"Better" was probably the wrong term, but if you start thinking about enterprise technology, a lot of it is actually just straight up based on how much cost savings or performance improvement something can deliver (e.g., a DB that gives an order of magnitude performance improvement for certain verticals). You're right that consumer stuff is a different story.
And as far as the sales comment below...as mentioned in the post, sometimes it's not worth me shoving it down their throat if they're not going to be pumped about coming in to work everyday.
Hey, thanks for the feedback. We understand where you're coming from, but we wanted to present the "business side" as it's own independent view. And while you're correct that Part 1 is a bit short, it was much too long to condense into one readable post.
Ultimately, we're still learning and we'll keep your points in mind for next time.
I didn't think you worked at Yelp, but you were defending them just like my parents' customers were defending them. And as you point out, it's wrong of me to accuse you of gaming the system without any evidence that you work for them. Doesn't feel that great, does it? You actually illustrated my point quite nicely.
Also, we're not really competing with Yelp at all, so I think it's all fair game. In fact, we're integrating with Yelp's API, since we do recognize that despite how screwed up I may think their business is, people still trust them.
And my father did it because the few hundred dollars he spent is paid back if it prevents a couple customers from leaving, or even if he doesn't have to spend another hour on the phone with them. Doesn't mean what they did is fair, though.
TL;DR: You're wrong. And you sound like someone from Yelp trying to "game the system" and write positive reviews about yourself. Maybe PG's algorithms should censor you without any evidence?
--------------
My parents had the exact same experience as in the article.
- A few years ago, they didn't really know what yelp was, but a customer was surprised that the reviews up there were pretty bad, mostly just from customers who were upset we had to send them letters after they didn't pay their bills.
- We encouraged people to review the business on Yelp. Despite numerous people (including a couple Yelp Elites) writing positive real reviews, interestingly, none of the reviews showed up on Yelp.
- Customers told us their reviews had not shown up, and when we called Yelp to find out why, a few reps either claimed there was no way to put the reviews back or they denied their existence. The one thing they did have in common was they promised things would be "fixed" if we advertised with them. I'm pretty sure that's closer to extortion than smart business.
- Last week, my dad finally caved and placed some ads on Yelp.
- Within an hour, there were suddenly dozens of additional reviews on there for the business, and the rating had shot up from 2 stars to 4.5 stars.
So let me ask you, if Yelp really thought those hidden reviews were trying to game the system, why were those reviews placed back when we agreed to spend some ad money? Yelp can't argue that their reviews are unbiased when stuff like this happens.
We (a YC alum with 2 MIT grads) are working on our new project, Midtown Row. We've noticed there are a lot of awesome businesses in our area, but a lot of our friends still haven't heard of them for some reason. Moreover, whenever we went somewhere new, our friends would tell us a dozen places we had to check out while we were there. And when we did, we realized why.
Therefore, we came up with the idea of creating a marketplace to connect small brands and local businesses with customers they typically have not been able to reach (e.g., due to geography, marketing, or something else). We'd love some feedback on our landing page and on the concept.
Yes, it will be tough, but you will have time to earn money. Many MIT students work during the school year and in the summer to be able to pay for school. Here are some options for you if you do decide to go to MIT, all of which have been done by MIT students in the past:
1) Take that $100K.
2) Get a summer job: $10K - $15K saved right there (more if you do a hedge fund / finance gig over the summer)
3) Get a job over IAP. Another month's worth of salary.
4) Get a job at MIT. MIT's great about giving opportunities for students. You can get paid to do research through the UROP program. You can get paid be a grader, a lab assistant, a TA, a deskworker in your dorm (i.e., get paid to sit around while you do your psets)
5) Start a business
6) Get a job somewhere else. There's plenty of people willing to hire MIT kids part time, and plenty of those pay very well
7) Start a stock trading operation in your dorm
8) Learn poker
9) You get the point
One other thing you might try is to petition for financial aid and explain your situation. MIT typically lets you petition anything, although I don't know if that applies for financial aid.
Amazon makes it pretty clear that Availability Zones within the same region can fail simultaneously. In fact, a Region being down is defined as multiple AZs within that zone being down according to the SLA. And since that 99.95% promise applies to Regions and not AZs, multiple AZs within the same region being down will be fairly common.
Edit: One more point. In the SLA, you'll find the following: “Region Unavailable” and “Region Unavailability” means that more than one Availability Zone in which you are running an instance, within the same Region, is “Unavailable” to you. What it implies is that if you do not spread across multiple Availability Zones, you will then have less than 99.95% uptime. So spreading across AZs should still reduce your downtime, just not beyond that 99.95%
Great point, I'd second that. Could even be due to the fact that Google is used to taking money from businesses, not consumers. Amazon and Apple, consumer-focused companies, probably know how to do a better job at getting us to spend our cash from all their other experience.
So first, the 55 mile claim was one of the 5 main points of the suit, which is why I brought it up.
And while I agree that much of new Top Gear is entertainment, I'm just saying that based on other information available, Top Gear doesn't look so outrageous. Autoweek also stated that their car died down well before the 220 mile range and went into a reduced power mode.
Moreover, Top Gear isn't the first to point out mechanical or electrical problems on a Tesla (couple examples below). The car itself was delayed because of such problems. And I along with most people also be worried if some fuse controlling my brakes was busted.
And in the episode, they don't hail fuel-cells because they go further without a charge, they hail them because they fit with the model of car ownership that we're used to, allowing you to drive however long you want and just fill up intermediately.
Perhaps I had a poor choice of words, but I certainly understand what Tesla is claiming. I'm more just confused that they would file suit like this especially given that from what I can tell, Top Gear's claims seem valid given not only the accounts of the situation, but also reviews from other publications.
Edit: Speaking of fiduciary duty, Tesla's apparently asking for "not more than £100,000" in damages, so I'd say this is a waste of the shareholders' and taxpayer money (given its $0.5B bailout).
http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1057705_tesla-vs-topgear-...
First, Top Gear is testing on track conditions, and that will certainly give different results than the 220 mile range found on the EPA's ideal testing conditions. Top Gear has previously shown that a BMW M3 gets better mileage than a Prius in track conditions, but I don't think anyone believes this is representative of the cars on the whole.
Second, there's very few data points on the range aside from Tesla's press releases that I can find, but the two I can find are much closer to Top Gear's number and were also from less aggressive testing than what Top Gear did:
93 miles: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20080124/green/398811820/163...
On your point #3. Actually, you are incorrect. Profit is revenue - all costs. Whether or not it counts as COGS is only relevant for gross margin, a metric which isn't the best to judge software companies. R&D is an expense, so it affects your profitability and your net margin. If your company spends $100 less, that's $100 more you have in the bank, $100 less that you need to sell people on.
In general, I'm with you, but in this case, it's significant in my opinion. There's very few people who at 23 could even think of donating $1M, especially money they've earned on their own. Meanwhile it's fairly common to hear about some founder/CEO in general donate $1M. I think mentioning the age is just to highlight how great this guy is. Just saying "Kik founder" might take away from it.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think people you are referring to are the mean spirited haters you make it seem. I think people are just curious and are honestly just trying to figure out what is so ridiculously special about Color that they were able to raise that much money.
I don't think it helps anything that they've had tons of press and the only things that have come up are 1) Bill Nguyen is awesome 2) they recreated some technology from the Dark Knight. If Bill's such an awesome leader, and they have 27 awesome people, and $41M, why is the app still horrible (interface, experience, data mining, etc.) at launch?
I'd honestly be happy for them if it takes off and it's the next big thing. And Sequoia usually gets it right, so I think everyone's just curious to know what's so great about this company and this app. But, we just aren't convinced yet.
No I don't. As mentioned above, I think cellphone plans are incredibly complex. But typically it is clear what the difference is between the $40 plan and the $50 plan (usually some amount of minutes). I know I pay $30 for data. I know I pay $15 for texts. At least I know what I'm getting, and I can decide if I want to spend the money. And even when they're wrong they typically have some sort of basis for what they're incorrectly charging. In the software company example I gave above, even their own sales people could not articulate why I should pay for the higher product / what I would get.
And for what it's worth, my monthly bill is usually the same with Verizon. I did however have those same headaches when I was on AT&T.
I definitely agree that pricing should be simple, but it isn't everything. It's also important that the pricing reflects the value of the options.
I worked on a project for a large SW company, and even though they had a simple pricing plan, one of their products wasn't taking off. But when we did some shopping and called in to their reps, none of them could clearly articulate why I would want to buy the higher tier product compared to the middle tier, and they even seemed the same on the website. The pricing was simple, but I had no idea what I would be getting in addition if I spent more money.
Contrast this to the iPad example, where I know exactly what I'm paying for. Every $100 increases my storage, and another $130 gets me 3G. It's very clear. I think cell phone plans are a great example of pricing that's complex, but easy to understand because the value is clearly communicated (every $X gets me X minutes). It's easier to make these decisions if I know what I'm paying for.
Great article. Whenever someone's usually said that to me, my first thought is usually, "Why not?".
From the other end, in my experiences, hearing "you can't do that" in a corporate setting has often (not always) meant that the manager/company didn't feel it worth the risk to the company. The manager won't be around 2 years from now when your project is completed, so he would rather you work on things with immediate impact so it benefits his review. Because of this big companies often get very risk averse, focusing on big, cash-cow projects and consequently slow their innovation.
Contrast that to startups where you've got a bit more freedom, I'd think you're less likely to hear it (if so, it might mean more of "we don't have the resources/money"). I think it's often less of the person being an ass, and more about what they're incentivized to promote.
You're correct in pointing out that we can only be buying if someone is willing to sell to us. However, one big factor is your time horizon. For average investors like ourselves, if you're investing for the long term / retirement, you generally know that it will recover, whether it's over 1 year, 2 years, or longer. It may go down further, but will it be in the same state 30 years from now? Probably not, so it's relatively safe to buy in at a "discount".
Contrast that to hedge funds, investment banks, and other investment groups that have investors to please and targets to hit in the immediate/short term. For them, their time horizon is shorter and 1) they need to free up cash and 2) they cannot take the risk of holding on because the economy is definitely impacted in the short term.
And as far as the sales comment below...as mentioned in the post, sometimes it's not worth me shoving it down their throat if they're not going to be pumped about coming in to work everyday.