How does this not also cover every web browser in existence? This seems to cover any networked communications system. Analytics and online ads would seem to be especially vulnerable.
All I can see is this guy is really good at writing patents. If you can't beat em, bury them in citations and they'll think you know what you're doing.
It seems like by doing the following, they get priority for any obviousness and prior art arguments back to 1992, but a filing date of 2003.
"This application is a continuation application of and claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 09/370,663, filed on Aug. 6, 1999, now abandoned which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/934,457, filed Sep. 19, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,908, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/243,63 8, filed May 16, 1994, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 07/926,333, filed Aug. 6, 1992, now abandoned, the contents of each of which are incorporated by reference in their entireties. "
The problem with the metaphor "you're dead but you don't know it" is that at the end of the movie, Willis' character accepts his situation -- pretty easily, in fact. The startup founder is unlikely to see the light so quickly.
How to break free of the delusion? Maybe by pondering the opportunity costs of not pursuing a new startup worth at least 2x (pick a reasonable concrete number) of your current one? Using real, achievable numbers might make it easier to take that leap of faith.
I think most dead startups suffer from "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" syndrome (sorry, had to toss in a metaphor of my own) -- knowing how difficult it was to get the "dead" startup off the ground, it's difficult to face starting over.
I was a cofounder of what I used to call "the most successful startup that could never make any money". We got press consistently, did some cool partnerships with big companies (always free), and were driving steadily away from any kind of a revenue model. My partner got stubborn and, frankly, arrogant about the business, despite its professional amateur status, and I had to finally leave. He could not be made to see the light, no matter what I or anyone else said. Now he runs it as a calling card to get himself speaking gigs at conferences.
After writing this down, I'm not sure there was anything I could have said to convince him to spend his time any other way. He's not a math person, so opportunity costs are lost on him. There was nothing I could do but let him man the boat alone and drift off into the night.
You're on Linode and consider yourselves to be PCI compliant? Even though you're not storing the cards yourselves (probably using tokenization on Braintree or Authorize.net) you need to be compliant as the cards pass through your servers.
That didn't answer the question. Just because you don't store credit card information doesn't mean there aren't steps you still have to take to protect cardholder data. PCI compliance applies to both storing and transmitting cc info.
On Mac at home, SuperDuper for bootable backup, plus TimeMachine, to a 2TB dual disk external with drives mirrored via RAID.
SuperDuper is great. Having a bootable backup is awesome when things go wrong. The RAID gives me some peace since I can't afford to lose this data. Backing up the backup online somewhere is my next step, I think.
First, I love this kinda stuff, but this is not exactly the first. SMITH magazine published Six-Word Memoirs in Feb. 2008 and made the NYTimes Bestseller list. The book had almost 800 authors, each of whom received a copy.
I'd be very careful when considering and implementing most of these ideas. While the sentiment is correct (make users' experience easier), many of these approaches have pitfalls or require fallbacks.
Your signup and login pages MUST be bulletproof.
Autofilling city/state from zip, for example, requires an updated database of postal codes, but users will often consider your autofill city as "wrong", since they use a different district/locale name. Make sure users can override your guesses.
"Clean" is not a goal, nor is "messy". Given how many articles on lean startups and testing are posted here on HN, I'm surprised how many readers are swallowing the author's advice without questioning WHY "clean" is better or necessary. The author himself said here in this thread that he isn't interested in testing at all. That, to me, shows a fundamental misunderstanding, and frankly disrespect, for great design.
The parrot secrets ebook is a classic example of great design that is definitely not "clean". Yet it is successful.
Never confuse your personal aesthetic with design.
There are great books to learn from, and everyone should take all these book recommendations to heart. But take the time to absorb the professional advice, and try and synthesize it into rules you can work with and apply properly.
Hmm... I didn't say that I'm "not interested in testing at all", and it's unfortunate that I came across that way. In fact, years ago I created a Rails tool for performing a/b split tests: https://github.com/flyingmachine/rails_ab_split_tester . Also, in the resources section of the site I link to Don't Make Me Think, which strongly advocates quick, cheap user testing. However, I felt like a discussion of testing was outside the scope of site. And unfortunately, I don't have the time to conduct proper tests myself. I wish I did, but I've spent a great deal of time on the site already, and it's time for me to work on other things.
However, this is why I made the site available on github - if you'd like to improve the site, please do create a pull request. If I come across a little surly here, it's because it's bizarre to me have put so much effort into the guide, motivated solely by my love of design and desire to engender it in others, only to read that somehow I'm exhibiting disrespect for great design.
Re: "clean" - keep in mind that the site is meant to be an introduction to design. People who have no design vocabulary nonetheless have an implicit understanding of "clean" and "messy". For many people, "clean" can in fact be a goal, and I felt no need to ignore the way people actually use the word. Also, it made for a fun title :)
I try to explain what I mean by "clean" design in a way that's not limited to personal aesthetic - it's design that allows the audience to quickly find the information they need. Did that not really come across? If it did - do you think that making information easy to find is not a valid goal of design? Or do you disagree with my definition of "clean"?
It seems like we're not using the word "clean" in the same way, but if we are, I'd love to hear your thoughts on why you think "clean" isn't better or necessary.
The big difference IMO is that Microsoft and Apple have successful business models, where Facebook is still searching for one. There is less risk building on a platform that has a clearly defined and profitable business model.
Remember the widget economy? Facebook widget funds? With one redesign, Facebook singlehandedly wiped out the market.
You will always rely on third party products and services, it's unavoidable. Make sure you own the work that is core to your value prop, and only take on acceptable risks when outsourcing.
Email me at tim -at- bitsmachine -dot- com
http://bitsmachine.com
Example portfolio (mine): http://timbarkow.bitsm.com