switch

The world is changing. It's very different now.

There was a time when there were Feudal Lords and now there aren't.

Similarly, we're moving away from a time of microserfs to hackers and coders who are free.

Love the downvotes - Guess people would rather take advice on how to be mediocre and miserable and do things you don't want to do than take control of their own destiny and find a company they love being at or start one themselves.

If you really enjoy video production and the video was fun to work on - why not do that full-time. Or make a tool related to it.

A little clarification.

Really good developers are priceless.

Anyone who is smart knows this. You just have to look at how much companies are willing to pay developers in signing bonuses and retention bonuses.

As a developer you should be aware of this.

Also, life is short.

Instead of choosing a company or line of work where you have to focus on things you don't want to focus on or change yourself -

pick an area you love and where people love you as you are.

Only idiot pointy haired managers would pick a clean-cut mediocre programmer over a superstar coder who doesn't shave.

And in my experience the superstars are nearly always not concerned with GTL (gym, tanning, and laundry).

Here's my response:

Either start your own company or find a company where you can be yourself and ship code and not have to worry about 33 lessons.

In this day and age we shouldn't have to worry about things like hairstyles and asking what turns out to be a stupid question.

If you're a superstar at shipping great software then nothing else matters - at least that's my experience in two billion dollar software companies.

Perhaps that's part of why they got to such a big scale.

Additionally, let me clarify a few things.

Starting Point: Where people start their search (to buy something or find something).

Decision Engine: Where people make a decision.

Buying Point: Where people actually buy.

What are all the reviews at Amazon for?

Amazon is both a decision engine and a buying engine. They are trying to wean off starting engines like Google and that is why they first tried A9 and now are trying devices in customers' hands.

If you step out of your attempt to defend the poster of the first article you'll realize that her article (not her, just the article) is very short-sighted.

The Internet is destroying entire industries - yet she thinks fashion internet startups should instead compete in the real world.

That makes no sense. We should all play to our strenghts. While she's trying to do backend stuff and help existing Fashion companies, some 'only 3 to 8%' earning Internet startup is going to disrupt the entire industry.

A hacker, in my opinion, is not meant to figure out how to solve the problems the existing industry power players created or want solved.

A hacker, again in my opinion, should solve the most elegant things and solve things for actual people.

Let me point out how wrong you are.

Amazon started off selling books. What do you think their margin for each was?

Then they took over a large part of the market. Then they moved into selling other things like electronics.

Then they made the Kindle and controlled the device people read on and the starting point and the buying point.

Now they are getting into publishing and self-publishing.

They are taking over everything starting with taking over the online selling point for books.

That's what a fashion startup earning only 10% can do.

Use the 10% (which is mostly profit) to power an engine that slows takes over all of fashion. Move into parallel areas like shoes and accessories. Then starts making their own stuff.

I appreciate your trying to defend the poster of the original short-sighted article.

However, if you look at building a real business that has the power and control to completely take over an entire industry then starting online is much better than starting in the backend.

If you want to provide services to publishers who publish books (which is what back end would be for books) - well and good.

But there's nothing transformative about it.

The real transformation is to replace Publishers.

that's why the poster of the original article is so wrong. She thinks she's thinking big by talking about tackling the back end instead of doing online sites.

However, the real prize is to replace the entire pipeline and then, if the company so chooses, to replace labels and the entire fashion industry.

Give her more credit for what?

She did a fashion startup for a few years and she never figured out that nearly every luxury company gives 10% to 15% commissions?

If she really thinks it's 3 to 8% then she's blissfuly ignorant.

She doesn't get the fundamental concept of capturing the starting point. If a site becomes the destination for fashion i.e. where people go to search for the next thing they buy.

Then that site can very easily expand into selling that very thing.

At some point we say - Instead of getting 15% from this luxury watch maker, we ask for 25%. Then we say - Let's make stuff ourselves and see if we can get more than 25%.

What Google is doing and what Facebook is trying to do is very similar. Expand and take over all the profits. But first you need to be the starting point or decision point for something (search, social interactions, dating, buying clothes).

No she is wrong because of this:

c) If you become the decision engine (something Google and Bing are trying to do with their Flight Search and other initiatives in various verticals), then you can easily take over the entire business.

If people are coming to you and you help them decide what to buy - then you can start selling them that stuff. *

If you become the decision engine for Fashion you can decide everything else.

I think perhaps it's not very clear until you consider what WalMart has done and what Amazon is doing.

And what Google is trying to do.

You start off as the starting point and then you start taking over more and more until you start producing the products you were originally only linking to.

Not really a well thought out article. Here's why -

1) Why should anyone care about solving the problems that the writer of this article wants to see solved?

2) She fixates on the 3-8% that affiliate sites make without considering a few things:

a) Sites make that regardless of where the user actually buys. So if someone comes to your site and decides to buy a jacket you make money whether they buy it from Retailer A or Retailer B.

b) It's usually 10% for fashion sites and once you are driving larger volume you can cut deals for 15%.

c) If you become the decision engine (something Google and Bing are trying to do with their Flight Search and other initiatives in various verticals), then you can easily take over the entire business.

If people are coming to you and you help them decide what to buy - then you can start selling them that stuff.

3) The costs and barrier to entry is much lower if you are trying to fix the discoverability problem.

4) The real problem, and the most important thing, is the role of fashion. What fashion really does. That can be tackled completely in the online world through a website.

5) Fashion is a market that is going to make a lot of startups a lot of money.

Things that signal status (such as special electronic brands and designer bags and Grey Goose vodka) are never going to go out of style.

Instead of listening to this writer's advice, any company going into fashion should look at how backward thinking most people in the industry are, how little they understand technology, and how they are unwilling to admit the core purpose of fashion.

The easiest entry is discoverability and influence and that's also the most powerful element of the fashion ecosystem.

If you become the discovery engine and the decision engine then it's game over for everyone else.

All those VCs funding fashion startups are not idiots.

You have a point there. That someone could possibly anticipate what Doodles are going to be used and SEO map their site to that.

It still isn't the kind of thing I personally am hoping to get at Hacker News.

It seems to me that more and more people are interested in shortcuts to success and praying to the Tech Religions than actually doing something themselves or sharing stuff that is really worthwhile.

Genuine Question - Why is this topic of any interest at all for Hacker News?

This seems more like something SEO marketers or people with nothing to do would be interested in.

Q1 Does knowing the amount of traffic a Google Doodle gets in any way help someone become a better hacker?

Q2 Does this topic in any way lead to getting better at anything?

Or has Hacker News turned into some tech version of LOLCatz?

because it's like becoming a devotee to a religion.

Most people, instead of being the star of their own lives, want to follow a cult or religion or leader.

That's why people get such strong illogical feelings about a brand.