Just because Backgammon & Chess are thousands of years old and well respected... doesn't mean a new game invented in modern times can't be deeper.
Swarm is deeper because there are more possibilities in the game play. There are 84 squares. Each player has 11 pieces that can move in any direction. Players can move their opponents pieces as well as their own (effectively meaning each player has 22 pieces at their disposal per turn). Each piece can move in any of six directions. There are two ways to win. So, mathematically at least, it's probably deeper.
I'm the developer of tweetminer and my only goal has been to build a viable tech startup (something like hootsuite) from the word go (as regularly discussed on the podcast techzing)
I've followed all the classic advice:
1) Build something to scratch your own itch
2) Cultivate a community using a service like get satisfaction
3) Ask customers what their pain points are and implement those features
4) Be transparent
5) Check Twitter TOS tot he best of my ability before releasing a new feature
I only mention all this because I think this story highlights the issues of "playing in someone else's sand box"
Even if you play by all the rules it's no guarantee that you won't be affected. It's an important risk to fully appreciate and understand when considering what your next startup will be.
1st Line of code August 10th
1st Signup September 13th (34 days to go beta)
1st Sale October 17th (68 days to first sale - 1 month beta)
1st $1000 November 17th (98 days to $1000)
About 500 beta testers signed up. Very few converted because I gave them all a free pass for one year.
Here's the paypal links I used to get things up and running...
Oops! There's a slight bug in the customers by plan stats code. The real number of customers is 51 (2.8%) -- listed on the customers line -- (bug fixed now)
Getting from the first line of code to $1000 revenue is the hardest part of ANY business. Think about it. Google. Facebook. Twitter.
TweetMiner did that in 98 days. That's VERY rare for a web startup, especially for a part time project in a space that everyone says is not monetizeable.
Sometimes it's not about the amount of revenue - it's more about what the business proves. After that it's just a question of scaling and not f*ing up...
I want to add something to this discussion. Something I certainly did not expect would happen. Since I released the revenue figures publicly I have had three angels contact me saying "what are your plans, are you looking for any investment". Imagine that! Angels perusing me!!
As I say it wasn't intended - but it's a nice side note.
Yes, I've been very motivated by balsamiq - but another big reason is because we talk about it weekly on our tech podcast http://techzinglive.com - the main reason is because this is exactly the kind of data I wish I had been able to see when starting my earlier one man businesses
Ok, if this article is correct then it's a big problem for Google. Because their entire revenue model is based on earning money from from advertising... I can't imagine enterprise level organisations allowing Google to Earn money via advertising.
I know that Google have made some efforts to make money by directly charging Enterprises but that represents a tiny part of their revenue to date.
In other words, is Wave a much smaller opportunity than they had hoped? And if so, it might just end up being a "side project"...
I thought lots of people who don't have booths pay for a ticket with the express purpose of networking. I didn't think you could get in without paying $1.5-$3k for a ticket? Maybe I'm wrong but that was the impression I had.
Yes It seems so hypocritical that he's waging a war against people doing something very similar to what he does. I wonder if it makes him so angry because he recognises on a subconscious level that he's doing something quite similar.
However, given how Jason feels that startups should NEVER have to pay to be in a room full of investors... then why charge $1500 per ticket for Techcrunch?!
Surely all the budding entrepreneurs should get into Techcrunch for FREE!!!
After all that $1500 could go along way toward their start-up right?
but they chose to give it to Techcrunch in order to network (i.e, in the case of Techcrunch people see value in giving a large chunk of money to be in a room with lots of investors and well networked people)
