vicbrooker

I find it super interesting that this is on the front page at the same time as a ex-Google design ethicist is talking about respecting the user ahead of commercial interests.

I can't see a way for this style of design to be feasible that doesn't rely on a subscription-based business model.

As long as users allow free + advertising generally be the way to for build a dominant tech company then I would assume anyone that tries to compete by not optimising for advertising (eg. reducing friction for users) will lose. Which is a damn shame.

Based on my limited knowledge of the history of news media, theres a cycle between free + advertising and paid + high quality. Intuitively it should apply to other verticals too, and I hope that, in reality, it does.

I don't think that there's enough to say here that anything is inherently due to the UI until the context of it being on Facebook is removed.

I would bet that are broadly acceptable use cases for FB chat and ones that are not. At best, this is saying that in the context of a chat, communicating like this comes off differently than using the full conversation, or, say, an email.

I'd love to see this repeated with white labeled mockups, and remove the Facebook branding as a variable.

Their prototype reminds me of concept car designs that look great but don't have enough internal space for an engine. You'd maybe fit a AAA battery in the handle but I haven't even seen a torch that works without more juice.

Also, I was kind of suspicious when I noticed that more than half of the team have beards.

And did so in favour of a forced one - I think the title is meant to reference the whole track runner thing.

Unsolicited feedback:

At first glance, I read the logo as AURD rather than AURO, and I still had a bit of cognitive effort to remember that it's an O after finishing the article and scrolling back to the top.

Could be because I saw the old logos first, which seem far closer to D's than O's and so I was anchored to AURD, but might be worth testing with new players?

My critique of the model is more that outsourcing will get expensive quickly. The founder of this product 120+ schools to support with 30k. Many of these schools are expecting lifetime support: they paid a one time $250 fee. It's not clear what the legal relationship is between the service provider and the schools either, which may be a problem.

So my critique has nothing to do with technical skill, it's more that getting 'profitable' quickly without any consideration of the potential long term debt can be a bad business decision.

In my view, these were shaky business decisions (to outsource development, cutting legal corners w schools, one time fees), rather than technical ones, if that makes sense. There are times when outsourcing is the right call, in the context of this particular business I'm not convinced.

Ps. The adequate technical skill to execute is kinda assumed if you're founding a tech startup. If it's just building a product without the expectation of scaling it you can maybe get with outsourcing. This might be why there's more of a discussion on HN about the business side - this is the area that most of the audience here need to develop.

I remember reading that YC was founded in the first place with a hypothesis that teaching tech founders the nontech skills (eg. business/communication skills) is far, far more effective than vice versa. Seems it was right.

Just picked this up, but the early adopters pay $250 for lifetime use. So it's not necessarily $30k/yr, just $30k.

Not sure how this is a sustainable model.

The impressive part of the article is the network the author has developed prior to beginning anything. The real startup killer in Aussie edtech is the sales cycle and this product has ostensibly hit 10% market saturation in Victoria (~120 schools) since launching a month ago. With a paid product.

For comparison, many edtech startups in Melbourne are offering a trial period until the next billing cycle (July), because it's the simplest way to get through the bureaucracy. Might not be the best approach, but it's one that seems to be the fastest way to get users.

The real cost here isn't the $10k in dev, its however many hours/dollars were spent getting the network together.

On a side note, having 'lorem ipsum' as both the public terms/conditions and privacy policy is an interesting corner to cut when selling to schools, particularly in Australia.

Icebraining's wiki link below hits it on the head, but my view is that knowing too much stuff deeply might make it hard to collaborate in teams as it makes roles really hard to define.

Happens in soccer a lot - teams with really versatile players will usually get whipped by teams who have specialists in each position. Top teams aim for squads with 2 players for every position, not 2 positions for every player.

Hope that makes sense, it's getting late here :)

It's great when companies find someone who solves their exact problem, it sucks when you're the guy who can only solve one problem though.

Especially when someone finds a way to automate a solution.

I think Valve described the 'T' employee: know one area very deeply and a broad range of others reasonably well. Seems to be a good approach :)

Maybe another way of looking at what your friend said is to just be specific about your skills/experience when job seeking?

Steve Blank was recently in Melbourne and said that his opinion was that 'experienced' was a better adjective than 'failed' for founders who have stopped working on a startup. It's a nice perspective.

Personally I agree, but would add a single caveat. I consider a founder 'experienced' when they have made a good faith effort to attempt solving a difficult/worthwhile problem. Someone who succeeds at someone pedestrian isn't terribly interesting and neither is someone who tried to build the hyperloop with paper mache for a week.

So, my advice is to ignore the title and give weight to the particular characteristics of their startup. The presence or absence of success is far less relevant than what they were trying to achieve and how they executed. I would pick someone who got to 80% of a home run over anyone who succeeded at hitting to first base. Ask questions about how they executed, the unique problems they faced and why they picked their vertical - this will tell you more about them than a snap judgement based on whether they were a CEO or a President.

On a side note, I would generally consider managing to found a company that survives for 1-2 years (full time) while tackling a hard problem as a demonstration of above average/high capacity. I would definitely look into them.

Again, depends on the context of your workplace, and the context of what they actually worked on.

Hope this helps.