Comments for Ooga Labs http://blog.oogalabs.com Ooga Labs Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:37:53 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Passionate Beliefs, Loosely Held by LitoR http://blog.oogalabs.com/2009/12/22/passionate-beliefs-loosely-held/#comment-453 LitoR Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:37:53 +0000 http://blog.oogalabs.com/?p=180#comment-453 Very well said... Exactly the reason why in a TEAM there is no "I". And it's really hard to get stuck with a group where the "I" abounds, get's you nowhere =( Very well said…

Exactly the reason why in a TEAM there is no “I”.

And it’s really hard to get stuck with a group where the “I” abounds, get’s you nowhere =(

]]> Comment on The Advisor Compensation Gap by Bryan White http://blog.oogalabs.com/2009/05/12/the-advisor-compensation-gap/#comment-451 Bryan White Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:28:08 +0000 http://blog.oogalabs.com/index.php/2009/05/12/the-advisor-compensation-gap/#comment-451 I have just formed a start up and I have not raised any funds at this time. However, I have befreinded a retired president/CEO of the industry that my start up is in. We meet, he is very qualified, very well respected by his peers but when we talked about compensation, he asked for defeered compensation until we were funded and 10% equity for moderate involvement and up to 20% equity for heavy involvement. Is this typical at this early stage of a start up? It seems like alot, equity amount that is to me- please let me know your thoughts? I have just formed a start up and I have not raised any funds at this time. However, I have befreinded a retired president/CEO of the industry that my start up is in. We meet, he is very qualified, very well respected by his peers but when we talked about compensation, he asked for defeered compensation until we were funded and 10% equity for moderate involvement and up to 20% equity for heavy involvement. Is this typical at this early stage of a start up? It seems like alot, equity amount that is to me- please let me know your thoughts?

]]> Comment on Fast, Good AND Cheap by George Rebane http://blog.oogalabs.com/2009/12/23/fast-good-and-cheap/#comment-417 George Rebane Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:40:08 +0000 http://blog.oogalabs.com/?p=205#comment-417 The original form of this dictum (used forever in the systems development world) is 'Performance, Cost, Schedule - pick any two'. The original form of this dictum (used forever in the systems development world) is ‘Performance, Cost, Schedule – pick any two’.

]]> Comment on Personal Character in Product Development by Marc Siegel http://blog.oogalabs.com/2009/12/23/personal-character-in-product-development/#comment-410 Marc Siegel Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:57:30 +0000 http://blog.oogalabs.com/?p=192#comment-410 Oops, I left out the juiciest part, the article's link: http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/10/real-customer-advisory-board.html Oops, I left out the juiciest part, the article’s link:
http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/10/real-customer-advisory-board.html

]]> Comment on Personal Character in Product Development by Marc Siegel http://blog.oogalabs.com/2009/12/23/personal-character-in-product-development/#comment-409 Marc Siegel Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:31:04 +0000 http://blog.oogalabs.com/?p=192#comment-409 Hello James, Right on! A key to improvement is the willingness to look honestly within. A positive attitude greatly helps to persevere in making difficult changes. These truths hold for human personality as well as software products. As a product manager, I always found my best tool was a pair of large ears, willing to hear what customers were saying without being defensive. As companies/products mature, formalizing a feedback loop with Customer Advisory Boards can help. This article describes one enlightened example. Best of luck. Marc Hello James,
Right on! A key to improvement is the willingness to look honestly within. A positive attitude greatly helps to persevere in making difficult changes. These truths hold for human personality as well as software products. As a product manager, I always found my best tool was a pair of large ears, willing to hear what customers were saying without being defensive.

As companies/products mature, formalizing a feedback loop with Customer Advisory Boards can help. This article describes one enlightened example.
Best of luck.
Marc

]]> Comment on Kevin Rose — Silicon Valley’s first Tom Cruise? by Leonel Dilda http://blog.oogalabs.com/2007/07/18/keven-rose-silicon-valleys-first-tom-cruise/#comment-406 Leonel Dilda Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:53:27 +0000 http://blog.oogalabs.com/index.php/2007/07/18/keven-rose-silicon-valleys-first-tom-cruise/#comment-406 I read that he that he wanted do a Neighbours cameo :O. Sounds a bit dodgy to me. There's a part of me that kind of wishes this is true lol. I read that he that he wanted do a Neighbours cameo :O. Sounds a bit dodgy to me. There’s a part of me that kind of wishes this is true lol.

]]> Comment on Fast, Good AND Cheap by Dave McClure http://blog.oogalabs.com/2009/12/23/fast-good-and-cheap/#comment-398 Dave McClure Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:39:16 +0000 http://blog.oogalabs.com/?p=205#comment-398 actually, i don't think it's impossible to build fast, good, AND cheap, however i DO think it's difficult to prioritize all 3 at the same time (or even 2, really). most things are built with only 1 of these as priorities, with possibly a 2nd constraint as a minimum rqmt. (ex: PayPal was pretty crappy at first, and was PRIMARILY built with an emphasis on viral distribution (Fast & Cheap), while maintaining basic functional use as a payment mechanism, and while limiting overall system fraud activity to a manageable % (not Good, but Good Enough). thus, while Twitter is arguably fast, good, & cheap now, it certainly wasn't great when it started, and it wasn't very fast either (and not very reliable at all, as noted by almost everyone). it was built cheap & simple, and because it did it well *enough*, it was good (enough). at the same time, most of Apple and Amazon products were built with GOOD as primary emphasis, and Cheap ENOUGH as the constraint... and perhaps some rqmts on speed, altho not clear they have as much focus there. anyway, agreed that we shouldn't let narrow-minded thinking rule the day when aiming for breakthrough products & services, but probably good to have a clear primary emphasis, along with secondary constraints. my .02, actually, i don’t think it’s impossible to build fast, good, AND cheap, however i DO think it’s difficult to prioritize all 3 at the same time (or even 2, really).

most things are built with only 1 of these as priorities, with possibly a 2nd constraint as a minimum rqmt. (ex: PayPal was pretty crappy at first, and was PRIMARILY built with an emphasis on viral distribution (Fast & Cheap), while maintaining basic functional use as a payment mechanism, and while limiting overall system fraud activity to a manageable % (not Good, but Good Enough).

thus, while Twitter is arguably fast, good, & cheap now, it certainly wasn’t great when it started, and it wasn’t very fast either (and not very reliable at all, as noted by almost everyone). it was built cheap & simple, and because it did it well *enough*, it was good (enough).

at the same time, most of Apple and Amazon products were built with GOOD as primary emphasis, and Cheap ENOUGH as the constraint… and perhaps some rqmts on speed, altho not clear they have as much focus there.

anyway, agreed that we shouldn’t let narrow-minded thinking rule the day when aiming for breakthrough products & services, but probably good to have a clear primary emphasis, along with secondary constraints.

my .02,

]]> Comment on Fast, Good AND Cheap by mel http://blog.oogalabs.com/2009/12/23/fast-good-and-cheap/#comment-396 mel Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:00:21 +0000 http://blog.oogalabs.com/?p=205#comment-396 It's not the tech that's the point of the post, it's the means. Bureaucrats justifying mediocracy. Place markers building their little empire. Mel Conway explained it in 1968. I'm a scrum master. To me scrum is the only rational way to control chaotic projects; that's software to you. The good, fast and cheap is a natural consequence of scrum's focus on ROI. It’s not the tech that’s the point of the post, it’s the means.

Bureaucrats justifying mediocracy. Place markers building their little empire. Mel Conway explained it in 1968.

I’m a scrum master. To me scrum is the only rational way to control chaotic projects; that’s software to you.

The good, fast and cheap is a natural consequence of scrum’s focus on ROI.

]]> Comment on Fast, Good AND Cheap by Rajesh http://blog.oogalabs.com/2009/12/23/fast-good-and-cheap/#comment-394 Rajesh Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:17:51 +0000 http://blog.oogalabs.com/?p=205#comment-394 James, You are comparing apples and oranges. The common thread in your "Slow, Expensive, Good" examples is that there is more to the product/service (technical complexity, financial regs., logistics whatever) that what you see from a user's standpoint. The "Fast Cheap Good" is all WYSIWYG (mostly) and largely web/mobile applications that piggy-back on other infrastructure. No excuses for the crappy stuff... I would bet that something like SquareUp would take time to build given all the regulations and infrastructure that needs to be built. Some things can only be built so fast (good or crappy). -Rajesh James,

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The common thread in your “Slow, Expensive, Good” examples is that there is more to the product/service (technical complexity, financial regs., logistics whatever) that what you see from a user’s standpoint.

The “Fast Cheap Good” is all WYSIWYG (mostly) and largely web/mobile applications that piggy-back on other infrastructure.

No excuses for the crappy stuff…

I would bet that something like SquareUp would take time to build given all the regulations and infrastructure that needs to be built. Some things can only be built so fast (good or crappy).

-Rajesh

]]> Comment on Fast, Good AND Cheap by jamescurrier http://blog.oogalabs.com/2009/12/23/fast-good-and-cheap/#comment-393 jamescurrier Tue, 29 Dec 2009 06:14:07 +0000 http://blog.oogalabs.com/?p=205#comment-393 Fast, Good and Cheap: Facebook, Twitter, Bebo, FourSquare, Groupon, MySpace, Fickr, PhotoBucket, Texas Hold 'Em on FB (which lead to Zynga), (lil) Green Patch on FB (which launched the social gaming category and could have lead to Zynga), and then the Web 1.0 winners like CraigsList, Match.com, Monster, and eBay. Slow, expensive and good: Amazon, Google, everything Apple, the F8 platform on FB. Slow, expensive and crappy: most other stuff, like Zune, A9, all of KPCB's stealth companies, all of EA's attempts at social gaming on FB, LinkedIn (even though it won through lack of competition), all of Yahoo's startup attempts in the last 3 years. Fast, Good and Cheap: Facebook, Twitter, Bebo, FourSquare, Groupon, MySpace, Fickr, PhotoBucket, Texas Hold ‘Em on FB (which lead to Zynga), (lil) Green Patch on FB (which launched the social gaming category and could have lead to Zynga), and then the Web 1.0 winners like CraigsList, Match.com, Monster, and eBay.

Slow, expensive and good: Amazon, Google, everything Apple, the F8 platform on FB.

Slow, expensive and crappy: most other stuff, like Zune, A9, all of KPCB’s stealth companies, all of EA’s attempts at social gaming on FB, LinkedIn (even though it won through lack of competition), all of Yahoo’s startup attempts in the last 3 years.

]]>