I agree with a few of the points, but it lost me at Tesla. I like my Tesla a lot because it’s a really well designed product, not because of some Elon Musk story.
Right, but Tesla is using a really effective story:
"Space cowboy thinks other car companies are bloated and old-fashioned, builds the future with a scrappy group of dreamers"
As an awareness multiplier that's in some ways more effective than the $3B+ that GM spends on advertising each year. Because GM doesn't have a good story to tell.
Tesla is a great example of this maxim: "a good story is worth a thousand spreadsheets." While Tesla is busy getting ridiculous valuations, their competition is focused on traditional corporate measures of performance. It even permeates their marketing - other auto makers are so focused on segments that their stories are segmented (see Ford's rollout of the new Mustang SUV). Meanwhile, Tesla is telling a very visceral "better animal" arrives and re-terraforms the world story.
Doesn't the fact you even know who Elon Musk is show that Tesla has a good story?
I have no idea who the CEO of any other car company is, and although I think Tesla as a company is interesting I have no interest in their cars or any other companies cars for that matter.
> I have no idea who the CEO of any other car company is...
On the topic of a good story, allow me to introduce you to the story of Carlos Ghosn, who assembled together Nissan, Renault, and Mitsubishi into a single conglomerate, was arrested and possibly framed for financial crimes, and then snuck out of Japan by staging a fake party while he was under house arrest, and is now an international criminal.
I couldn't find it in Google either. Found two other tech companies using Beam in their product name (not to mention Erlang) which is only a minor issue. And the site doesn't mention browser anywhere on the homepage (SEO?).
Even the footer and "Join the beta" CTA only loads after the generic slogan.
Hopefully this isn't an indication of their design and web dev sensibilities. Which are critical for browser development. This is some basic work you do before doing PR rounds.
It's almost like they were trying to reverse-optimize conversion, like maximizing click-away rate. I really want to see how someone well-versed in UX would justify such design, because I see it in many places and am absolutely baffled that anyone could think it's a good idea. It also requires (what I see as) a nontrivial amount of JS/CSS wand waving, which compounds my confusion.
I really like the system and it seems there's also a temporal order to the learning path:
1) Tutorials <- starting point
2) How To <- intermediate
3) Reference <- comes back to it regularly
4) Discussion <- final step to understanding
However as the video mentions, it's all connected in a circle, as perhaps having some discussion up-front(why, context, alternatives) is useful for newcomers to evaluate whether this project is worth diving into.
Curious as to whether the author(and everyone) thinks on how much "discussion" should be put into the "Getting Started" page.
I personally alternate between taking courses and doing projects.
Doing all MOOC is bad for some of the reasons the articles covered. But doing all projects is also sub-optimal because sometimes it is hard to know what you don't know. Balancing theory and practice works the best for me.
In other industries for example gaming and desktop tools, people eventually just ship a new version that existing users have to buy again. For continuously deployed web products a repricing is the only way to frame it in customer's minds.
It’s a subscription, so you’re rebuying it every month/year whether you want the new features or not. I miss the days when you bought something and could use it forever, and only had to re-up if the next version was actually so much better as to be worth the cost.
This looks cool but I'd be in the market for a software solution that gave me "games, races, and programs" with a Concept 2 + iPad. If anyone knows of such a product please let me know.
posthog looks like a great product. But it's interesting that a product offering with "open source" and "on your infrastructure" still has "cloud" as the first tab in the pricing. (Not a criticism at all, just pointing out the interesting dynamics of the open core business model)
We're about to change our deployment strategy actually!
We think the future for open source is offering private cloud, where we have some sort of control pane to manage upgrades without needing access to your data. That's a win for privacy reasons but mean we don't have to go at the pace of our users with the least powerful on premise servers.
That sounds interesting. Out of curiosity does AWS have streamlined support for vendor deployments? (I don't work in large organizations so have never seen how non-saas deployments work)
Recently playing around with a 529 college saving plan calculator, it told me that for a 5 year old aiming to go to a 4 year private school, I need to save up $600k in the next 13 years. I thought the calculator was broken, but it was simply using the past decade's grow rate for tuition to model the next decade.
Do you mean the account should have 600k at the time of kid starting college? Does the 600k include gains from the investment in 529 or is it just the principal?
That figure includes the gains, and represents approximately how much college will cost in 13 years if trends continue. My point was that $600k for going to college sounds so ridiculous that the trend shouldn't be able to continue.
