Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The secret of the web (hint: it's a virtue)

sethgodin.typepad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: The secret of the web (hint: it's a virtue)

#31

Post by astrec »

aneesh wrote: post #26
astrec wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point seems to be that on the web tactics work (or don't) really quickly but it's a trap to assume the same of strategy.

Can someone tell me the difference between a tactic and a strategy? I thought that tactics were, by definition, specific short-term action points, and strategy was the big-picture long-term vision. So then wouldn't his argument be true by definition?

So then wouldn't his argument be true by definition?

He's not simply saying strategy takes longer than tactics, but that tactics accelerated by virtue of being online do not infer strategy accelerated likewise.

Re: The secret of the web (hint: it's a virtue)

#32

Post by briancooley »

aneesh wrote: post #26
astrec wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point seems to be that on the web tactics work (or don't) really quickly but it's a trap to assume the same of strategy.

Can someone tell me the difference between a tactic and a strategy? I thought that tactics were, by definition, specific short-term action points, and strategy was the big-picture long-term vision. So then wouldn't his argument be true by definition?

Here's how I think about it in chess -

tactic: a sequence of moves, almost always short and usually forced with a clear outcome in the short term.

strategy: a sequence of unforced moves designed to create a non-material advantage with no immediately clear outcome.

A tactic is something like pinning a piece and quickly bringing additional pieces to attack that piece in an effort to win a material advantage. The material advantage is an immediate and clear outcome.

A strategy is something like using a pawn structure to gain space. There is no immediately obvious advantage to gaining space, but the added flexibility will often enable (unforseen) material gains later in the match.

Re: The secret of the web (hint: it's a virtue)

#33

Post by stcredzero »

hooande wrote: post #27
hibrian wrote: post #8

He makes an interesting/controversial point: "It still takes ten years to become a success, web or no web." ... "Listen instead to your real customers, to your vision and make something for the long haul." I wonder how many people doing startups are prepared for success to take ten years.

I've heard that it takes 10 years to achieve true mastery of any craft. He said it took ten years to "become a success", but that isn't limited to just one company. Personally, I plan on trying and failing as many times as necessary over the next 10 years until I get to be really good.

10 years to achieve true mastery? Sounds about right. I've also often said it takes 3 years to "get dangerous," in both senses. My data is from studying and teaching music.

On an even shorter time frame: once you get to the point that you're enjoying what you're doing, the only one who can stop you is yourself.

Re: The secret of the web (hint: it's a virtue)

#34

Post by steveplace »

menloparkbum wrote: post #23
paul wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what year was Google a "huge success"? Do you realize that they started working on it in 1996? (the company wasn't formed until late 98)

Google was a huge success by the time it went out of beta. I think this was late 1999. By 2004's IPO Google's success would be considered "the standard by which success will be defined for the next 20 years" type of huge success rather than merely another run-of-the-mill Silicon Valley $100M exit type of huge success.

Dude, you're arguing with Google employee #23. Unless you're last name is Page or Brin, I'd take his insight ;)

Re: The secret of the web (hint: it's a virtue)

#35

Post by steveplace »

jmtame wrote: post #22
paul wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what year was Google a "huge success"? Do you realize that they started working on it in 1996? (the company wasn't formed until late 98)

If you want to look at a company like Google, at least mention that they're generating $16 billion in revenue a year. Yes, they took 10 years, but look at the power of their brand, all of the applications they've built and gotten into the marketplace, plus all of their revenue. They're also "the best place to work at" (so you know they're doing a lot more than just product development). Google isn't just a search com…

How did this get so many votes up?

Look at his page on Wikipedia.

Re: The secret of the web (hint: it's a virtue)

#36

Post by ericwan »

menloparkbum wrote: post #23
paul wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what year was Google a "huge success"? Do you realize that they started working on it in 1996? (the company wasn't formed until late 98)

Google was a huge success by the time it went out of beta. I think this was late 1999. By 2004's IPO Google's success would be considered "the standard by which success will be defined for the next 20 years" type of huge success rather than merely another run-of-the-mill Silicon Valley $100M exit type of huge success.

They brought in no cash in 1999. (correct me if I'm wrong) How's it a success?

Re: The secret of the web (hint: it's a virtue)

#37

Post by ericwan »

jmtame wrote: post #22
paul wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what year was Google a "huge success"? Do you realize that they started working on it in 1996? (the company wasn't formed until late 98)

If you want to look at a company like Google, at least mention that they're generating $16 billion in revenue a year. Yes, they took 10 years, but look at the power of their brand, all of the applications they've built and gotten into the marketplace, plus all of their revenue. They're also "the best place to work at" (so you know they're doing a lot more than just product development). Google isn't just a search com…

Not gonna down mod you coz you've given thoughts to it.

Yet, your argument is inline with what the article says. It took Google 10 years for them to become a HUGE success. During this 10 years they probably have worked really hard everyday, and they're all brilliant people. For less talented people it probably takes even longer.

I guess your point is if you're just gonna do a declicious-scale success it doesn't take that long. YouTube even just took a year. But look at how much experience they have under their belt before that. It really depends on where you start counting that 10 years.

The article doesn't specify either, though. It's kind of vague.

Re: The secret of the web (hint: it's a virtue)

#39

Post by netcan »

paul wrote: post #29
menloparkbum wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google was a huge success by the time it went out of beta. I think this was late 1999. By 2004's IPO Google's success would be considered "the standard by which success will be defined for the next 20 years" type of huge success rather than merely another run-of-the-mill Silicon Valley $100M exit type of huge success.

By what metric was it a huge success in 1999? They had a good product, but most people had never heard of the company. I remember having to explain that it was "kind of like Yahoo, but with good search and none of the other features", and they were always like, "well, good luck with that." (obviously thinking to themselves, "another stupid .com")

I wonder if Google realised before adwords started growing like wildfire that search was such a potentially powerful advertising platform.

I know that other pay per click & search marketing services were around and were reasonably successful, but a lot of that was probably hard to seperate from the bubble. I mean I don't think there were many plumbers advertising on search in 99' & coca cola was never going to work.

Post reply on HN