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

The One-Person Product

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: The One-Person Product

#91

Post by manmal »

roc wrote: post #79
manmal wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call it "features and experience", then, not "product".

"features and experience" are still contingent, in a very large way, on how the business runs. e.g. ad-driven vs freemium vs subscription, quantity and types of advertising, etc. Focusing on making the best product/"features and experience" without paying (enough) attention to how it's supposed to make money to sustain itself and fit into the world at large, is exactly how NeXT wound up with fantastic computers and s…

That's what he has Yahoo's executives for, right? In a big company you need not one, but many voices/advocates of different disciplines. His role is important, because else they end up with a steaming pile of marketing gags with no awesome product to make up for them. I would also not call Ad-Driven/Freemium/Subscription mode "features and experience". Yes, this can make or break the user experience - well if it would, then David would stop them.

Re: The One-Person Product

#92

Post by tinco »

joelrunyon wrote: post #63
imjk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's actually the point of the piece: David is so focused on product that he doesn't want to deal with things like operations or revenue that the deal makes sense. Yahoo will take care of those things, and David can focus on the only thing he cares about, product.

This seems disingenuous to me. A key part of creating a great "product" is that it continues to support itself. Having a great product without having some sort of a revenue stream isn't being hyper-focused - it's being negligent. Congrats to David on everything, but it seems very odd to try & separate "product" from the revenue that it should generate if it's going to be a business.

That's just from the business perspective. From the consumer perspective revenue does not matter at all.

The art of business is to make the greatest product you can without revenue _detracting_ from it.

The Steve Jobs mindset here is that if you just disregard the revenue all together and just focus on building the most absolute great product you can imagine people will use it and love it.

Making a revenue of that is not 'product' it is business, and it seems perfectly reasonable to hire a businessman for that (and not let him influence you too much, and try not to get fired for that like Steve did..).

Re: The One-Person Product

#93

Post by roc »

manmal wrote: post #91
roc wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"features and experience" are still contingent, in a very large way, on how the business runs. e.g. ad-driven vs freemium vs subscription, quantity and types of advertising, etc. Focusing on making the best product/"features and experience" without paying (enough) attention to how it's supposed to make money to sustain itself and fit into the world at large, is exactly how NeXT wound up with fantastic computers and s…

That's what he has Yahoo's executives for, right? In a big company you need not one, but many voices/advocates of different disciplines. His role is important, because else they end up with a steaming pile of marketing gags with no awesome product to make up for them. I would also not call Ad-Driven/Freemium/Subscription mode "features and experience". Yes, this can make or break the user experience - well if it woul…

You can't argue it both ways. He either still has power over what the suits come up with for revenue, and thus hasn't actually abdicated any responsibilities at all (just given some biz dev guys a little more autonomy) or he has given up those responsibilities and the day the suits press forward with an experience-damaging move he doesn't like, he will discover he doesn't actually have full control over his product's features/experience.

e.g. if they say "tumblr's going freemium" the follow-on questions of "how do we differentiate the experience of free vs paid and how do we communicate the value of the upgrade?" are experience questions that need to be answered and designed in a holistic and considered manner. [1]

[1] And that's why I say those modes are absolutely part of 'features and experience'. Flickr just switched between two fairly-similar freemium models and we power-geeks had a hundreds of comments debate over whether the experience/value jived with the offering and/or was communicated cleanly.

Re: The One-Person Product

#94

Post by pasbesoin »

I still have my doubts, on more than one front, but that was definitely an interesting and worthwhile read. I haven't been part of the Tumblr community -- rather just seeing individual items when they are cited elsewhere -- so this provides a bit of perspective especially as to its genesis.

Re: The One-Person Product

#95

Post by joelrunyon »

tinco wrote: post #92
joelrunyon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems disingenuous to me. A key part of creating a great "product" is that it continues to support itself. Having a great product without having some sort of a revenue stream isn't being hyper-focused - it's being negligent. Congrats to David on everything, but it seems very odd to try & separate "product" from the revenue that it should generate if it's going to be a business.

That's just from the business perspective. From the consumer perspective revenue does not matter at all. The art of business is to make the greatest product you can without revenue _detracting_ from it. The Steve Jobs mindset here is that if you just disregard the revenue all together and just focus on building the most absolute great product you can imagine people will use it and love it. Making a revenue of that is…

> The Steve Jobs mindset here is that if you just disregard the revenue all together and just focus on building the most absolute great product you can imagine people will use it and love it.

That's not what Steve Jobs did at all. He first and foremost saw Apple as a business opportunity - who pushed Woz to actually make revenue.

Apple had a revenue model built in from the start.

Re: The One-Person Product

#96

Post by Scramblejams »

"Acquisitions on this scale usually work well." I don't know what planet Marco's on -- despite his citation of Youtube, acquisitions hardly ever work well, let alone on this scale.

But he does have a habit of writing things with a straight face that other people never would.

Re: The One-Person Product

#97

Post by swamp40 »

snambi wrote: post #90
stevenj wrote: post #10

I know very little about David Karp. But after reading this, I'm a bit surprised that he decided to sell Tumblr. The way Marco talks about David's disinterest in money, and his singular obsession with Tumblr, made me think he wouldn't even consider selling it to someone else. I'd be curious to hear his reasons for selling, as oppose to doing a strategic investment like Facebook did with Microsoft at one point.

I guess everyone gets bored of their passion after a while.

Why lock himself in to a 4 year deal, then?

Re: The One-Person Product

#98

Post by tinco »

joelrunyon wrote: post #95
tinco wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just from the business perspective. From the consumer perspective revenue does not matter at all. The art of business is to make the greatest product you can without revenue _detracting_ from it. The Steve Jobs mindset here is that if you just disregard the revenue all together and just focus on building the most absolute great product you can imagine people will use it and love it. Making a revenue of that is…

> The Steve Jobs mindset here is that if you just disregard the revenue all together and just focus on building the most absolute great product you can imagine people will use it and love it. That's not what Steve Jobs did at all. He first and foremost saw Apple as a business opportunity - who pushed Woz to actually make revenue. Apple had a revenue model built in from the start.

Their revenue was selling the product at more than its cost price. He pushed Woz to build a great product. I think it was Woz himself who was obsessed with also making it cheap to manufacture.

I am not saying that Steve Jobs did not intend to have profit, I'm saying that reasoning about revenue was not a limiting part of the product establishment.

If it was, how do you explain the launch of the iPod?

Re: The One-Person Product

#99

Post by joelrunyon »

tinco wrote: post #98
joelrunyon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Steve Jobs mindset here is that if you just disregard the revenue all together and just focus on building the most absolute great product you can imagine people will use it and love it. That's not what Steve Jobs did at all. He first and foremost saw Apple as a business opportunity - who pushed Woz to actually make revenue. Apple had a revenue model built in from the start.

Their revenue was selling the product at more than its cost price. He pushed Woz to build a great product. I think it was Woz himself who was obsessed with also making it cheap to manufacture. I am not saying that Steve Jobs did not intend to have profit, I'm saying that reasoning about revenue was not a limiting part of the product establishment. If it was, how do you explain the launch of the iPod?

You're confusing two ideas.

With Apple, the revenue model is always clear - even with the iPod - Steve Jobs just knew he could create something that people would buy. He didn't launch the iPod and then worry about how he was going to make money off of it - it was always very clear to him - he was going to sell a ton of them.

Tumblr still hasn't figured out a revenue model. They still have to fit that into their product. Being able to do so & do it successfully is integral to their product - otherwise it's just a cool tool that they're letting millions of people use for free.

That was never the issue with Apple.

Re: The One-Person Product

#100

Post by notlisted »

Lovely article. Glad to have read it. Suspect Marco is a little modest about his contribution, but great to hear he came out ahead, and then some.

Truly hope Tumblr can maintain its independence from the Yahoo hive mind/wholesome image, just like Conde Nast has let Reddit's less-than-family-friendly stuff thrive (smartest decision ever).

Despite all that, the $1B valuation is batshit, not unlike the housing market in NYC these days ($1.6MM for his Brooklyn one bedroom?) I'm glad to be escaping the clutched of NYC in several weeks from now. A yard!

Post reply on HN