Marc Gayle

I am creating compversions with blood, sweat and care.

Compversions allows you - as a designer/photographer/creative person - to help your clients make faster decisions, which makes your life easier.

Beware though, everything here is 100% unadulterated opinion.

A notepad in HTML & CSS only

Ever wanted to have a nice, clean looking notepad – that scales with the amount of elements you need to write on it – in HTML & CSS? So did I for the startup I am working on. Could I find anything? Nope. So, I made one. It’s nothing fancy, and should look pretty close to this:

Notepad

The notepad was designed by the wonderful Andree Blixt.

To see an online demo, check it out here. It is released under the MIT license, so do what you want with it. The only thing I ask is for attribution. Also, please feel free to suggest updates/tweaks/enhancements especially to show multiple pages and adding jQuery animation if you would like (either in the comments or emailing me directly).

To get the files, download them from github here

Enjoy :)

Fail early, fail fast explained

Many people misunderstand the true meaning behind 'fail early, fail fast'. The most 'high-profile' of which is Jason Fried and our friends at 37Signals.

Fail early, fail fast isn't encouraging you to fail. It's encouraging you to act/move/start.

Read the phrase again, with emphasis: fail early, fail fast.

The idea behind the saying is, just do something. It's easy to get trapped in a 'secure' situation. Whether that is a 'stable/cushy' job, or using a product that is OK. It's this inertia that kills innovation. It's fear of the unknown or fear of the failure that also dis-incentivizes people from striking out and making that killer product they have always envisioned, or recorded that song they have written, or sold that painting they have stashed away in their basement.

People get accustomed to procrastinating and delaying that they don't attempt to do what they say they want to do.

The phrase 'fail early, fail fast' is attempting to take the sting out of the fear of failing - by using the terms 'early' & 'fast'. Makes it sound 'quick' and 'painless'. Ever been to a doctor to get an injection?

'It will feel like a mosquito bite' is what I am always told.

It's kinda like that - especially since creating a new product is so hard, the last thing a creator needs is the fear of failure hanging over their heads (although, to be fair that fear can be a good motivator).

I am not advocating failure, but anything that removes one more psychological barrier for inventors can only be good for society.

So, go ahead and fail as quickly as you can. Pick yourself up, and try again.

Editor's Note: Please note that I am not encouraging people to strike out in an attempt to fail. Simply to not be afraid of failing - if that wasn't clear enough in the post.

An open letter to Alexis Ohanian (Reddit co-founder)

Alexis your recent blog post to Kevin Rose re: Digg struck a wrong chord with me. For those not familiar with what he is talking about, a new video giving details about upcoming changes for Digg version 4 was released today.

I can see how on the surface these changes look like a clone of other more popular features, but I suspect you might be mis-interpreting what's happening here.

Yes, many of the features look and feel like competitors. But so does the iPod. It plays mp3s? Yuck! So does Rhapsody's player, why would I want one from Apple. So does a Mercedes/BMW, it has wheels + an engine.

The issue is the way it does what it does. I have not used it just yet, but from what I have seen, this could fundamentally be as much of a game changer as the first version of digg was to giving individual publishers a bigger voice.

Imagine...now, as a publisher, I have 200 'followers' whose sole interest is in seeing the links/stories that I publish. Jason Fried talks about building an audience. So far, there is no other tool that 'aggregates' all your content and pushes it directly to an audience like digg v4 is suggested to do.

People use Twitter to do this, but it wasn't built to do that. It was built for messages of 140 characters. Valuable in it's own right, but not as a 'media publishing' tool.

People use status updates on Facebook to do that, but it wasn't made for that. It was made to update friends on your latest activities (i.e. uploaded new videos/photos, add new quotes, friended new people, got engaged/married....other things that your social graph might find of value).

But for publishers trying to build an audience, there isn't one tool that allows an audience to 'subscribe' to everything of interest to them.Yes, you can have a blog with an RSS feed. Your twitter feed has an RSS feed, etc. But RSS feed readers suck!

The mere fact that I can have one place, that streamlines all of the links published by people I am interested in hearing from + links they found interesting, is absolutely game-changing (in my opinion).Ofcourse, it all comes down execution, but based on what I am seeing, I think I see Kevin back in his original form. Quite contrary to your assertion about pandering to his VCs, I don't see any evidence of driving revenues. I see mainly product development. I see small UI elements that seem to enhance the link discovery process. I see giving value to small-time publishers and further 'democratization' of news.

So while I respect that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I would caution us all to wait and see how it unfolds, and actually use it - before casting judgement. Many high profile people have done that recently and have had to do mea cuplas.

Maybe I am biased, because I am one of those that submit stories that stall or get a handful of diggs. This looks like it could be a significant game changer for me. Maybe it won't guarantee all my stories will make it to the front page, but I would not be surprised if my content got easily 200% - 800% more traffic, as a direct result of this change.

THAT...would be game changing.

Difference between PR, Marketing, Advertising & Branding [Infographic]

9gag.com has recently put out a nice infographic that illustrates, pretty nicely, the differences between Public Relations, Marketing, Advertising and Branding.

Diff-between-pr-mktg

App Idea for the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad

Scratch__win_app_idea

Idea: Scratch and win.

Concept: Give consumers free stuff (on a very consistent basis) and give advertisers more brand engagement. Think woot.com but with free, quality, stuff (or actually even deeply discounted – per the coupon in the win).

Existing Competitors: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/scratch-off-now/id358970551?mt=8 & www.scratchoffnow.com

That’s the idea in a nutshell. Here are some more details:

This app would be free in the App Store. Naturally, this idea would work best with folks that have existing relationships either with an ad agency (or agencies) or with brands and other advertisers.

The graphics would be holding a simple coin, and you use your real finger to scratch the ticket with the coin.

Game mechanics could be included, so points could be accumulated that users can redeem for some discounts (think Visa, American Express, Airlines, etc. kind of points).

The trick is to start with a bang, say giving away 500 – 1,000 iPads in the first 48 hours.

Then, once you have the momentum going you continue to provide small wins for the users even when they don’t ‘win’ a major prize (supplied by a vendor or brand).

The app can even be branded (charge for impressions above the results of the prize, or the prize itself is sponsored by some other brand).

Build functionality to allow users to ‘share points’ with others. Add a social aspect to it, so I can send 1,000 points to my sister so she can do whatever she wants with it.

Integrate it with Facebook Game Developers (like Zynga) where points and ‘tickets’ are hidden in the games – work out some sort of kickback commission with them. This can also be extended to other game platforms – like World of WarcraftHeyZap, etc.

Implement scavenger hunts for ‘golden tickets’, where each ticket is a guaranteed prize – this comes back to the game mechanics idea earlier.

That’s all I can think of right now, and many people might ask…why don’t I do it. Well, to be honest, I am quite busy right now and I am not a big fan of the advertising model (i.e. working with brands and advertisers…it’s just not my forte. I am not bashing it…just saying it’s not my thing).

Hope this sparks some ideas and someone wants to run with it, that would be awesome. I would definitely download the app (provided it can work on my iPod Touch 2Gen).

You are free to take the idea and run with it. If you do run with it, some credit would be nice :)

I have some additional ideas on other possibilities, so if you would like me to be involved in any way, feel free to reach out to me. You don’t have to…just saying.

P.S. Image courtesy of meddygarnet on Flickr.

 

Traffic results from picking a fight with 37Signals

37signals-1
As a follow-up to my last piece about Jason F. & DHH being wrong about one thing, which generated a bunch of chatter (surprisingly more on twitter than on HN) and commentary, I have confirmed that they are indeed right about at least one other thing (I am sure they are right about many things, but I have solid proof for this one).

In their latest book, Rework [Amazon], one of their many principles are ‘pick a fight’. They also talk about having a point of view. So that’s exactly what I did. I read their book, was impressed by how they followed their own advice, and while I agreed with most of their points there was one that I strongly disagreed with. That is their notion that companies should stay small and not aim to grow. I believe we have a moral obligation to grow the companies/ideas that have the ability to do so. Be sure to check out the comments, as the discussion continued.

I can only assume that the reason they say you should pick a fight or have a point of view is that you stand out and get attention (because many companies don’t take sides/positions). If I am wrong, DHH or Jason, please feel free to correct me.

As a result of my fight picking, I saw a huge bump in traffic. I submitted the article to HN and nothing much happened – I had expected a bigger bang, but it puttered out the gate and fizzled in the HN-upcoming story graveyard. Then as a last ditch effort to generate some traffic I simply sent out a tweet, and both DHH & Jason Fried responded. JF retweeted it, and DHH responded on the actual article.

Here are my traffic graphs:

 

(download)

I don’t understand why the bulk of the traffic referrals come up as ‘direct’ when I know that many of them came from either twitter or the bit.ly URL created by Jason Fried and tweeted out.

So, once you have a point of view, and someone else to pick a fight with…doing so can get you some amount of attention.

P.S. Image 1 courtesy of Kay Vee.INC on Flickr.

 

Why Jason Fried & David Heinemeier Hanson Are Wrong About One Thing

I just finished reading Rework and am pumped to continue working on my side projects. I also just read an interesting post titled ‘I am a racist’ by Mark C. Chu-Carroll and they both really got me thinking.

I am a huge fan of 37signals (who isn’t these days?), and typically agree with their business philosophies and software development approach.

DHH recently had an interview with Jason Calacanis, where there was an interesting face-off between the two schools of thought. DHH is a major proponent of building your company from internal cash-flows and eventual profits, while Jason C. believes you should take outside funding when you can (I am simplifying here, so please don’t send hate mail if this doesn’t spell out their philosophies exactly).

During this interview, DHH mentioned that you should always be working on your best idea – i.e. there is no reason for you to want to sell your company because there is no guarantee that you will come up with as good an idea, or even a better idea, the next time around. In his case, he can see himself still with 37signals in 20 years, because he is confident that he is working on his best idea now. He has no plans to exit. Jason Fried even went so far as to write a blog post blasting the sale of Mint.com to Intuit because Aaron Patzer (Mint’s founder) ‘sold out’.

During another interview with Jason Fried on Mixergy, Andrew Warner (the interviewer) challenged him about wanting to build a large business and Jason pushed back defending his stance about staying small.

There is a certain zen-like quality to these notions that Jason & DHH espouse, and I whole-heartedly adopt many of them. I understand, and agree with, Jason & DHH’s point about focussing on building a solid company based on profits and real customers rather than VCs and eyeballs. I also agree that large companies tend to be inefficient, cumbersome and slow-to-respond. I do acknowledge that there are inherent risks with leaving one successful venture behind. In that, it is possible that you will never be able to ‘strike gold’ twice and come up with more than one businesses that are as successful as the first.

However, where I fundamentally disagree with them on is the notion that we should never sell and stick to one company for many, many years (if not our entire entrepreneurial lives).

The reason I disagree is because by the very nature that I have the ability and wherewithal to build a large successful company and sell, there is a high probability that I can do it again (when I say I, I mean anyone – not me specifically, but hopefully me in the future:) ). This ability is so rare, that those that have it, should not squander it – for the advancement of our civilization and the betterment of society. I once heard, can’t remember from where, that the most effective poverty-reduction mechanism that mankind has ever seen is capitalism. Capitalism has raised the standards of living of more people than any other initiative and system before it – by a factor of many multiples.

As Warren Buffet said, the mere fact that we (able body entrepreneurs) won the ovarian lottery and were born to the right vagina comes with a certain amount of responsibility. Lady Luck (nothing we did to deserve it) allowed us to go to school, meet the right people, have access to information and resources – which hundreds of millions were not so fortunate. On top of that, we were given the ability to create companies that can create wealth for many shareholders, customers, clients & employees. I believe, this obliges us to build the best businesses we can (grow as much as we can – not necessarily in terms of bulking up employee count, but grow revenues and profits). If we get an offer to sell, which could have a material impact on improving the financial security of said stakeholders, it should be seriously considered. Then do it again.

So, while I understand that they (Jason & DHH) are basically pushing back against the Silicon Valley ethos of coming up with an idea, seeking VC money, hiring a bunch of people, selling to the biggest gullible buyer and then chilling on mojito island for eternity. I think they tend to be a BIT too overzealous with the opposite stance.

Aaron Patzer (of Mint fame) is now free to start a foundation and have a more significant impact on many lives, than he had before, all the while investing in other companies and starting another one for himself.

The fact that he can, and hundreds of millions can’t, I believe means he has a fundamental responsibility to maximize his capabilities as much as possible.

 

Why removing your wisdom teeth is like founding a startup

I just removed all four wisdom teeth, my experience going through this process has proved to be very familiar with doing a startup - remember this is just my experience, actual results may vary. [caption id="attachment_361" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Image provided by Wolkenkratzer from Flickr"]
Media_httpmarcgayleco_gadua
[/caption]

A legal botnet - Billion $$ Startup Idea ?

Idea: Content Delivery Network powered by 'opted-in' desktops - i.e. a legal botnet CDN. This post was inspired by this comment on Hacker News. Explanation: CDNs now, are traditionally powered by data centers scattered all over the globe - that in many cases have edge networks where blade servers cache the most frequently requested content (i.e. content requested in the last 15-minutes). The good thing about this model, as opposed to downloading from a centralized server, is when you request content you can be downloading from the closest server to you - which results in faster download times. The problem is that CDNs nowadays are still only able to have a handful of these datacenters all over the world. Some people estimate that Amazon (the great Amazon) only has data centers in approximately 14 cities. I know that many CDNs have arrangements with major ISPs to house local edge servers, so users that belong to those ISPs can get access to those data much quicker. That is a step in the right direction, in terms of reducing total amount of network hops to the source file, but can't match the distribution network of an illegal P2P service. Suppose when you wanted to download a large file, though, you could download it from everybody in your neighborhood - at the same time. This drastically changes the equation. That's what P2P networks and clients kind of allow you to do. Even some games allow you to search for the closest server (hosted by an individual) to your IP. So, back to the billion $$ idea. If you were able to create a CDN that distributed content (you would have to determine whether or not the content would be encrypted and the trade-offs therein) to a major network of peers all over the world. Think of a legal botnet. Not a spyware botnet, where users are tricked into installing 'Anti-virus 2010', but a network that people register to join and are paid per GB of disk storage and bandwidth used. Let's look at some math. From the company's perspective - using Amazon's price sheet as benchmark (as of Jan 8, 2010):
  • Charge $0.15/GB for storage
  • Charge $0.17/GB for bandwidth
For calculations sake, we are only going to use these figures. The calculations can also be applied to a graduated scale of bandwidth used and storage consumed - for the user.
  • Pay a peer $0.01/GB for storage
  • Pay a peer $0.02/GB for bandwidth


The main issues we can see with this model are that for the lower allocations of disk space - provided by the user - and slower internet pipes, the user takes home a pittance (approximately $4.83 for a 1mbit connection with 50GB storage space).  However, for more powerful connections with higher quantities of space, a user can be more than doubling or tripling the cost of their internet connection every month (with prices falling so rapidly, especially in the US). With a 50mbit connection, and 50GB storage, a user can be taking home approximately $220 per month. Assuming 50mbit will be $50 throughout the US, following the lead of a town in Minneapolis, they have quadrupled the cost of their broadband connection - assuming the CDN uses their connection for the amount of time they allocate it for (and also assuming their computer is left running 24x7). Note: The Discount Factor in the spreadsheet model above is used to reflect the amount of time the user will allow the CDN to use their computer and bandwidth. So a 0.70 discount factor means that 70% of the time the CDN will have access to the users computer and bandwidth. Just to do a quick comparison to the large CDNs (in terms of their cost structure), here is something to think about. As far as I can tell, the largest line item expenses that the 'non-fibre-owning CDNs' have is the cost of bandwidth. Looking at Limelight Networks (LLNW), we see that their Cost of Revenue was approximately 64%. An unscientific comparison with the above model highlighted, shows our Cost of Revenue being 6.7% for storage, and 11.8% for bandwidth = approximately 18.5% of Revenues. Even if our model inputs were doubled ($0.02 for storage, $0.04 for bandwidth) cost of revenues would be approximately 37% (i.e. 50% lower than the traditional CDN). The CDN business is a multi-billion dollar business. With a model like this, scaling becomes more of a software problem - than a hardware problem - which is a beautiful place to be. You scale on the backs of ISPs and users are responsible for maintaining their machines. It's Google's Adsense business model implemented as a CDN - in short. Please feel free to tinker with the numbers, and leave comments for how I can improve the model. Disclaimer: This post assumes a number of variables, all of which are not fully fleshed out - due to the difficulty in fully conveying the complete picture in a simple blog post.

Five things your startup can learn from David Plouffe

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="427" caption="David Plouffe - Obama for America"]
Media_httpwwwlawharva_eddif
[/caption]

Read the rest of this post »