jlbnjmn

Seriously!

Quantity data is not a substitute for quality data.

Give an engineer a qualitative data point and they'll find a way to invalidate it.

But give them a million invalid data points...

> Although you may have been unsatisfied with iMovie, it is in fact the free tier of Final Cut Pro, much as GarageBand is the free tier of Logic.

Are they though?

I think of a free version as having the same interface and core functionality with locked features. Does iMovie have the same interface/menus/workflow as Final Cut now?

These seem more like the "let's not dilute the product by repackaging some of the codebase into a mass market interface" versions.

Admittedly I haven't used them in years but I do recall learning about non linear editing in premiere pro years ago and ditching iMovie for adobe in a flash.

More recently I've gone the resolve route as well, even though I have active adobe subscriptions through with along with years of experience.

I just don't like cloud dependent software.

This is a great example of good strategy coming from better understanding and not a better template.

Thanks for sharing!

Speaking as someone who blends marketing/design/technical work I have a few thoughts on this.

First, there's pressure on a lot of marketers to sell more this month or this quarter.

Second, there's an expectation to prove that an idea is good using data and to prove the idea worked using data.

Third, there's very little interest in investing in the art side of the trade.

When taken together, you get what we've got.

What am I trying to say?

I guess just that in my experience it's always been the owners and top level managers pushing for short-term, unethical, bad ux decisions and focusing on manipulating instead of serving people.

And it sucks.

I think a lot of us got into marketing because we're creative and technical and wanting to make businesses and products better for people, both consumers and society at large.

Or maybe that's just me.

Edit: the worst part of it is the demoralizing realization that the owners are often right. Most people actually do want McDonalds, like shopping at Walmart/Amazon, and enjoy Facebook. So I guess the worst part about marketing, the part nobody talks much about, is that giving the majority of people what they want usually means low quality at the cheapest price.

Me too.

I think we'll get there in the next 20 years.

The limiting factor is building codes in the USA. But there are some really cool things all around the world in the building space, very little of which is publicized.

The construction industry as a whole suffers from inefficient communication.

Building codes.

What you described is rational but unconventional and building codes are designed to require following convention. Also, the cost of connectors goes up quickly, but the right connectors could change the game dramatically.

On-site modular is common (though not very known) for large apartment buildings. Setup a factory in the future parking lot, crank out apartment modules, crane them into place and connect them. It's efficient, but not "cool".

Modular homes have to compete with site-built on cost and quality, but do so within the same set of rules the site-built homes follow. There are two major challenges: 1) customization and 2) transportation.

Many home builders already use pre-framed walls and most use pre-built roof/floor trusses and windows because those are already cost effective. They also use standardized materials across the spectrum.

So basically, the materials are standardized to the point of customization, with the exception of roof trusses and sometimes kitchen cabinets.

For modular to win, the designs need to be standardized at a larger scope or the building codes changed to allow plug and play.

Second is transportation. It can cost $5,000-$15,000+ to ship a truck sized building module, and then a large crane has to be rented to unload and place them. The max size of a module is around 10.5' by 40'. Any larger and you pay overweight fees and for pilot cars. If you think about it, that's only 400 square feet of space. So even a 1600 square foot house gets too expensive fast.

Does any of that add any insight?

I'm not the person you asked, but the most relevant advice I got was to pay half the commission after month 1 and half after month 12.

It helps weed out the less honest people, aligns sales with support, and protects cash flow.

Thank you, I'm glad I asked.

I like the intro bit "we build real businesses for real customers who pay us real money" from the video you linked.

The term master mind has been a bit off-putting to me, but it seems like scheduled social time is a solid step in the right direction.

Thanks.

Out of curiosity, why was the company started?

I think the same applies to careers, at least for me.

The worst outcome is a moderately good job. A bad job you can quit, a great job you can retire from, but a moderately good job is slow speed entropy with a gradually narrowing window of opportunity.

Would I be simplifying too much to say the cause of failure was, in all cases, "a failure to economically supply demand"?

Sorry, the title was vague.

More specifically the question is "what were the specific, direct causes of failure?"

"My car broke down" vs. "the alternator went out so my battery died and my car wouldn't start".

> serial entrepreneurs

That is who I'm looking for.

If the odds of success are less than 10%, then it would seem to follow that the thoughts on success by single or several failure individuals would suffer from a similar bias as the survivors.

Basically, who actually kept trying long enough to disprove the hypothesis that's it's all about experimenting until you find something that works really well, and then growing it as fast as you can?