Bio not provided
@_jacksmith Haha, thanks for the offer! I can move in this evening, I just need to pack my sleeping bag.
2 years, 9 months ago on Vungle Gives Away Half Their Funding
This whole situation is all so Mad Magazine, it might just work. (I submit the following evidence: http://startupgrind.com/2012/05/was-yahoos-logo-ripped-from-a-creepy-1960s-mad-magazine-comic-heres-the-proof/)
2 years, 10 months ago on The Costanza Proposal: Why Scott Thompson Should Start Doing the Opposite of His Instinct
@nelking I, as well, hate you @hamishmckenzie . But I like that this has generated some conversation, so I'll put my fury on hold. For now.
2 years, 10 months ago on Is GoMail the Future of Email? I Hope So
As much as I want my jet pack, I think it'll be relegated to the same rank as the Segway. Fun, but not cool enough to catch on – too much dangly-legged awkwardness, etc.
That's what has to happen to the automobile. We need transportation that pushes cars into the "Segway" category. It has to look as cool as the technology that runs it. Why are we building cute-looking non-polluting cars? Let's make aggressively styled options. I want my green vehicle to look like it feasts on the animals it's saving.
And the Evacuated Tube Transport system needs to happen (less 3D renderings on YouTube, more actual builds please). If we can speed people and goods at 350 mph on short haul, and up to 4000 mph on long haul travel, it'll pay for itself in saved fuel costs, not to mention eliminate the need for cargo ships and long haul transport trucks. It may be a significant cost to build, but since it's frictionless transport, it would cost less to maintain than what we spend on roads.
But first kill commuting and decentralize offices. We spend on average 100 hours a year commuting to work. For most office workers, that's over two weeks of work-hours wasted getting to an office equipped with the same tool that they have readily available at home.
2 years, 11 months ago on Let’s Build a Future Without Cars
@JVenator True, most of what I said doesn't apply to Evernote. But I do think they'll still have issues from over-valuation.
2 years, 11 months ago on Instagram’s Windfall Proves Path’s Worth
@hamishmckenzie I agree that early revenue isn't a decent signal of future potential, but early innovation isn't either. And garnering new adopters is going to be difficult for Path; for it to be useful/enjoyable, people have to sign up in groups (or, "dinner tables"). I've been eating alone for months now (err, on Path) since everyone abandoned the table. It's just not easy to convince the avg user to join *another* social site.
As well, if the UI is the only thing that's enjoyable about it (and I really really do like it), most-likely it's not far off from what the next iteration of FB mobile will look like. FB's immoble site is already headed in the same direction layout-wise. But yeah, I like looking at Path, it just doesn't do much for me.
As for Facebook, Twitter & Youtube: Facebook has my friends. Twitter has a fire hose of usable info. And YouTube has cats.
My main problem is the valuation. Shouldn't that be based on some tangible inflow? And if it's set as a relative value to Instragram, that's arbitrary. You can't compare.
And great that Path plans to use the $30M to expand. But breaching Korea, Japan and China (guessing from their Path's job post) isn't going to be easy. That's three distinct markets, each with engrained competitive products in place that could bury Path. Not to mention, a platform for private online discussions? China's GFW will eat that in seconds.
But mainly, I just think toying with valuation is going to quickly spin into the ridiculous (yeah, Evernote), and result in a bubble. Which is bad for everyone, because there's actual value to these companies, but let's not over-inflate it.
So back to my original point: Path. $30 million. Wtf?