Cheers to Shawn, Joel, Joe, Michelle, Rachel, Richard, Lorena, Kiel, and Frank!
Showing posts with label vendor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vendor. Show all posts
Monday
Create your own solo business - paper or plastic...
Entrepreneurs Who Go It Alone — By Choice
In the fall of 2007, Marco Arment was working as lead developer at Tumblr, the social network and blogging platform, when he noticed that he kept losing the links to interesting stories that he didn't immediately have time to read.
So one evening at home, after a frustrating search for an article he vaguely recalled, Arment spent five hours creating a simple web application that would allow him to quickly and easily save links and follow up on them later. "It didn't need to do that much and there was so much value right there," says Arment. "I put in about an hour a week on it and it took almost no effort because it was so simple."
Arment showed the website to a couple of friends and they loved it. Six months later, when Apple announced it was creating an app store for the iPhone, Arment thought he could expand his idea. He liked reading articles on his subway commute home, but the Manhattan trains lacked an Internet connection. What if he could create an iPhone app that would let people read saved links offline? Arment spent his evenings developing Instapaper to do just that. (See the 25 best financial blogs.)
Three years later, Instapaper had grown to a million users and, despite the tanking economy, was making Arment enough money to live on — even as he maintained his job at Tumblr. Revenue came from sales of the $4.99 app, ads on the website, and a purely optional website subscription fee of $1 a month. "The iPad was a huge boon to the service because it's designed for reading," he says. Instapaper was taking off but at the same time was demanding more of his time, so in September 2010 Arment left his job to run Instapaper full time.
Today, Instapaper is a profitable one-man operation, having garnered 1.8 million users. They include Jared Keller, an associate editor for TheAtlantic.com, who uses the service on his Droid Incredible during his 40-minute commute. "It's as close as I can get to print without lugging around a stack of magazines," says Keller. "It is one of those things I can't live without." And Instapaper is the perfect recession-proof business because the overhead is low and Arment, 29, has no employees to pay or investors to please. "Investors want to see growth and a return on the investment," he said. "It would lead to the kind of job that I don't want right now."
It's a sentiment felt by a growing number of solo entrepreneurs. The notion that companies must solicit investments and keep expanding in order to survive isn't always the goal anymore, especially during tough economic times. Web-based tools have helped level the playing field by lowering overhead costs so that a one-man operation can compete against million dollar corporations and thrive.
A few years back something like Instapaper would have been dismissed by venture capitalists as a mere "feature," not a stand-alone product — let alone a profitable business. "But it turns out people will pay for features," says Paul Kedrosky, senior fellow at the Kansas City, Missouri-based Kauffman Foundation, which fosters entrepreneurship. "The tools required to run a company, and how expensive it is to market it, have all declined so dramatically in the last decade that there is a real hope for people who declare themselves one-man organizations to stay this way."
Wednesday
Leaked video of how the Blackberry Storm 3 (code named Monaco) may function...
Click image for video.
By the way, Dale Bennett got me interested in these, originally.
This sexy device has yet to be officially announced.
(Sad sauce.)
Leaked video of how the Blackberry Storm 3 (code named Monaco) may function...
Click image for video.
By the way, Dale Bennett got me interested in these, originally.
This sexy device has yet to be officially announced.
(Sad sauce.)
Thursday
Wednesday
WHY AIR MILES ARE NEEDED FOR WEB 2.0
Before Web 2.0 evolved, the concept of "Customer loyalty" was pervasive in the software industry (E.g. "we've only ever used Microsoft Outlook for CRM").
In many people's view, this was the result of a combination of factors including the following:
companies were able to come up with competitive products that were
able to quickly pull "loyal" customers away from the giants. Some of the advantages are as follows:
functionality, terminology, and marketing from other companies
extremely easily...(e.g. compare the glaring similarities between American Basecamp and the European iTeamwork, for
instance).
In the current environment then, with high exportability of data
records, think about how easy it would be for you to buy one software
title...
use it for a while and then say "nah, there's something better over here..."
....and quickly change vendors
(e.g. people that used Evite from Yahoo now use
Facebook for event management;
Australian Diigo quietly took over Furl for online management of bookmarks;
Delicious is contending with Yahoo and Google Toolbar for bookmarks)!
Did Web 2.0 move us into a world of low customer loyalty, copycat
features everywhere, and high migration?
How do Web 2.0 vendors retain customers? To ponder...
In many people's view, this was the result of a combination of factors including the following:
- steep prices for software, making it prohibitive to buy from another vendor
- unique "killer" features of one title over another
- investment of intensive staff training, and costs of subsequent re-training
companies were able to come up with competitive products that were
able to quickly pull "loyal" customers away from the giants. Some of the advantages are as follows:
- low fees for software
- streamlined features to get the job done
- easy-to-learn minimal staff training
functionality, terminology, and marketing from other companies
extremely easily...(e.g. compare the glaring similarities between American Basecamp and the European iTeamwork, for
instance).
In the current environment then, with high exportability of data
records, think about how easy it would be for you to buy one software
title...
use it for a while and then say "nah, there's something better over here..."
....and quickly change vendors
(e.g. people that used Evite from Yahoo now use
Facebook for event management;
Australian Diigo quietly took over Furl for online management of bookmarks;
Delicious is contending with Yahoo and Google Toolbar for bookmarks)!
Did Web 2.0 move us into a world of low customer loyalty, copycat
features everywhere, and high migration?
For instance, there are sooo many vendors for free (and almost free) Web 2.0 software for
task management lists, todo lists, and sticky note applications,
that it boggles the mind which one to choose.
Most sane people likely just "go with the marketing flow."
How do Web 2.0 vendors retain customers? To ponder...
- "Air miles" point / discount programs to make customers reluctant about switching vendors?
- How comfortable are you with the vendor's business philosophy - are you in-tune?
- With more organizations from your industry using the same application, there may be more apt support for your specific needs, right?
- Do you keep buying more and more disparate mini applications, or just get one giant application that is much more robust?
WHY AIR MILES ARE NEEDED FOR WEB 2.0
Before Web 2.0 evolved, the concept of "Customer loyalty" was pervasive in the software industry (E.g. "we've only ever used Microsoft Outlook for CRM").
In many people's view, this was the result of a combination of factors including the following:
companies were able to come up with competitive products that were
able to quickly pull "loyal" customers away from the giants. Some of the advantages are as follows:
functionality, terminology, and marketing from other companies
extremely easily...(e.g. compare the glaring similarities between American Basecamp and the European iTeamwork, for
instance).
In the current environment then, with high exportability of data
records, think about how easy it would be for you to buy one software
title...
use it for a while and then say "nah, there's something better over here..."
....and quickly change vendors
(e.g. people that used Evite from Yahoo now use
Facebook for event management;
Australian Diigo quietly took over Furl for online management of bookmarks;
Delicious is contending with Yahoo and Google Toolbar for bookmarks)!
Did Web 2.0 move us into a world of low customer loyalty, copycat
features everywhere, and high migration?
How do Web 2.0 vendors retain customers? To ponder...
In many people's view, this was the result of a combination of factors including the following:
- steep prices for software, making it prohibitive to buy from another vendor
- unique "killer" features of one title over another
- investment of intensive staff training, and costs of subsequent re-training
companies were able to come up with competitive products that were
able to quickly pull "loyal" customers away from the giants. Some of the advantages are as follows:
- low fees for software
- streamlined features to get the job done
- easy-to-learn minimal staff training
functionality, terminology, and marketing from other companies
extremely easily...(e.g. compare the glaring similarities between American Basecamp and the European iTeamwork, for
instance).
In the current environment then, with high exportability of data
records, think about how easy it would be for you to buy one software
title...
use it for a while and then say "nah, there's something better over here..."
....and quickly change vendors
(e.g. people that used Evite from Yahoo now use
Facebook for event management;
Australian Diigo quietly took over Furl for online management of bookmarks;
Delicious is contending with Yahoo and Google Toolbar for bookmarks)!
Did Web 2.0 move us into a world of low customer loyalty, copycat
features everywhere, and high migration?
For instance, there are sooo many vendors for free (and almost free) Web 2.0 software for
task management lists, todo lists, and sticky note applications,
that it boggles the mind which one to choose.
Most sane people likely just "go with the marketing flow."
How do Web 2.0 vendors retain customers? To ponder...
- "Air miles" point / discount programs to make customers reluctant about switching vendors?
- How comfortable are you with the vendor's business philosophy - are you in-tune?
- With more organizations from your industry using the same application, there may be more apt support for your specific needs, right?
- Do you keep buying more and more disparate mini applications, or just get one giant application that is much more robust?
Thursday
GO! JUMP ON THE TIMEBRIDGE FOR OUR MEETING!
The Timebridge tool (from a subsidiary of Yahoo) eliminates the "coordination" requisite for meeting with two or more people.
http://forum.37signals.com/basecamp/forums/3/topics/9853
Online and phone meetings just got easier; try it for yourself!
Timebridge is definitely one of those "killer applications" because it is so quick, simple, and effective!
http://forum.37signals.com/basecamp/forums/3/topics/9853
By the way, one of Alan Moore's characters, Jonni Future, also uses a ficticious "Timebridge" device...
...and my friend Shazia was also impressed with my Web 2.0 geekiness
during her recent visit. Wow! Shazia! Impressed! Wow!
As expected, the emails sent are coded so that click-throughs automatically identify the Attendee for the meeting.
This is similar to the coding in Messages from Basecamp Project Management, wherein reply emails get attached to Basecamp Message threads.
Web-based software vendors could utilize similar technology as an alternative to the BCC idea when users need to coordinate meetings.
Frank has invited you to a
meeting:Click this link
to reply:http://app.timebridge.com/meeting/reply/sReQBKyUhzujUjfFMessage from
Frank:========================Please click the "Reply" link to enter your
availability for this meeting.
Timebridge is definitely one of those "killer applications" because it is so quick, simple, and effective!
It can even "reach into" meeting attendees' calendars to find open time slots. Nifty, eh?
NOTE: In practice, people are currently a bit reluctant to believe that it is actually quick, simple, and effective. To wit, the application never requires new users to "create an account," which in my view is one of the best features!
Service is free, and users can opt to pay for their online meeting service (ala GoToMeeting from Citrix or NetMeeting from Microsoft). Let's keep an eye on how well they are doing when it comes to attracting cash, ya? Yahoo?
GO! JUMP ON THE TIMEBRIDGE FOR OUR MEETING!
The Timebridge tool (from a subsidiary of Yahoo) eliminates the "coordination" requisite for meeting with two or more people.
http://forum.37signals.com/basecamp/forums/3/topics/9853
Online and phone meetings just got easier; try it for yourself!
Timebridge is definitely one of those "killer applications" because it is so quick, simple, and effective!
http://forum.37signals.com/basecamp/forums/3/topics/9853
By the way, one of Alan Moore's characters, Jonni Future, also uses a ficticious "Timebridge" device...
...and my friend Shazia was also impressed with my Web 2.0 geekiness
during her recent visit. Wow! Shazia! Impressed! Wow!
As expected, the emails sent are coded so that click-throughs automatically identify the Attendee for the meeting.
This is similar to the coding in Messages from Basecamp Project Management, wherein reply emails get attached to Basecamp Message threads.
Web-based software vendors could utilize similar technology as an alternative to the BCC idea when users need to coordinate meetings.
Frank has invited you to a
meeting:Click this link
to reply:http://app.timebridge.com/meeting/reply/sReQBKyUhzujUjfFMessage from
Frank:========================Please click the "Reply" link to enter your
availability for this meeting.
Timebridge is definitely one of those "killer applications" because it is so quick, simple, and effective!
It can even "reach into" meeting attendees' calendars to find open time slots. Nifty, eh?
NOTE: In practice, people are currently a bit reluctant to believe that it is actually quick, simple, and effective. To wit, the application never requires new users to "create an account," which in my view is one of the best features!
Service is free, and users can opt to pay for their online meeting service (ala GoToMeeting from Citrix or NetMeeting from Microsoft). Let's keep an eye on how well they are doing when it comes to attracting cash, ya? Yahoo?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
