The biggest reason for me to pass on implementing an approach like this is what I THINK is the actual most common use case for a typical user when logging into a site at which they are a regular:
They're doing so for the nth time, and on the (or a) device they usually use, and thus their browser (or other password manager) has already got their password remembered and thus it is pre-filled in.
Having to click back and forth between email every time you log in seems way clunky relative to that, which for me is something above 90% of the instances I log in to some web application.
Couple that smoothness with picking a non-reused, strong password for a web application (which password managers make actually practical) and the friction in the user login experience seems to have little if any upside.
A business needn't go for as broad a market as they could, and is often rewarded by targeting (and really resonating with) a narrow niche.
Due to the name I immediately felt right at home, that this was totally for me. "Feel Better. Code Better. Level Up."? Heck yeah, speaks right to me.
I signed up without hesitation and enjoyed a nice 26 minute break from coding. Something aimed at "office workers who sit all day" likely wouldn't have gotten that response from me.
(And if the "hacker" tagline really does end up weighing down this venture, spinning off a rebranded version or two for other niches could quickly solve that problem.)
"Yoga International could keep the videos on its website until it had a chance to re-film the classes using a different style."
So they say they're not using the patent as a weapon, but then describe themselves harassing another organization with it. Their patience is generous only if we can assume it's no trouble at all to re-film those classes (ugh).
And doesn't the existence of videos they "felt were very close to ours" imply a bit of prior art and/or lack of originality on the so-called patented style? Or perhaps are they are insinuating that Yoga International willfully "stole" or "reverse engineered" their style before the patent was issued?
That was my first thought as well. For better or worse, I love MooTools and vastly prefer it to jQuery. It's the occasional time like this whene I have admit there's a cost to picking & sticking with the way less popular framework.
MooEditable is pretty good, but I'd plunk down the cash to swap this one in in a heartbeat.
But even setting aside ideologies, I think the patent route would be a WAY tougher route (from a resource perspective) than what one savvy commenter on the article suggested: "Cold. Hard. Cash."
To file and then successfully defend a patent from infringers would, I suspect, cost substantially more and take far more time than to actually hire someone to build a real prototype of your vision, which then gives you some legs to stand on in approaching the market.
Good question. I wrote this from the vantage point of developers, for whom NDAs is a different situation from that of investor types. There's intrinsically more precedent for an NDA to be rejected by someone potentially writing the checks than by someone potentially receiving them.
Accordingly, I reckon that this idea is much more well-trodden for investors such as yourself.
Totally fair point--the fellow I recently talked to is completely an instance of that bias.
For sure, there's nothing statistically significant about my few experiences: I have only observations of some of the shortcomings that are quite real.
That's a very insightful perspective, but I'm campaigning in the opposite direction. What I think you're implying is that GM was complacent, didn't feel threatened, scoffed at the notion, and thus has been over taken.
My thought is that to a large part we've ALREADY been sold on the idea that we can't compete, so we shouldn't even try--that outsourcing is here to stay, and programmers in other countries will have no trouble out competing us. I'm proposing that we don't believe the hype, that we can compete effectively.
To be clear, I don't mean to dump on India specifically, but rather offer up a narrative that counters the notion of overseas talent being an insurmountable threat. This missive applies equally well to any offshore outsourcing, but I agree that generality gets lost. andrewfelix's suggested title "Why I Will Never Feel Threatened by Bad Programmers" is good but doesn't quite hit it: "Why I Will Never Feel Threatened by Outsourced Programmers" perhaps captures my intended message the best.
This is about insights I've gained from "coming late to the party": projects that first went for implementation overseas, and which I subsequently got to clean up or improve upon. Much like many of you are saying, I found it refreshing [within the context of the "threat" of outsourcing] to experience that programming talent is indeed the primary factor in winning development jobs, with solid communication ability (aided by proximity) a close second.
I don't know that everyone has the benefit of that realization born of seeing firsthand how several such projects turn out (I didn't--out of school in '03 a popular narrative was that programming jobs are vanishing and there's nothing you can do about it). Calling out the myth of cheap overseas programming I reckon can be useful to both programmers (encouragement) and decision makers (insightful warning).