Nanobeepers

Robert Sapolsky, the author of Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers promotes the theory that irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) stems from our ancestors' need to quickly lose weight (by having a nice BM) when under high-stress (like running away from a pack of hyenas on the savanna). Similarly, many startups hinder their ability to run like the wind by having a 32 oz steak dinner right before the pack of hyenas comes to chase them. And people wonder why so many startups fail! Certainly there are capital-intensive startups that will need that steak - but those startups often don't eat the whole steak themselves but use it to trade for actual infrastructure (like a bicycle) and then get on it to race across the savanna.

We see a good example of the 'eat light' strategy from 37Signals:

Yeah. We've gotten quite a lot of VC calls. But one of the things we're seeing that we really don't care too much for is that way too many companies are taking money when they don't need it. And the whole idea we had was that having too little money is a great way of getting great product, because it's a way to get focused.

So we have definitely said to ourselves, "We don't want any outside money. We actually don't even want to grow our team." We're trying to design our products in a way that they can scale with more users without us having to scale as a company. So, through Signal vs. Noise, we're trying hard to deliver a pushback to companies that feel like they have to hire a bunch of people as early as possible and to take money to realize their vision by saying, "If your vision of your product costs a million bucks to make, try rescoping that idea in your head so it fits in $100K and get it out there earlier. Instead of having a 1-year product cycle, what could you do in 1 month?"

And sure, that doesn't work for every company, but in the web age, it works for way more companies than are trying to.

- From David Heinemeier Hansson's interview in Founders At Work: Stories of Startups' Early Days by Jessica Livingston

For extra bonus points, listen to Sapolsky's hilarious lecture on the subject (m4a quicktime file).

Kathy Sierra recently presented a test for whether people have "passion for their work", and I would add that it also indicates if they are more motivated by other factors (usually money/fame potential) than the pure nerd-draw of what they are doing.

* When was the last time you read a trade/professional journal or book related to your work? (can substitute "attended an industry conference or took a course")

* Name at least two of the key people in your field.

* If you had to, would you spend your own money to buy tools or other materials that would improve the quality of your work?

* If you did not do this for work, would you still do it (or something related to it) as a hobby?

I also came across a similar test by Bruce Campbell (of 'Evil Dead' fame) for those pursuing a Hollywood career. I think it applies well to those in the startup world too - especially when the industry is nice and hot (like now). Below is the test adapted for Silicon Valley. See the original here.

I aspire for a career in the web *.0 industry because:

a) I need a quick million:
b) I have personal problems and being rich and famous will solve them
c) I failed as a Clinical Psychologist / MBA / Marketing 'guru'
d) I've got alpha-nerd hormones in my blood

My ultimate goal(s) is(are):

a) To keynote speak at DevCon or:
___1) SXSW
___2) OSCon
___3) FantasyCon
b) To be famous. I will be famous when:
___1) Linus drops my name at parties
___2) I get recognized at my high school reunion
___3) Everyone on the planet knows and loves me
c) To be stinkin' rich. I will be rich when:
___1) My phone stops getting cut off
___2) I can buy medicine for little Billy
___3) I can buyout Google and work on any project I want
d) Both b and c
e) To be gainfully employed doing what I enjoy

My main influences are:

a) PC Magazine
b) Woz, Paul Graham, Steve McConnell, etc
c) Last episode of Lost
d) Myself and my vast experience reinventing the wheel

I hope to become involved in this type of project:

a) Quick and dirty, flip-it-fast
b) Solid quality design, incremental development
c) Forget it, Mom will drive

I know I am talented because:

a) Um, because my friends and loved ones say so?
b) I know it in my heart
c) I received the "Ken and Barbie" award in high school
d) I have an extensive list of successful projects

I define talent as:

a) The ability to do one thing, really well
b) The ability to be mediocre at lots and lots of things
c) The ability to get slammed at a kegger
d) The ability to make my friends think I'm cool

My unique talent lies:

a) As a CEO - I want to run the business
b) In the cave of code - I want to program…
c) As CEO in the cave of code - I want to be a hyphenated biz-tech person
d) In strategizing what others should do

I define the success of a startup by:

a) How well the public offering goes
b) How lucrative the acquisition is
c) How many users love our private profitable company
d) How many good-looking women/men I met after fame

I will be successful when:

a) I meet the right people
b) My new Hummer arrives
c) I own my own island
d) I get that tummy tuck for Christmas
e) Hell freezes over
f) Nonsense, I am successful now

I will fail if:

a) I don't meet the right people
b) Failure is not an option
c) Enough people tell me I will
d) The odds are too great

The market price of my soul is:
(hint: you will need to know this at some point)

a) $1,000,000 in tax-free Municipal Bonds
b) 3 magic beans
c) I cannot be bought! My self-esteem is priceless!

Bruce concludes with this advice:

Take this test before you ride the rails west. Hint: there are no right or wrong answers.

These are compelling questions that might pull folks into honestly looking at their motivations and expectations in the work they've chosen. The understanding they gain could really save some from wasting their time on projects that they have little passion for - and perhaps lead them to create something amazing in a field with a better fit.

Oh the Angst…

Last night I attended the Beyond Web 2.0 event in Fremont, CA. One of the main things I noticed there was the angst and inner struggle some of the presenters (and much of the audience) seemed to have with the term 'Web 2.0'.

One presenter started his presentation with his #1 prediction for the future: that the phrase 'Web 2.0' will become a "dirty word". In discussing this, he admonished us that "Web 2.0 is harmful - don't use it." Then, strangely enough, he proceeded to use 'Web 2.0' liberally throughout the rest of his talk.

The next presenter also seemed distraught over the term and stated in his introduction: "There is no such thing as Web 2.0." Then after disavowing it, he launched into his speech with the term 'Web 2.0' littered throughout and even focusing almost exclusively on what he saw as the defining characteristics of Web 2.0 and 3.0.

It was quite comical and got me thinking about why they had unapologetically denounced the term, yet then felt compelled to use it extensively in their presentations.

Pink Fishnet Stockings

Those pink fishnet stockings sure were hot when you took them out of that crisp new package. But man, when you saw your aging drama teacher wearing the same ones with bulges in all the wrong places, you almost lost those tater-tots you ate for lunch. You ran to the bathroom and tore them off - but wait, you didn't shave your legs, and it was cold outside, so you grudgingly pulled them back up and hung your head as you walked through the halls the rest of the day in misery.

Such has it been with 'Web 2.0' - a victim of its own trendiness. It didn't really have much of a chance after the marketing folks got hold of it. What might have been a plain and useful term was soon used to describe 'hot' new kludgeware companies with 'sizzle'. Of course, nothing is more nauseating to the alpha-nerds than this type of spasmodic marketing hype. And so, 'Web 2.0' is not harmful, useless, or non-existent as some believe - it has just become *embarrassing*… like those poor fishnets.

Laziness - the Virtue

So, why the irresistible compulsion to use the phrase 'Web 2.0'? Laziness. Expediency. Pure and simple. It's a *much* more efficient way of presenting a larger concept than explaining the full concept every time you need to use it.

For example, if you know nothing about 'Saturday Night Fever' and I tell you that it's a 70's disco movie, you'll be able to visualize it immediately. Why? Because you know all those things that are associated with the 70's - the hairstyles, the clothes, the lingo, etc. There is a fuzzy set of characteristics that generally define the 70's. So I just tell you the era of the movie rather than a long description of the hairstyles and clothing.

Web 2.0 is nothing different. It's a classification that has a fuzzy set of characteristics - just like Generation X or the Baroque period or the Pleistocene era. It's quite hilarious to see all the hand-wringing by folks trying to specify an *exact* definition for Web 2.0. It's like someone losing sleep trying to nail down *exactly* what the hippie era entailed. You can't. It's fuzzy. There are overlaps. It's O….K…. just breathe. You've dealt with ambiguity before - you can get through this ;)

The Whole Point

When these presenters used the term 'Web 2.0', they did so fluently despite their inner turmoil. And from what I could tell, the audience was able to understand the presentations and the term just fine. It seems like they innately knew that it was just the description of an era of the web - they just hadn't made the connection consciously.

Look at these roughly defined generations of the web:

Web 1.0: From ~1995 to ~2003
Web 2.0: From ~2004 to ~2008
Web 3.0: From ~2008 to ???

Then just plug into each 'version' what was generally going on with the web at that time and presto! You have solved the whole mystery that has been propelling this debate!

Hopefully this will give some of the tortured souls of Web 2.0 some rest…

Update: For excellent coverage of the Beyond Web 2.0 event see Jeremiah Owyang's review.