A practical application of this perspective, and one that has a lot of virtues is:
When evaluating a crazy new idea (particularly something like a product or business), don't bother asking "will this work?" because no one truly knows, but rather ask: "if this does work, then what are the implications?"
Pg has quite a track record here by being an early investor in textbook crazy new ideas like Airbnb, Coinbase, etc. "Will this replace a chunk of the hotel market? Unclear, but if it does, it will be a huge and valuable business."
For folks talking about Mighty, its through this lens that pg is thinking about it. "Will it work? Is it better than alternatives? Who knows... But if the vision does pan out, I think it's more obvious to see how this could be a big and important business."
I'm a big fan of both Ben Thompson and Tim Wu. One of Wu's specific critiques is my biggest disagreement I have with Thompson, and is a train of thought that seems to be dogma in Silicon Valley Twitter.
Wal-Mart putting their own brand of toilet paper on more prominent end cap shelves is fundamentally different than Amazon promoting their own Amazon Basics toilet paper on a search results page on Amazon.com. Amazon has a much greater ability to drive conversion to its own products than a brick-and-mortar retailer (e.g. limited screen space, UI, information hierarchy, better data, etc.)
Thompson's argument that "it's all the same," "private labeling has been going on forever," is flimsy and intellectually lazy.
Once we agree on this basic set of facts the more interesting question becomes: is this dynamic bad for consumers long-term?
The crux of this round of tech anti-trust scrutiny is time horizon. Many of these practices are neutral or beneficial to consumers in the short-term, but that's always how monopolies operate. Undercutting prices to put a competitor out of business benefit consumers immediately, but hurt consumers after the competitor goes out of business and the monopolist can raise prices. Amazon selling Amazon Basics products at a loss or near-loss is good for customers now, but if it puts too many other online retailers out of business, eventually they'll raise prices and hurt consumers.
> Wal-Mart putting their own brand of toilet paper on more prominent end cap shelves is fundamentally different than Amazon promoting their own Amazon Basics toilet paper on a search results page on Amazon.com.
The other fundamental difference is scale. It can physically walk down the toilet paper aisle in Walmart in see all the available toilet papers in less than a minute. In fact, I can probably wander the entire Walmart store in about 30-45 minutes and see everything they are selling in that store. It is not entirely impractical.
On the other hand it is impractical for me to go through all the items Amazon is selling. Thus what they are promoting becomes much more important.
> In fact, I can probably wander the entire Walmart store in about 30-45 minutes and see everything they are selling in that store.
I'm pretty sure this can't be done. Consider how frequent it is to intend to purchase a particular item, which you know the store stocks, and yet be unable to find it even though you're looking for it in the correct aisle.
What if we ran the following experiment:
1. We give the subject a particular item to look for. They know what they're supposed to find.
2. The subject looks through the Walmart for up to 60 minutes for that item. They can't ask for help.
3. We then ask a single question, "is this item in stock at this Walmart?"
What percentage of subjects would answer correctly?
There is a difference between seeing everything (or at least the vast majority of things) and remembering everything. Assuming that for the most part like items are clumped together it doesn't matter if you can remember if Lay's southern barbecue was in stock it matters if, when strolling down the aisle, you were able to see the majority of the chips in one place.
It's a bit like sequential read vs random read. In a physical store it's largely possible to sequentially read the inventory even if you can't quickly search for individual items randomly quickly. On Amazon you're not going to go through all of the aisles sequentially, at best you go in knowing exactly what virtual aisles you want and then you can sequentially search that and even then the best it's going to work out is the worst case of walking through the entire store for an hour.
You appear to be talking about something fairly different from what my comment addresses.
> it doesn't matter if you can remember if Lay's southern barbecue was in stock it matters if, when strolling down the aisle, you were able to see the majority of the chips in one place.
Perhaps, but I didn't ask about this. The challenge is that you are told in advance that you're looking for Lay's Southern Barbecue. Remembering whether it's there is not difficult, because it's the only thing you want. The difficult part is determining whether it's there.
> In a physical store it's largely possible to sequentially read the inventory even if you can't quickly search for individual items randomly quickly.
Again, this badly misunderstands what I was saying. It is not possible to sequentially read the inventory in a physical store; if this were possible, determining whether or not a particular product existed in the store would be trivial. Instead, this task is one that people routinely fail at.
We're talking about the same thing unless your stance is 100% of people known 100% of the product SKUs they want when looking for things and they know these before they start looking. For those that don't go in knowing the want exactly "Lay's Southern Barbecue 9.5 oz Bag for $2.98" your scenario quickly breaks down into the points I discussed which is why I brought them up.
In more Amazon terms someone is going to search "tablet" not "New Apple iPad Air (10.9-inch, Wi-Fi, 64GB) - Rose Gold (Latest Model, 4th Generation) sold by Apple". Even if searching "Apple iPad" I get Amazon Fire tablets high in the results.
Are you suggesting that physically going to a Walmart and walking down the aisle to view all the toilet paper options is more "practical" than typing walmart.com, searching for toilet paper, and scrolling through the options?
Personally, I find it much easier to search for products at home. It's literally seconds versus at least 10 to 15 minutes to get to the nearest store and browse around. And what is the use case for browsing all of the products in a store? I can't imagine why I would need to walk around an entire Walmart.
> Are you suggesting that physically going to a Walmart and walking down the aisle to view all the toilet paper options is more "practical" than typing walmart.com, searching for toilet paper, and scrolling through the options?
No.
I am saying that once you are at Walmart, staring at the the end cap toilet paper, it is more practical to just walk down the aisle scanning the rest of the toilet paper available, than it it is to go through the many pages of results on either walmart.com or amazon.
I guess that's true, but I don't see the purpose of that comparison.
Also, if the website is designed well, such as Home Depot, it's actually better to use the Home Depot website on your phone to find what you need, and it tells you exactly where it is in the aisle. It would take me longer to search through all the products in the aisle to find exactly what I need.
Might not be the case for an item such as Toilet Paper, but websites that let me drill down into the attribute of the product I need are super useful.
Based on accounts I’ve read of what vendors have to do in order to sell on Walmart shelves (most notably reduce their quality to let Walmart be the lowest price), I think that conflict of interest would actually make shopping on the internet better.
Can you elaborate? All of the examples I can think of where favoring an in house brand is "bad" ultimately end with the consumer being harmed by either paying a higher price or receiving a lower quality product. What are the other "bad" scenarios which don't reduce to either of these?
The Sherman Act doesn't say anything about consumer welfare. It doesn't matter if the price goes up, down, sideways. What matters is illegal anticompetitive actions.
The big problem is that Amazon has third party sellers and there is a strong incentive to use those third party sellers as a stepping stone to create their own brand. Since third party sellers are basically Amazon customers (they pay fees and use amazon services) Amazon ends up competing against its own customers. This is where the conflict of interest lies. Without third party sellers it's just another Walmart
House brands are not in competition with suppliers because house brands are often sourced from the same suppliers and labeling is actually a service that those suppliers offer.
I worked on a video chat startup in 2006 and a concept that still stands out is "floor exchange," which is when one person stops talking and another person starts talking during a conversation.
Floor Exchange usually happens seamlessly in most in-person conversations, but it can be a challenge over video chat, even in 2020.
In any video chat it's helpful to keep your points short and pause for longer than you normally would at the end of each one; if you're doing it right, the pauses will feel uncomfortably long, especially at first. This allows extra time for floor exchange.
IMO, video conference apps should be designed around mute as the default. The only way to unmute should be modal — holding down the spacebar key (or touch UI equivalent).
This hold-spacebar "enter floor mode" event and its matching exit event should be transmitted out of band to other participants, so they'd get the "floor exchange" signal more reliably and a fraction of a second faster than when relying on video to communicate this.
I’m worried this might make it worse. What I’ve seen is people have a harder time getting the floor, so they speak even longer (making it harder for everyone else). Soon it’s just a series of speeches instead of a conversation. Seems like people would have an even harder time giving it up with holding a key. Maybe if you paired it with a “seconds spoken” timer.
> Floor Exchange usually happens seamlessly in most in-person conversations
This is definitely just me (and, I guess, other people like me, but clearly there aren't enough of us to shift the norms in our direction), but I don't find this to be true at all. I have problems with people not recognizing whether I've finished speaking, and even more problems with people deciding that I'm not speaking so they need to continue filling airtime.
A lot of people will start talking before they've thought through something, figuring out what they're saying half way. There's been past HN threads getting into how some cultures have small interjections which the speaker generally talks over to collaboratively steer conversation which can have this "floor exchange" occur when the speaker responds to the interruptions with a prompt
I've met some people who think all the way through what they say before speaking. Interrupting generally shuts them up, so one has to learn to not. Important to stop talking & wait for response, double digit silence may be the right call
If you're the latter type, you can help people understand this is your preferred mode of communication by finding a way to non verbally signal that you're thinking. It can be as stupid as pointing a finger aimlessly if you're thinking of a response after half a second of silence, to sign that if the speaker doesn't continue you will eventually bring something up. Thought being put into responses is appreciated in the end
Floor Exchange usually happens seamlessly in most in-person conversations, but it can be a challenge over video chat, even in 2020.
This is because (conventionally, at least) video chat doesn't really allow eye contact in a natural way, isn't it?
I'll be really surprised if the easiest way to hack the interview process this year isn't just being aware-enough about your camera setup that you can emulate visual cues inherent to physical conversations.
Having longer pauses is good, but also randomizing your pause length ensures that there is a fair distribution among who gets to go first. It's kind of like the collision logic in the WiFi protocol.
Garry and the Initialized crew are simply the best!
You can really judge investors by how helpful they are during adversity. Through ups and downs, but especially the downs, Garry and Initialized have been the absolute best!
If you're a founder and you have an opportunity to team up with them, do it without hesitation!
A recently published controlled study found that in two groups who were deliberately exposed to the cold virus then forced to sleep less than 6 hours a night or more than 8 hours, the group that slept less than 6 hours caught colds at a 4.5X greater rate, which was independent of previous immune system strength, age, socio-economic, and every other variable they tracked.
The experimental design seems to be pretty solid, and once these findings are replicated, this is pretty strong evidence that "we're not getting enough sleep."
The claim made by the article isn't that getting < 8 hours of sleep is bad (they agree it is), it's that most people get 8 hours of sleep; more specifically, that many surveys overestimate the number of people who get too little sleep.
Unless you also show that a majority of people are getting less than 6 hours of sleep a night I don't see how the summary you gave shows that people are not getting enough sleep.
There are interesting challenges with data collection (and I don't think the survey paper discussed in the OP really solves this problem), but to be clear, somewhere between 10-30% of Americans average fewer than 6 hours of sleep per night, which increases your risk of catching colds by 450%.
So getting less sleep than you need is definitely harmful, the questions become: a) how much do we really need, b) how much are people actually getting, and the jury still seems to be out on both of these.
There's nothing profound about it, it's common sense in business though people use different words like "moats", "barriers to entry" and "pricing power".
Well it doesn't help that the startup world thumbs their nose at MBAs and seems to really want 26 year old founders. Inexperience + disdain for the very education that teaches that kind of thinking leads to a pretty obvious conclusion.
> one of the most profound insights in Thiel's excellent book, Zero to One.
Which was an insight in Blue Ocean Strategy (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005).
And before that, if you squint, in Competitive Strategy (Porter, 1980) and Competitive Advantage (Porter, 1980).
And the B-school theorists basically got their ideas by peeking over the fence of the Economics dept at how monopolies are formed and abuse their power and saying "hey, let's teach that to our students".
pg has described email as a to-do list of tasks assigned by other people.
The social dimension is my reason for pursuing inbox zero. Especially as a founder, it's important a) not to be a bottle neck and b) to respect others by responding promptly.
The "browse-and-message" paradigm is fundamentally broken, not to mention a little dehumanizing (you're kind of shopping for people, which, let's face it, is pretty weird).
Our take is that the biggest problems with online dating are both the online part and the dating part --- it's hard to gauge chemistry online and it's cumbersome (and for women, potentially dangerous) to arrange a meeting. Meanwhile, labeling it as dating increases the pressure and the awkwardness for everyone.
Grouper Social Club sets up drinks between 2 groups of friends: 3 guys and 3 girls (or 3 guys, etc.).
There are no profiles or messages on our site. We match the groups together ourselves using Facebook info (which overcomes a lot of biases), then take care of all the coordination. Members pre-pay for their drink and the experience (the only fee), confirm a time, then we give them the place to meet.
We don't like labels, and don't think of Groupers as dates. To some they're similar, but the expectations are importantly different. Worst case: you're out with your friends and experience a funny story together, the average case is a super fun night out where there are some sparks between at least a pair of you, and the best case is, well, sky's the limit. Also, there's safety (and less awkwardness and more variety) in numbers.
We're live in 13 major cities in the US and Canada and growing quickly. 93% of members who go on a Grouper say they want to go on another one, and about half already have.
Our mission isn't to fix online dating, it's to end loneliness. Specifically, we want to help people get out from behind the blue glow of their computer screens and actually connect with people.
Social networks and online dating sites can be more isolating than social. But they don't have to be.
Shoot me an email at Michael [at] joingrouper.com if you have any questions.
Do you guys do mixed groups (2 guys, 1 girl -- etc)? In the future? Your messaging tries really hard not to label Grouper as a dating service but (3 girls) and (3 guys) is pretty transparent about what the intentions are for the two groups.
Lot's of growth avenues, looking forward to seeing this grow.
I've seen this service before and really like the idea. My hangup is the Facebook requirement. I understand why you use that network, and that it would be difficult to use another to try to gauge which groups would have a good time though. But, as someone who doesn't use and has no interest in Facebook, I'm hopeful that you have other plans for this service in the long-term.
And if I could actually try Grouper, I would. But given I signed up over 4 months ago and haven't heard a peep (though the site still insists "YOUR APPLICATION IS ON ITS WAY. WE'LL BE IN TOUCH."), I'm currently labeling anything and everything Grouper as vapor.
I also consider the Facebook requirement obnoxious - up until I decided to give Grouper a spin, my Facebook profile was minimal, not even a profile picture. But I was curious enough that I bit the bullet and gave Facebook way, way more information about myself than I'd normally be willing.
Which, of course, makes the vapor nature of the service that much more upsetting.
My experience could very well be an aberration - that said, I figure I'd throw out a warning to others interested in trying to service but are hesitant to give Facebook more personal information.
Sorry about that. Please email me at michael [at] joingrouper.com.
We use several techniques to filter out sketchy accounts, and your sparse Facebook information may have triggered our suspicions.
We need to use Facebook for, at the very least, making sure you don't know the other group.
Also, in terms of the allegations of vaporware, just search Instagram for the hashtag #groupergram. There are over 1,000 photos from recent Groupers. We've also collected our favorites on our landing page http://joingrouper.com and here: http://joingrouper.com/groupergrams
This applies to different types of design/designers.
If you're looking for graphic design, then find a designer whose graphic design you love. If you're looking for a UI design, then find a UI designer whose UI you love.
Prior to the distinction between UI and UX, you had (and still have) all sorts of graphic designers whose work fits into different ranges on the spectrum between function and form.
Poster designers are concerned with catching the public's eye and delivering the necessary information, but catching the public's eye is arguably more important. Other designers exclusively do branding, which is all about 'look' and hardly about 'function'.
In reply to the original point, I would say that, on one hand, how something looks is part of how it works, if you consider the entire user experience as the function of the product.
On the other hand, I think what you're saying is that you're reluctant to hire designers who only do a particular style well. I agree that a good designer should aspire to broaden their pallet, but I see no reason to condemn those who for whatever reason are not capable of or interested in that.
For comparison, consider that some fine arts produce work in the same style for their entire career (i.e. James Turrell) while others explore a broad territory (i.e. Gerhard Richter).
Branding is definitely about function, but the way branding functions is very esoteric and generally intended to be subliminal. But when you're working on branding, good designers work to a plan. They know what the client wants to say and they say it. Bad designers (like those with a style) post rationalise their work, and that's a dishonest and ineffective approach to design, in my opinion of course.
I'm not so sure. I would argue that any and all design is UI design because UX applies to everything that is designed, be it a website, a newspaper or a rocket ship.
When evaluating a crazy new idea (particularly something like a product or business), don't bother asking "will this work?" because no one truly knows, but rather ask: "if this does work, then what are the implications?"
Pg has quite a track record here by being an early investor in textbook crazy new ideas like Airbnb, Coinbase, etc. "Will this replace a chunk of the hotel market? Unclear, but if it does, it will be a huge and valuable business."
For folks talking about Mighty, its through this lens that pg is thinking about it. "Will it work? Is it better than alternatives? Who knows... But if the vision does pan out, I think it's more obvious to see how this could be a big and important business."