Emmett Shear

Emmett's HN Comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=emmett

It's subtle, but there's a difference between abandoning something because people don't have the problem you're trying to solve and abandoning something because people don't think your solution is good.
Take your Uber example. If you'd done user interviews pre-Uber, it's uncertain whether anyone would have said "yes I want to call a black car on my phone" or not. But I can pretty much guarantee that people would have said "yes, sometimes I have trouble getting a taxi to come pick me up".
User interviews at this stage are about validating the problem, not the solution.

Speaking as an engineer who made the transition to management in a big way (from primary web engineer and DBA to CEO with no time to code at all), I have mixed feelings.
I love programming. It's a zen activity for me, turn me loose on a problem and I'll literally lose track of time because I'm so absorbed in the problems. It's one of the purest, most joyous singular activities I've ever had the pleasure of practicing.
After 5 years of doing it 8-10 hours per day, I was getting stale. I was putting in the hours and I think I was productive, but I wasn't encountering new problems very often anymore.
I moved into management shortly thereafter, and being a CEO has been fascinating in its own right. So far (3 years in) I have feel like I'm nowhere near the top of the learning curve. It's a constant challenge, in a way that programming wasn't for me 3 years in. I don't think I've ever been more fully intellectually engaged.
That said, I miss programming. A lot. I find excuses to pick up bug fixes. I wrote an internal tool that manages the distribution of status updates, and at least half the reason was just to be able to code something. I don't regret the career change, but I hope some day I can make programming my main gig again.
As an alternative, I think I could have switched from web programming & DBA work to a new problem domain like graphics or even mobile apps and probably gotten a new lease on learning-curve.
Taking that step back, when I look at where other engineers have gone in their careers within the Twitch organization, the success of a switch into management seems highly idiosyncratic. Some engineers really take to it and enjoy the new challenges; some of them hate it and want to switch back. We've had a number of people try it, decide it wasn't for them, and move back onto the IC (individual contributor) track. We pay top ICs about the same as top managers, so I suppose that might make it easier.
My bottom line advice would be: you don't really know if you'll like management unless you try it. If you're in a workplace where you have the option of switching into a management position, give it a shot. Just know that it's not for everyone.

Part of the sales process is taking the sales feedback and using it to improve the product continuously. If you're not doing that, you're missing the core point which is to improve the product.

Don't bother with SEO or print advertising.
Go find some actual people and convince them, yourself and in person, to try the site. Watch them try it. Ask them if they want to buy. If not why not. Expose yourself to that direct feedback.

emmett:
Actually, the reverse happens far more often. If a company manages to insert themselves between you and your users, they can then work their way down the value chain and replace you as a supplier. It works both ways and typically the company with the direct consumer relationship has the advantage.

pbhjpbhj:
Could you, or anyone, give some examples please?

emmett:
Sure, they're extremely plentiful.
Costco distributes food under the "Kirkland Signature" brand, competing with its own suppliers.
Uber was started by using a towncar service and getting cars dispatched. They now hire their own drivers directly.
Old fashioned steel companies were famous for owning the entire supply chain, all the way from the coal and iron mines and the rail roads through the steel factories.
Google is (attempting) this move by creating a review service to eat Yelp's lunch and displace them as a supplier of reviews to people searching Google.
Netflix creates House of Cards to compete with its own suppliers of movies.

emmett:
Hey, just a quick piece of feedback on this. You define virality as "the percentage of users invited by other users". That's a very non-standard definition.
Usually virality is measured as "the average number of new users invited by any given user". I'd strongly suggest using that as your definition.

shaolin69:
In that case, we're hitting it out of the park - over 4 invites sent per user, but these invites convert at ~25%. There's also "k factor" (invites sent x conversion rate), and the interval between user #1 bringing on user #2 is also important... guess there are many ways to present virality

emmett:
That kind of info (4 invites on average per user, 25% conversion rate) is THE critical information. If you want to talk about virality at all, the fact it's not in your presentation is a serious defect you should correct.

emmett 728 days ago | parent | on: Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5947584
Well, the suppliers may face a federally-mandated price ceiling, but they also have a federally-mandated monopoly on their own product (copyright).
It's not like you have a natural right to prevent people from copying your stuff - we grant that right as a society, subject to very definitive limitations.
The real issue here is piracy -- if Pandora didn't have to compete with free, they could raise their prices and this whole issue would go away. As long as piracy exists, the price of music will be driven down. You can't blame Pandora for that.

emmett 824 days ago | parent | on: Show HN: Heap is a new approach to analytics. Just...

How is it an anti-pattern? That's how Dropbox launched, and it seemed to turn out OK for them.Generally speaking if you have a hard-to-scale service (Heap, Dropbox) doing an invite-base system makes sense.