit? There are seemingly high barriers to entry in such a market, are there not? Just curious!

Can't wait to see Web 2.0 be the next regulated industry. Imagine the government trying to pull off a definition of that!

Bruno, we've got to talk. I go to IU and you seem like a particularly interesting individual. I'll shoot you an email soon.

Maybe if we were both more clear about the point we were trying to make, we would agree :) Fact of the matter is that age isn't a sole determining factor of one's entrepreneurial mindset, but it nevertheless plays a role, albeit small or significant depending on the person. I've partnered with a mid-30's guy who in the end wasn't fulfilling his responsibilities because he was in the midst trying to get a job and feed his wife and son.

I'm now experiencing a partnership with a mid-50's guy. I'm working alongside him and several others my age. What can I say? I am experiencing exactly what I speak of right now. We have different personal goals but the beauty of it all is that no matter our personal goals we are all headed in the same direction.

So no hating here. Both young and old make for great entrepreneurs, just many times with different personal goals. What exactly are we arguing?

Hard to see how it could be a good thing. The added desire te succeed, if any, will likely be short term.

Imagine the possibilities if we gathered all the troops (rejected troops that is) and brainstormed one sweet startup. Not realistic but how cool would that be?

Correction: you haven't beaten the 18/19/20/whatever year-old shits...yet. Give us a few years to be 24 :)

Age does matter. People of different age have different priorities, bottom line. Our 52 year-old has children our age and is much less concerned with the exciting opportunities engendered through YC and much more focused on just getting the business off the ground with something to show for it.

I feel as if rejection here shouldn't really be a motivating factor! There should be so many reasons above proving YC wrong to be a motivated entrepreneur. But whatever gets you going I guess...

Same here. We have a team of 20-year olds an one 52 year-old. The grandpa of us bunch didn't see the same excitement in this opportunity as the young'uns did. Rejection here as well...would have been a heck of a summer in San Francisco, instead it will have to be an awesome 4 months in Bloomington, IN, home of Indiana University!

You didn't get my April Fool's joke either? c'mon...

This is crazy haha! I'm not sure I see the sustainability in this but it is fun to see innovation like this out there. It's probably one of those things where new or better technology will be produced regardless of its applicability to FACE itself.

I don't know if I'd want to pitch my idea to Google at such an early stage. They have enough resources to duplicate a lot of entrepreneurs' efforts. Seems like it is still best to start small, think big, and dream even bigger. Pitch the idea to Google once it has tangible promise.

My gut tells me to head to Google for sizeable funding, on the order of 100k and above. Anything less and I'd keep it with places like YC and friends and family (oh and fools too). Just my 2 pesos

Why does this guy get negative points? It's legitimate...

You are reading way too much into this blog post. I think much of the post's content can be treated somewhat humorously, e.g. he is using the Love, Hate, Love Again title as more of a metaphor than a description of his real feelings for PG. Some stuff might be a little extreme (like screaming "I Love you, PG!") but do you want to crucify (allusion to your use of JC) him for showing a little emotion? Plus it lightens the reading of the post. Imagine a bland person's post on his love, hate, love again relationship with PG: "His stuff excited me, then it didn't, then it did again." Lame.

I get the feeling from your very own comment that you are attempting to unfold a much grander thought of yours by taking this guy's blog post out of context. I won't question the premise that there are overly-obsesses fanatics out there, but not this guy. In the end, this guy is just another critic with a unique writing style. Kudos to him.

One point: Jake is clearly trying to portray himself as the self-made, hard-working, humble American. In my opinion, he would've been better off not publishing this article in the NY Times. From my point of view, it seems he is searching for the spotlight by providing his letter of resignation to the Times. A good read for sure, but I am forced to consider this when I dig deep down in my stomach to find pity for him.