191–200 of 211 posts
Nintendo is often derided for being a ‘toy’ company - as opposed to, say, Apple which is a ‘real’ hardware company. Yet look at the big N’s track record of innovative hardware and software integration: Wii motion controls, Switch’s Joy-Cons and (soon) the cardboard Toy-Cons , N64 rumble pack for haptic feedback, battery backup in NES and SNES cartridges, etc. (And yeah, lots of misfires along the way like the Wii U,…
I think theres a typo. "A startup’s early and heavily engaged users are it’s only real bse of strength and chance for growth." Should it be 'base'?
Earlier 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…
Pretty tired of startupland using this idea as a shibboleth. Eventually, you're going to have to answer the charge of "Silicon Valley is just building a bunch of useless bullshit" with something that actually is not. Moving money from one industry to another doesn't count.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bought an LCD monitor in 2003. It was a novelty and a luxury to me at the time...but I bought it to solve the problem of not having space for a 20" CRT on my desk at school. I don't see how something being novel and luxurious necessarily means that it's also a toy.
I never claimed it did. Further, I don't think there is a dichotomy here. You could have solved your problem in a dozen other ways. You were privileged enough to do it in the way that presumable pleased you most. There is a hint of toyness to it in that respect.
> You could have solved your problem in a dozen other ways.
Hmm. And what ways would those be? First, I simplified when I said that "I" bought the monitor. It was a gift, bought for me, that I didn't have particular choice in. Second, I'm unaware of "a dozen" ways to solve the problem of displaying a computer's output. If you'd care to list the ones you're thinking of...
One of my favorite pg ideas: "When something is described as a toy, that means it has everything an idea needs except being important. It's cool; users love it; it just doesn't matter. But if you're living in the future and you build something cool that users love, it may matter more than outsiders think." http://www.paulgraham.com/startupideas.html
I think it's also true that It's cool; users love it is valuable regardless of importance and that the internet tends to turn "big" into important, or at least impactful and profitable.
It's cool & users love it is an easier approach to big than "important." I think this explains why toys now turn into serious businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never claimed it did. Further, I don't think there is a dichotomy here. You could have solved your problem in a dozen other ways. You were privileged enough to do it in the way that presumable pleased you most. There is a hint of toyness to it in that respect.
You certainly implied that it did. > You could have solved your problem in a dozen other ways. Hmm. And what ways would those be? First, I simplified when I said that "I" bought the monitor. It was a gift, bought for me, that I didn't have particular choice in. Second, I'm unaware of "a dozen" ways to solve the problem of displaying a computer's output. If you'd care to list the ones you're thinking of...
"in my book" is often used to cast a statement as opinion. So something "definitely" being X "in my book" is pretty clearly not meant to be any sort of argument (necessary! sufficient! proof! -- gag me with conversation killers) where I come from.
I don't think there's any good way to define a toy in any hard-and-fast way, so rubbing words like "necessary" on it is just not in play.
In the original discussion, lamp oil was interesting when framed as a toy. The background given was enough for me to think of it as such as part of the thought experiment. I gave a couple of dimensions that I think supported its toyness when some balked.
You could: 1) not have a monitor on your desk 2) use a smaller monitor 3) use a laptop 4) get a bigger desk
Each of these has a number of ways you might achieve them, easily meeting or exceeding the throw-away number I posited.
For example, with (1) you might use a school computer lab. Or you might eschew computer use altogether. Or you might borrow a computer when necessary. Or you might devise an alternate mounting scheme. Or you might get a lap desk, so you need less real-desk surface for other things.
Anyway, we're way off in some boring-ass woods. The woods that kept me from participating here for years.
Good day, human.
Let's not forget perhaps the biggest toy to turn serious business in the past century or so: the microcomputer itself. Without which there wouldn't even be a Facebook, or a Y Combinator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IFTT, stitch and segment are some companies that try to solve this problem.
They're ultimately limited to which SaaS lets them, which is usually not much. For many, deep interoperability goes against the core objective of "engagement" (i.e. trapping the user in the service for as long as possible).