Joel Liu's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
-
Most of the time, important new ideas don’t succeed on the first attempt or even the first ten attempts. But then they do, and it seems to happen suddenly. It’s hard to tell why this is. It’s probably a combination of timing (riding some fundamental shift in technology or culture), and execution (getting the product just right).
-
An idea getting tried over and over tends to be a positive signal (which is one reason that competition is overrated). It’s very easy when you spend lots of time around startups to get cynical. You could tweet and blog predictions that every new startup will fail and how the ideas are derivative and you’d be right 95% of the time. The hard part – and what matters for founders and investors – is figuring out the right mix of timing and execution to finally get it right.
-
The most important distinction in Silicon Valley is this: Is it a product or a feature?
-
But now it's transitioning from a product to a feature -- of cellphones. Mainstream smartphones like the iPhone 4S and the HTC Evo 4G have 8-megapixel cameras, quality optics and HD video capability. People who have smartphones already have decent cameras. That's why sales of point-and-shoot digital cameras are plateauing and will inevitably decline over the next few years.
- 3 more annotation(s)...
-
I want to talk about how we build things here, a little bit about the product, the work we do and the work we need to do. So, this is something I put on our Wiki a long time ago [shows slide], as one of our principles is to delight our users. But then I realized it’s more important to delight their users, which are their customers and payers. And the more we focus on that payer experience, the more we focus on really making that magical — and designing it. We win, our users win, and we get more users.
-
I responded: we have the best team of engineers and designers imaginable. We will win because we are small and awesome. Microsoft throws 10x as many people at music players, phones, and computers. And they aren't winning there. If team size always won, there wouldn't be startups.
-
I asked this person directly: do you have an iPhone? Nope. Do you use a Mac or a PC? PC. There you go. You don't get it. Until you use an iPhone, a Mac, drive a BMW or Audi, you don't even realize how great the experience can be or how much it can drive the success of a product.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
Less is more.
-
I remember reading a paper a long time ago about traffic engineering. It turns out that when there's a traffic problem you have three choices more or less:
1) Add something
2) Change something
3) Remove something
The paper talked about how most civil engineers have a strong bias toward 1, followed by 2, and then rarely 3. The first thought is almost always to add something. Something is wrong? That means we need something more to solve it, right?
Complexity is not a virtue. It's actually a vice and a liability. It is better to solve a problem by removing something than by adding something. This (along with losing sight of what customers want) is the problem with engineer-driven design. Engineers like to add stuff, not remove stuff.
Wave always looked horridly over-complex to me. The protocol was a tower of babel. It was "open," but it was so complex that nobody would bother climbing its learning curve. It tried to solve too many problems at once, it was slow, and it was cumbersome to use. Those are all signs of over-engineering.
-
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
- 2 more annotation(s)...
-
These are indeed things that product managers do. However, in a software startup, the product manager's portfolio is the founder's portfolio; in other words: you'd better be a good product manager (or be ready to become one).
Read Steve Blank and Eric Ries. Don't think about hiring someone into this role until you've done it successfully for your company first.
-
"For over five years I've hired four product developers for three different startups I've co-founded. None of them has delivered satisfactory results. I am a perfectionist and that may be part of the issue. I've decided to stick to product development and, instead, hire others to take care of sales, business development, operations, etc. Also, doing product development is what I love the most. I am not that good at interacting face-to-face with others."
- 4 more annotation(s)...
-
This hypothetical I describe above is the way things work at ChallengePost. Brandon is a non-technical founder who is inspiring to listen to during pitches to customers (insert sell ice to eskimos reference), but there’s no way he has the time between phone calls and business trips to direct the product. So when I joined, Brandon was able to shift his focus gradually away from the product so that our discussions are primarily about strategy; should we do this or that, rather than execution; how we do this or that.
-
SCRUM ... all irrelevant unless the software we're building meets the needs of those that are using it.
That statement misses the entire point of Scrum. What are those short iterations for, if not to get feedback from those using the software? Why replan at the end of every sprint, if not to know how user needs have changed and been informed by the current software?
How is the readme so different from the sprint's user stories? Working from the desired end docs looks like another version of the currently fashionable "pull" methods. Not a bad one for a particular kind of project though.
-
- Shorten the release cycle and still get great features in front of users when they are ready
- Make the schedule more predictable and easier to scope
- Reduce the pressure on engineering to “make” a release
Over the next few months, we are going to be rolling out a new release process to accelerate the pace at which Google Chrome stable releases become available. Running under ideal conditions, we will be looking to release a new stable version about once every six weeks, roughly twice as often as we do today.So why the change? We have three fundamental goals in reducing the cycle time: -
- Shorten the release cycle and still get great features in front of users when they are ready
- Make the schedule more predictable and easier to scope
- Reduce the pressure on engineering to “make” a release
So why the change? We have three fundamental goals in reducing the cycle time:The first goal is fairly straightforward, given our pace of development. We have new features coming out all the time and do not want users to have to wait months before they can use them. While pace is important to us, we are all committed to maintaining high quality releases — if a feature is not ready, it will not ship in a stable release. - 2 more annotation(s)...
-
This is tangentally related, but I'm going to break my contract with Verizon after buying a Motorola Devour in March. I believe that Motorola and VZW have broken an implied promise to support my Android phone through the update cycle; it shipped with 1.6 and it appears that the powers that be have decided that it's not worthy of the engineering resources to get it up to 2.2, so it'll be at 1.6 forever.
I'm sorry, but a three-month old phone should not be obsolete. If I get a iPhone 4, I have every confidence that Apple will make every effort to ensure that subsequent iOS upgrades work on my phone until there's a legitimate technical reason to exclude it, not some bullshit profit/loss maximization algorithm.
The Android ecosystem will remain fragmented because every single phone+manufacturer+carrier combination requires a decision and engineering resources to upgrade. I could never recommend an Android phone to anyone but the anti-Apple hordes.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in Product
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo

