Spelling mistake: "real bse of"
Why Toys?
171–180 of 211 posts
Re: Why Toys?
#172Bitcoin is a good example of a toy. It didn't really solve an immediate problem at the time.
It still doesn't. But I'll grant it's turning out to be tech's single best attempt at hastening the climate change and cooking us all on this planet.
Bitcoin gives us a way to transfer value which is censorship-resistant. That is BIG.
Re: Why Toys?
#173Standard Oil actually did start out as a toy. They provided oil to burn in lamps. At the time most people thought that was a somewhat silly gimmick and a fad that would quickly pass. Oil in general was seen as something neat but not essential for years. But just like facebook, many people soon came around to the idea and it took over the world. Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. covers this all in incredible…
I don't know about oil, but I thought airplanes were rich people's silly toys at first? And then WW1 happened.
Another: fireworks were toys (well, not sure if for children at the time, but for entertainment).
Re: Why Toys?
#174I don't quite agree with this analogy.
This blog seems to be written by someone who had a deadline to meet.
Re: Why Toys?
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
while working on our startup [1] this is one of the top pg quotes I like. However while talking to our customers we regularly face the "toy" critic as opposed to "feature rich". however approaching it as a toy keeps it simple , though for saas it appears as too simplistic sometimes. [1] we offer games and puzzles as a service to serious marketing clients.
I think it’s about time we turn “feature rich” around and start considering it a criticism rather than a compliment. So many products I’ve loved as a consumer and worked on as a developer were eventually ruined by relentless feature cram and their never being declared “done”.
I think toys have a simple/intuitive/familiar user interface (so kids can use them), are simple to create (to be purchasable for kids), and do something interesting or unexpected i.e. different which is really what makes them potentially valuable.
But, I'm not sure that all children's toys have immense commercial value (e.g. kaleidoscope). I always wonder this question for startup idea success rates: I wonder what the ratio is?
Re: Why Toys?
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s about time we turn “feature rich” around and start considering it a criticism rather than a compliment. So many products I’ve loved as a consumer and worked on as a developer were eventually ruined by relentless feature cram and their never being declared “done”.
Given enough time, most applications turn from "feature rich" into "feature bloat."
Feature Rich: Features I use.
Feature Bloat: Features I don't use.
Re: Why Toys?
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
SaaS can not interoperate. Thus feature-poor SaaS are useless.
I have always considered this the great tragedy of APIs. Their promise is so great yet there are few ways of actually working with them outside of explicit vendor integrations that account for the idiosyncracies between most software. Noting that most SaaS is just differing UI interacting with object models, and it's a bummer that we build this way. It's like we are collectively building a rail network, but every sin…
Agreed in general, but services like IFTTT and Zapier offer a very decent way of integrating otherwise unfriendly APIs, and I think that this will become even more straightforward and common with the rise of conversational interfaces like Alexa
Re: Why Toys?
#178The best dichotomy I've heard for this is: Are you building [Ice Skates] or are you building [Ear muffs]? Ice skates allow you to do something new that you didn't even know you had a demand for. Ear muffs solve a problem that you were already solving poorly (with your hands). [Business vs toy] is an insanely counterproductive mental framework which will create a false sense of security in founders who are actually bu…
What does it say about me that I'd rather build ice skates than ear muffs?
That you're taking the analogy too literally? Ice skating does sound more fun.
Re: Why Toys?
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
while working on our startup [1] this is one of the top pg quotes I like. However while talking to our customers we regularly face the "toy" critic as opposed to "feature rich". however approaching it as a toy keeps it simple , though for saas it appears as too simplistic sometimes. [1] we offer games and puzzles as a service to serious marketing clients.
Do you have a site you can share? Sounds cool!
We're still in early beta phase - here's a quick showcase for some client here: https://partners.zestoy.com/showcase/home/ and the main website https://www.zestoy.com
Re: Why Toys?
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if maybe you think capitalism is the only reason people don't just lie in bed all day, but theory has been soundly disproven.
The theory that non-capitalist societies can have thriving long-lasting economies that produce new innovations and lift their people up is pretty questionable so far. I can't think of a single example where there's not at least a core nugget of capitalist incentives driving things. Sure, let's layer on some socialist policies, I'm all in favor of turning that dial quite a bit further, but that's turning a dial, not b…
Fine by me