There were also some great posts on Mashable, GigaOm, ReadWriteWeb and TechCrunch.

Here’s that interview:

And here’s the Android demo video I helped make:

Empirically, this seems to be false.

There are a few assumptions made in these startup-killer stories. The logical argument usually goes something like the following. For whatever it’s worth, the illogical argument is usually “That’s a feature, not a product” or something equally silly that no one has been able to explain to me yet. Anyway, the logical one…

First, motivation. Startup competes, or could soon be competing, with BigCo. BigCo wants to own all the value that Startup is targeting.

Second, actions. BigCo will launch a competing product. Advantaged by size and capital, BigCo will use its reach, money and staff to attack Startup.

Third, results. BigCo, still advantaged by size and capital, will quickly gain more users and copy or eclipse Startup’s product. Startup will die or wish it had.

Replace “BigCo” with “Facebook” and “Startup” with “Foursquare,” and that’s the last few months of tech news. Feelings about quality and insightfulness of journalists aside, the story above appears to almost never actually happen.

Motivation. I think this one is actually pretty accurate. Big companies (and small companies) do and probably should worry about competitors stealing either current or future market share. I don’t have any issues with the logical argument on this point, though a case could be made that big companies usually don’t figure out that a startup’s market is valuable until it’s too late; there are plenty of examples to support that.

Actions. I haven’t gathered any data because I’m not really sure how to measure this. Counting every startup that “could” compete with a bigger company, then counting the big companies that have launched a startup-killer, seems too prone to errors. Even if data existed, it would be near impossible to interpret since I have no idea what any result–let’s say it was 10%–would actually imply. Lack of data notwithstanding, I bet this one is false. To make an even bigger unsubstantiated claim, I bet that acquisition is more common than competition. If I can make the leap of faith that any company that’s acquired is seen by the acquirer as competing with something they are either doing or would like to do, that’s pretty important.

Results. This is where the logical argument really comes off the rails, in my mind. I see three problems with the “logical” results. First, size and capital are not always an advantage, maybe not even usually. Second, big companies’ paths to quickly doing a good job on something new are strewn with skeletons of fallen comrades. Third, even if everything so far is true, it doesn’t mean the startup dies or even does worse.

Full disclosure, I already have a counterexample. Microsoft killed Netscape. It used its size and capital to do it. At the end, Netscape died. However, that’s the most recent counterexample I can think of and it happened 15 years ago.

Facebook vs Flickr/Photobucket. Facebook Photos is the biggest photo sharing product in the world, with 50+ billion pictures. Flickr and Photobucket launched before Facebook Photos. Facebook did compete and they clearly won, but both Flickr and Photobucket are still kicking and have been acquired (Photobucket for $300m). I’m not sure exactly when Facebook Photos launched, but I’m pretty sure that it was before Flickr’s acquisition and I’m positive it was before Photobucket’s. Summary: Facebook attacked photo startups, photo startups didn’t die.

Google vs YouTube. According to Wikipedia, Google Videos and YouTube launched just a couple weeks apart. Google wanted Videos to be exactly what YouTube is, according to everything I’ve ever heard about it. So it’s basically a given that Google did compete. As the hottest public company at the time, they had massively more people and money than YouTube. Of course Google Videos sucked and they quickly acquired YouTube. Summary: Google competed with YouTube, failed, and bought the company for $1.6b.

There are other good examples that I could have used instead, like Google vs Admob or Yahoo! 360 vs WordPress. The point is that I really can’t think of a counterexample to the idea that startup-killers are bullshit since Microsoft and Netscape. There’s probably something out there that I’m missing, but the fact that zero come to my mind or the minds of a few friends I’ve asked doesn’t justify the amount of time that gets spent talking about the idea.

Jeff Jarvis recently wrote, “I’m not [a conspiracy theorist], because I’ve found the world is rarely organized enough to conspire.” Accurate, in my opinion, and relevant here. If big companies whacking startups were a successful strategy, it would mean that the big company would have to move quickly, acquire new skills and devote significant resources to something that is tiny in relation to their main business. They typically don’t do those things, and that’s why the startup exists in the first place.

Evan Solomon’s Foursquare by WeePlaces.com.

Other thoughts…

Not making mistakes
The way to get someone’s attention is actually pretty simple. Let’s say there are n things you’re doing–explaining your experience, linking to stuff on the web, whatever the fuck–make sure 1 of those things is amazingly fucking cool and that there is no way imaginable that it could be overlooked. For the other n-1 things, don’t fuck up. You win.

Resumes
Word documents are horrible, PDF’s are better, and websites are best. There are a couple reasons. First, opening files is a pain, simple. Second, if for some reason you feel compelled to write more than 1 page for your resume, it’s going to be really obvious in a Word doc or PDF, but you can probably trick me if it’s in HTML.

Pay attention
Shockingly many applicants make it a lot harder on themselves by actively ignoring lots of clues about how to make me interested in them. The most common form of this is trying to convince me you can do 10 jobs that I’m not hiring for and don’t want you to do–this nearly always comes at the expense of convincing me you can do the job I’ve already told you I want you to do. It’s baffling. I had a teaching in high school that used to say “Teacher write on black board, student write in note book.” It was a little reminder not to ignore the obvious stuff you’re going to be expected to know, and it’s a big deal.

Job boards suck, but they kind of don’t suck
The best source of applicants will always be personal referrals–if it’s not, you have two problems. But job boards have a lot of reach, and I think they might legitimize the job a bit, too. They are very low signal:noise, but I think you should use them.

Timeline
Figure out the absolute maximum amount of time you think hiring someone awesome will take, then double it. Finding people, convincing your team, doing all the logistical stuff, etc etc. It takes forever, especially if you don’t do it every day and have to learn as you go.

Look for reasons to say no
You will agonize a lot less and generally make better decisions than if you look for reasons to say yes.

Send rejection emails
Just telling people that you’re not going to interview them gets an amazingly strong reaction. I’ve been lucky enough not to have to send very many resumes in my life, so I can only assume this is pretty rare. It’s really not that hard though–I use a gmail canned response–and I think it builds a lot of goodwill.

Move quick
It’s better for candidates and it’s better for you. The first time you lose a candidate you like to another company you’ll agree.

Set expectations
Make sure everyone on your team knows what you expect, what you’re trying to do, and how it’s going. They will help a lot, but not if they don’t know how to.

Be honest
If you don’t want to hire someone because they are inexperienced, tell them. Don’t give bullshit no’s.

That’s what I have so far.

I’ve never seen anything as curated as Augusta National. From the obvious (the golf course) to the detailed (the staff) to the unbelievable (if you leave your folding chair somewhere, no matter how long, your seat is saved–no one will ever take it), the entire thing was unreal.

If Apple and Disney teamed up to make a golf course, it would be Augusta National. If they ran a tournament, it would be The Masters.

Now all I can think about is how to play the course…

Today we talk about “getting on the Internet,” but with iPad you can have a persistent online connection

Yesterday Dan Lyons wrote that in Newsweek. The iPad may be an undisputed success and it may happen very soon–personally I think it will be a let down and have a bet that it will sell fewer than 4m units in the first year–but if that happens, it will certainly not be because it changed the idea of “getting on the internet.”

I do not believe that anyone who buys or otherwise acquires an iPad will have their idea of the steps needed to access the internet changed. Normal people aren’t dialing up to AOL anymore, much less people interested in a $500 computer without a keyboard or any of “their programs.”

The iPhone and the App Store are great and I sincerely love them both. I’m willing to believe that on an issue as passionately debated as yet-unreleased technology products from Apple, there are valid ideas that don’t fall in line with my own. But alleviating the actions needed to “get on the internet” isn’t one of them.

• I had a LOT of trouble understanding the accent, which was petty surprising. Literally had to guess what half the people I talked to were saying.
• The currency, specifically coins being worth nearly $3, was confusing. I accidentally tipped more than $4 for a coffee.
• The food was overall bad to neutral, with a couple standouts that were actually good.
• Every form of internet I encountered-hotel wifi, conference wifi, 3g–was nearly useless. I’m convinced the country hates the internet.

I think few people who pay attention to startups could argue that Foursquare is one of the most beloved web services today, and MG Siegler of TechCrunch is probably responsible for that in no small part. It’s in that light that I hope people remember this quote from today’s Paul Carr missive.

Last year those same people were so desperate to find the new Twitter that they mistakenly handed that crown to Foursquare on the basis that a relatively small number of Web 2.0 scenesters used it to find out where their friends were partying. And yet, despite that auspicious start, and a shit-ton of publicity since, Foursquare has failed to capture the imagination of even most early adopters, particularly those outside of San Francisco and New York. Foursquare was resolutely not last year’s Twitter. Last year’s Twitter was Twitter.

The point being that it’s very easy to see all that is vindictive and ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary if you’re even the least bit motivated to do so. About 6 months ago MG wrote a post asking whether TechCrunch was a kingmaker, to which I replied saying that they indeed were biased. But that is, as they say, a feature and not a bug. It seems to me that the ideas behind that post have really escalated since then, and I’m not really sure why.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that part of my job is to get the people at TechCrunch to write about my company, so mine is not an unbiased opinion in the least. Nevertheless, I don’t think any of this is unreasonable, unfair or inaccurate.

* TechCrunch here is really a wildcard for any tech blog, as fewer each day are immune from or deserving of this treatment.

Cook more

I really enjoy cooking but have barely done any of it since starting at Justin.tv in May. It doesn’t help my cause that they feed me 9 meals/week. I want to cook more though, so I just bought a bunch of new stuff (knives, pans, etc) and I’m hoping to cook one interesting thing per week in 2010. I’ll leave “interesting” to my own subjective judgment, but suffice to say that boiling a hot dog won’t qualify.

Exercise more

Pretty straightforward. I bought a bike earlier this year (and promptly injured myself falling off). If I had any idea what was reasonable, I would set some kind of goal for miles ridden, but I don’t. I do have a cool iPhone app that will track my rides via GPS though, so hopefully it will come out to a big number. Goal here is to feel more energetic and active…mostly I want to look better naked.

Organize more

My apartment is perpetually a mess. Same goes for my desk, my desktop (the only on my computer) and various other things that waste time and annoy me. My goal here is to never feel like I need to spend time cleaning up–I’m told that being organized on an ongoing basis can do this! Step 1 here is to hire a house cleaner.

Sleep more

I am too often inclined to sacrifice sleep for short term gain, which just results in long term loss. It’s probably not reasonable to avoid sleep deprivation all together, but I’m going to try hard to raise my threshold for what justifies it.

I’m keeping the goals pretty personal and intentionally excluding things that I want pretty much every year, like to do the best work of my life and play better golf.

My first observation, corroborated by the photo below, was that the cranberry variety suffered from a significant size disadvantage.

I was able to obtain statistical confirmation that the Cranberry Raisinets are, in fact, nearly 50% smaller.

All problems weren’t with the cranberries though. You’ll see that the normal Raisinets suffered from poorly aligned opening instructions, with the “Tear Here” prompt nowhere near the actual pre-torn location.

Onto the science, I developed a fool-proof system for conducting a fair and unbiased test.

I did two rounds of testing, but first a palette cleanser.

Verdict? While the Cranberry Raisinets offer a sweet, more acidic experience, the traditional Raisinets really knock it out of the park with a creamy chocolate goodness. In the end, both are delicious–since they are priced equally, I’m forced to conclude that traditional Raisinets, at twice the size, offer significantly more value, while the new (I think?) Cranberry Raisinets are benefiting for a demand bubble and limited supply due to back ordered cranberry packing machines (completely made this up). Regardless, they are both tasty.

BBC interview

…and made it into this

Lazy items aside (order button, ugh), I had fun with it. I wanted to make it simple and emphasize what you’re actually supposed to do–buy Barack’s watch.

I also presented on stage at TechCrunch’s real time stream event.

Going from looking at my personal site, which I think did 10 views yesterday, to looking at Justin.tv, which has done more pageviews in the time I’ve been writing this blog post than all websites I’ve ever owned combined, is surreal. The guys over there have done a great job growing the company over the last couple years and I am PUMPED to continue (and hopefully improve) that.

I am overflowing with ideas right now. Need to focus on getting those organized and prioritized this weekend.

It’s an outrageously cool opportunity with a great company full of great people. I’ll be responsible for everything from PR to customer acquisition and everything in between. When I asked about what they were looking for in my interview the answer pretty much came down to, “We want to find the person who will tell us that!” Hmm, okay I’m in.

So far I have been almost completely unable to sleep. I’m waking up at 4am flooded with ideas for things I want to test out, data I want to gather and content I want to develop. There is so much to do and it’s hard to pick what to do first. Thankfully I have a few more days to straighten my head out and go into JTV with a lot of control over what I’ll be doing. It’s exciting, scary and above all amazing. I can’t thank Justin and Michael enough for the effort they put in to answer questions and fast track the whole process.

I’m going to try to write as much as possible along the way about what I’m up to. Here’s to a hectic next few months (years?)!

Anyone who’s anyone in the startup world can tell you to “launch early and often.” “Iterate!” they’ll say, and “your first version should suck!” These things may very well be spot on, although I’d guess like most free, generalized advice, they’re to be taken with a grain of salt. On the other hand, Apple, the shining star of the tech world, is praised (and this is putting it gently) for “never putting its logo on anything that isn’t perfect.” Many people will say that’s why it is the company it is–let’s ignore, for now, whether or not you think that’s a good thing. Obviously any startup would kill to turn out like Apple, but it’s interesting that these ideas so fundamentally clash.

Now, there are obviously structural differences in the markets and customer bases of seed stage startups and global supercompanies, I get that. But still, when do you stop fearlessly launching brave new ideas that may (should?) suck and start only releasing perfection whose names attain the status of proper nouns? More importantly, when does making a mistake on one side become more costly than the other?

Shrimp!

Delicious shrimp and spaghetti

Mussels!

Also delicious mussels and spaghetti

It’s sort of become a game of chicken. It’s cool to say you want people to ask questions whenever they don’t understand something–the people that legitimately feel this way are exempt from this post–but way more often than anyone admits the asker doesn’t understand because the askee doesn’t either. Far too many conversations lately have gone like this…

Me: I don’t understand that, can you explain?
Someone: Ya know, something like xyz.
Me: I still don’t know what you mean. Can you give me an example?
Someone: [completely ignores request for example and uses the term "ya know" again]
Me: [slaps self in head]

The real frustrating thing here is that this only happens because people are lazy and try to give instructions without understanding the task themselves. This, of course, is a waste of time. Most often, you will get back a shitty (or maybe mediocre) product that isn’t really what you wanted. If you’re lucky, you’ll get asked enough questions to make it clear that whatever you were hoping would happen is a waste of time–if you’re really lucky, this will take less time than would have otherwise been wasted. Some of the time you’ll get back the same shitty product as in the first case, but you’ll still have through so little about what you actually wanted that you don’t realize it sucks. In this case you’re blissfully ignorant. Many would consider this the best possible outcome.

It occurred to me tonight, while waiting impatiently at Fedex, that lots of communications tools use awful verbiage–actually, awful verbage, if only that was a word, since the offending terms are nearly always verbs.

“Do email.” “Make calls.” Ick!

One that seems to avoid the train wreck is IM’s, where we “chat.” Oh, maybe if we get the noun out of the sentence we can make some headway.

When we search we “Google.” Everyone likes that!

Of course we can “email,” or “call,” but I think those have already been spoiled (1) because of tradition (2) because they’re somewhat uniquely communications mediums that people try to pass off as real time commitments. “Can’t talk right now. I’m doing email.” Oh, sounds official.

I want someone to come along and introduce the “Google” (v.) of email. I don’t care so much about phone calls–I’m already brainwashed to not really mind when people “make” calls–but if you want to fix that one too, be my guest.

One of the most common nuggets of crap I hear when people talk about using social media–especially companies using social media–is that you have to use every aspect of the service possible or you might as well not using it at all. This is retarded.

There’s nothing divinely right about any given service’s design that means that you need to use every feature they offer. If you run a corporate blog, you should probably enable comments, although not necessarily. It’s probably a good idea to have a blogroll or some kind of link group, but it’s not a game breaker if you don’t. It doesn’t really matter much if you install and wizbang plugin, but most of them won’t hurt. There’s nothing plutonic about any of these things though. Certainly none of them are worth investing in simply because the software you chose to use allows them.

On Twitter, it’s probably a good idea to reply to follow other users, but it’s plenty easy to get lots of value out of the service without doing that. There are even more proof points of this than you’d think, because many of the accounts that “follow” lots of users don’t actually follow anyone, in that they don’t pay attention to the incoming streams. That’s fine if that’s your strategy. It’s not what I’d recommend, in an ideal world, but who cares?

There’s nothing wrong with only using select features of a social media service just like there’s nothing wrong with only using select features of your word processor–except tables, for the love of God please use tables if you’re laying out anything that is remotely grid-like.

If Twitter (or WordPress or Digg or whatever) removes a feature tomorrow, were the people using it idiots or the people avoiding it geniuses? Nope.

For some reason these two (totally different) things have become irrevocably associated. It bugs me to no end and not just for reasons of etymology.

I played like absolute crap, but had one of the most fun rounds of golf ever this morning at Coyote Creek. It was brutally difficult but a really top notch course. Afterward I enjoyed a much better than expected super bowl with some awesome people in Palo Alto.

The highlights of the day were two lifetime great quotes. First, the outrageously dressed woman in our foursome screaming “THAT’S MINE” for absolutely no reason right as someone 10 feet from her was beginning to swing. It was epic. Second, the middle of the night online sports book voicemail (not mine) that began, “Hey, it’s Gabby,” followed by a half-hearted plea to bet money on the super bowl because “the lines are moving!”

All in all, just a really enjoyable weekend, even though I couldn’t break 90.