smidwap

I used to work with the Lesson.ly team. New and existing employee training is a big problem space with lots of room for innovation. Many employers want to do a better job of training their employees, but most don't have a systematic way of doing so.

For example, a support team might need continual training of the product(s) they're supporting. Or a sales team needs to get up-to-speed on how to use sales software. Or a distributed workforce needs to learn about company benefits and policies.

In many cases, employers turn to team meetings, email, powerpoints, pdf's, etc. Some will implement a bulky LMS (learning management software, usually over-loaded with features). But a lot are not happy with their current setup and know there is room for improvement.

So enter Lesson.ly, stage right :-)

1. Do not take this statement for granted: "When your page is simple, yes, you don't need that much interactivity. But the market will demand more and more functionality on that page." Simple, fast apps that don't overdose on interactivity seem like a better bet. The vast majority of problems being solved with software do not require the bells and whistles of Facebook & Gmail.

2. A huge aspect of choosing Rails or client-side MVC is productivity. If you're going to build a web app in Ruby, you're going to have to have somebody on your team that is good at Ruby. By layering a client-side MVC on top of that, you're now requiring javascript expertise. Your life is now twice as difficult.

3. It's amazing how powerful DHH's approach is. Just look at the new Basecamp. Does any part of that app feel slow, clumsy, and non-interactive? Absolutely not. I imagine myself being opening up the Basecamp codebase and "getting it" within a day. If you understand your constraints well, you can deliver amazing software with an order of magnitude less complexity.

Couldn't agree more. The bonus reason sums it up best: "It's the right thing to do". This kind of stuff pays off in the long-rug I bet. A few times I have replied to emails from startups and the reply-to is their CEO. I get excited, send off an email, but am disappointed when I see an employee replying to my email which was forward to them by the CEO.

I think the implications are still unclear. It's hard to tell if they're specifically targeting apps that are "badge-arrific" and use Facebook to market themselves, if they're referring to canvas apps, or if this a wholesale attack on all apps that use Facebook data. For instance, I'm working on an application that will eventually integrate (hopefully) data from Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., in a similar fashion as Summify. It is the power of combining all of this data that interests many users.

All that said, there is a shred of logic behind they're actions...Logic in a very self-serving way, however. I am certainly biased, but I can't see this helping anyone but Facebook!

I'll end with the first line of their platform policies: "Facebook Platform is an extension of Facebook, whose mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected."

Right...

Your thoughts parallel mine. At the very least, if this idea is so brilliant, why can't a company like Dell or Apple begin mass-producing these little tikes? Even with patents and all that legal mumbo-jumbo, I'm sure they could find something to sell. Makes me wonder if this product really will sell, or if the biggies just lost out on an early opportunity.

My ignorance will show here, but I would imagine engineering one of those devices is nothing trivial (duh), let alone something that a small company could afford. I wasn't even aware that TechCrunch developed consumer products. Can someone enlighten me on how a company such as TechCrunch can reasonably expect to design, develop, and sell (they have 2/3 of those down) a tablet (netbook) and profit? There are seemingly high barriers to entry in such a market, are there not? Just curious!

Can't wait to see Web 2.0 be the next regulated industry. Imagine the government trying to pull off a definition of that!

Bruno, we've got to talk. I go to IU and you seem like a particularly interesting individual. I'll shoot you an email soon.

Maybe if we were both more clear about the point we were trying to make, we would agree :) Fact of the matter is that age isn't a sole determining factor of one's entrepreneurial mindset, but it nevertheless plays a role, albeit small or significant depending on the person. I've partnered with a mid-30's guy who in the end wasn't fulfilling his responsibilities because he was in the midst trying to get a job and feed his wife and son.

I'm now experiencing a partnership with a mid-50's guy. I'm working alongside him and several others my age. What can I say? I am experiencing exactly what I speak of right now. We have different personal goals but the beauty of it all is that no matter our personal goals we are all headed in the same direction.

So no hating here. Both young and old make for great entrepreneurs, just many times with different personal goals. What exactly are we arguing?

Hard to see how it could be a good thing. The added desire te succeed, if any, will likely be short term.

Imagine the possibilities if we gathered all the troops (rejected troops that is) and brainstormed one sweet startup. Not realistic but how cool would that be?

Correction: you haven't beaten the 18/19/20/whatever year-old shits...yet. Give us a few years to be 24 :)

Age does matter. People of different age have different priorities, bottom line. Our 52 year-old has children our age and is much less concerned with the exciting opportunities engendered through YC and much more focused on just getting the business off the ground with something to show for it.

I feel as if rejection here shouldn't really be a motivating factor! There should be so many reasons above proving YC wrong to be a motivated entrepreneur. But whatever gets you going I guess...