This is an important point. You contribute most as a designer when you control or influence whatever is necessary to get to good design. In most cases, the largest levers of influence are not in which design patterns you use, but in the business decisions that make things simple or complex.
Actually that can be entirely rational. When shareholders believe that management will run said assets into the ground, they value a company under book (asset) value.
If I have two hundred dollars in my pocket and without you knowing anything else, you might assess my value at two hundred dollars. However, if I had a thousand this morning and I'm standing at a slot machine with no sign of giving up, you'd probably think my $200 are on the way out.
First impression: feels undifferentiated. It doesn't seem to be particularly quick on the data entry, or particularly powerful on the analysis and reporting side. Perhaps there's something great about it, but if so at least I didn't get the message.
A lot of companies don't appreciate the competitive space they're in.
If you're building something that addresses a novel value proposition ("a machine that turns water into wine") you can say it like it is and expect at least some conversion from an audience which cares about your promised value.
When your value proposition is something like "better product management" you're competing with dozens of products which people already use and are happy with. Just saying "we're a better tool for product management" isn't going to fly. You'll need to communicate exactly why you're better.
I appreciate the friendly "talk to us anytime and we'll walk you through it", but I think as a strategy that suffers from a similar problem. It's not going to work with a muddy value proposition, most folks just won't bother.
Thanks for the feedback, @davidkatz - I definitely see your point on this one, and it's something we're often testing (as you might expect from a couple product managers!) and working out different ways to articulate our value prop.
Lately, we've been trying out different messages for different audiences - ProdPad is just as valuable to a development team (roadmap visibility, clearer specs) as it is to the customer support team (visibility of impact/progress following customer requests and feedback), but in completely different ways. Obviously product managers are our core user base, but by all means, not the only ones.
Yesterday, we used "Build product roadmaps, manage ideas, and make users happy" on Product Hunt, which seems to have gone over well. Might test a few variations of this and see if it sticks!
It is. It also happens to be very good at reporting live rocket hits fast, which makes it a valuable resource regardless of their politics (which I don't agree with).
Yo's popularity entirely rides two facts: (1) it's a silly app, (2) it got a million dollars. We currently know nothing about user engagement and retention. I'd be surprised if anyone uses it for more than a few weeks.
The hype and funding is based on the HOPE that something will come of it. However, retention is already a problem in Tel Aviv, where the app got its start. As fast as it has risen, it will fall (my prediction, anyway).
Try describing what you do instead of labelling it. "I'm building an app that helps blind folks read".
Personally, I'm allergic to the word 'Entrepreneur', whenever I hear it I wince. Just say what you're building, plain and simple. I also wouldn't call myself a Web Architect, I don't really understand what that means, it just sounds fancy.
Also consider not giving yourself a title at all. If you really want a title, I'd go with something humble like "a guy who builds stuff on the internet".
This is good advice. Personally, I call myself a "founder" or "co-founder" over "entrepreneur."
For in-person interactions, whenever someone asks me what I do, I always just say I work for a tiny company that does XYZ. If they pursue and ask what I do for the company, I say I bounce around doing a bunch of things (which founders do).
I agree with this concept as names are meaningless. But id like to throw in that if you're looking for corporate work then your title is important as the people hiring you don't usually understand what you do, so just explaining your work might not pan out. You'll want a good title and some thing that explains your work in terms of money.
When working with others who are familiar with your industry then that caveat does not apply though.
three things: i) it is much faster, 10x. it's one tap to send a video or message to someone by just holding their profile pic in a gird ii) it's purely 1-1 so every message is for you, no broadcasting iii) it's very authentic as there are no retakes, filters, etc
i) It's two taps to send someone a video on Snapchat, so I'm not sure how this could be anywhere near "10x" faster. ii) many would see that as a limitation, not a feature. iii) Similarly, many would see that as a limitation not a feature.
But it seems very weird to be comparing this on a feature-by-feature basis with Snapchat anyway. I would think Snapchat already has the network effects to essentially capture the market of "ephemeral photos and videos", and what I'd like to know is, what makes this different? If I already had Snapchat installed on my phone, why would I bother to install this?
i) it is four taps on snapchat, no? just did it again and for me it's 4 vs 1 ii)that is true - i guess if you really want to nail a more personal / 1-1 service you need to have some constraints around broadcasting iii) same - if you want it to be personal and authentic you need constraints around that. but good questions, i think if you just try it - it is easiest to experience the differences
I don't know about you, but I think SnapChat is for children (silly ghost mascot).
TapTalk is ridiculously fast and easy to use. The One-Tap-To-Send functionality makes it operate like a Video Walkie Talkie. You have to experience it to see what I mean.
