So our monetization model is to have the "date" initiator pay for a date once his or her date is accepted. To be honest, we want people to only pay when they get a date. I hate subscription to its core. Generally dating sites makes money on subscription which if you think about is saying "We(match.com, eHarmony etc) hope you dont get a date because then we will stop making money"
I just made it up, but I guess it would be a designer that can do the whole song and dance. In the article he specifically mentioned that UX and Visual Design is not the same thing; fair enough but startups want to do more with less...
Again, I'm no expert and I'm just a technical nerd who "doesn't get" designers. Probably should keep my mouth shut, in retrospect ;)
Nice! Knew what a fullstack programner was so I was thinking it might be along those lines.
As was mentioned before, more often than not, startups have limited funding and can't afford both a UX guy and designer. Full stack for the budget! FTB?
I'd prefer "relevant stack designer." Full stack implies backend and database, about which the designer really need only have a basic understanding of constraints. Relevant stack would mean a mastery of front-end technologies.
I suppose it can be definite as "someone who does what is asked for with nice(maybe not spectacular but at least nice) results, whether it's his main field or not, as long as it's related to it."
You have to understand, before it was called "Hacker News", this was "Startup News". A heavy focus on startup culture and entrepreneurship is a part of the DNA of this site. I expect it will always be that way. Complaining about startup / entrepreneur articles here is almost akin to getting in the water and then complaining that you got wet.
Funny that a lot of articles here wouldn't really be categorized as "hacker" news :)
Lately, everything is "hacking". Seems like the word lost its meaning.
It's been like that forever - "hack" has become a buzzwordy synonym for "clever trick".
Found a cool way to get the word out on your product? You've "hacked marketing". Have an increment improvement on an existing concept? You've "hacked" that vertical. Interesting new job posting system? "Hacked recruitment".
I'm pretty sick of this community/field forcibly inventing words for every old thing instead of just calling it like it is - and this includes all of the "growth hacker" crap over the last few days. We're doing the same shit everyone else has been doing for hundreds of years, except we've changed the context to involve technology. These buzzwordy exclusive words we use do not actually describe fundamentally different concepts, they're just opportunities to fall all over ourselves and fawn at ourselves in the mirror.
That is in fact the origin of the term. Check out the book Hackers, by Steven Levy (http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Computer-Revolution-Steven-Lev...) and read up on how the Tech Model Railroad Club appreciated 'clever tricks' on how someone solved something, and it didn't necessarily have to be a 'technical hack' to warrant the phrase.
"It didn't become easy—for practical purposes, using two chopsticks is completely superior. But precisely because using three in one hand is hard and ordinarily never thought of, it has 'hack value', as my lunch companions immediately recognized. Playfully doing something difficult, whether useful or not, that is hacking."
When I've pointed it out, people have told me that political diatribes are appropriate here because "x is relevant to hackers and this is for anything hackers find relevant".
I'm talking about all these Tony Robbins wannabes and content companies using startup/entrepreneurship as an angle.
Useful voices: 37signals folks, Eris Reiss, HBR, anyone here, etc.
Not useful voices: Inc.com, Forbes.com, Random dude running on investment alone, linkbait like "<insert superlative> <noun> for <insert phrase about startups or entrepreneurship>".
Hacker News guideline clearly asks articles and comments to provide intellectual value, even if the subject isn't programming or hacking. Since most hackers ultimately want to get a sense of purpose out of their skill and want to create a business around their ideas and products, I guess articles on entrepreneurship are of value. Articles that are worthless fade out pretty fast anyway...
I'd sooner be called "janitor" and receive fair share than have a title and less.
But your point is depressingly common, especially with the Rocket Internet CEOs/co-founders who receive less than 5% for anything the Samwer Brothers try cloning.
CEO's join companies after they've been around for years to earn valuable sums of money for the skilled work and long hours they put in. It motivates them to turn around the company. It's not about the % they earn it's about the return they get.
You deserve just as much motivation as they do for the sacrifice you're making and asking less than 1/3 is wasting your time. The worst they can do is fire you so you can make more money. That's when you start your own clone if you didn't sign a non-compete contract. And if you did, work for what you deserve elsewhere until it ends and then invest all your newly earned savings into building the better product.
I don't think you know nearly enough to make that claim. You don't know what value each party is bringing, or their roles, and you don't know how much was done before OP joined. You don't know if the business has any particular strengths.
Assuming significant work was done before OP joined, equal equity is not realistic (or fair). Also, are the others taking any money out (i'm guessing not?). There can of course be some value in ideas and traction (although AFAICT there isn't a lot unique nor is there a lot of traction). Moreover, i'm guessing most big decisions are not made by OP since he seems to be relegated to employee. Only if OP feels they are crucial and replaceable should he go for 1/3 (or more). From the little i know, 20%+ would be a good aim. If you think you can do better elsewhere (that is, you don't believe the business has unique strengths) then consider that.
"...while the CEO(non-technical) was reading blogs and plotting strategy for a yet non-existent product."
"...he would come up with strategic personal inputs to magically transform the product into a unicorn, without backing it with any arguments."
This is exactly why I will never again join a startup founded by a business guy with no technical background or willingness to learn.
