Nov 10
I have been watching the recent set of Web 2.0 companies coming out via Web 2.0 Summit, StartupCamp, etc etc.
Some of the companies started to feel like they were features trying to be a company. Good ideas, but not companies.
I wonder if the “less is more” tenant that is around these days is getting seen in the wrong way.
Building something with less doesn’t mean that you don’t have to think about whether it is a product vs. a feature that you are building. Hopefully we don’t start getting bubblicious again for awhile :)
November 10th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
FWIW, I said the same about Writely. Maybe I was right (in the sense that it’s part of a bigger suite). :)
November 10th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
It’s another example of how our society has detoriated to this attitude of “I want it and I want it now” mentality.
Focusing on a feature as opposed to *the* product is the lazy, quick way out.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Nothing wrong with building a feature at all. It’s just the pharma model of outsourcing R&D.
As an established software company, it is much cheaper to buy a Web 2.0 feature that is gaining traction for $5-$20MM than to create 20 features yourself and see if one of them flies.
As a start up, it makes more sense to build a feature and sell it after 18 months than t have to hire an HR manager and recruit a sales team and develop policies and procedures and to register for sales tax in 50 jurisdictions and come up with transfer pricing strategies for your foreign subsidiaries and do all the fun stuff required to create an international software company.
Win – win – win.