Props, but this should've been the lead sentence in the post:
Pixelapse as a standalone product will
continue to operate and be supported
for the next year as we work towards
this goal, at which point we’ll offer
a migration plan for your work.
Pixelapse looks similar to what Drew described in his YC application, responding to the question "If you had any other ideas you considered applying with, feel free to list them. One may be something we've been waiting for.":
His response:
..."a wiki with version-controlled drawing canvases that let you draw diagrams or mock up UIs (Thinkature is kind of related, but this is more text with canvases interspersed than a shared whiteboard) to help teams get on the same page and spec things out better (we use Visio and Powerpoint at Bit9, which sucks)"
Does anyone know if any open source alternatives exist, hosted or self-hosted? We were planning on moving away from Subversion for tracking changes to design related PDFs and PSDs and this seemed appealing due to the extra metadata that could be displayed with revisions but now we're back to square one.
One of the worst things at my previous job was when the designers forced pixelapse onto developers' workflow. It was so clumsy and there just wasn't any benefit over Google Drive.
I'm with you on that. I seriously hate the term "creatives", I've only seen it used in a derogatory way (either by or against). I just can't take anyone seriously when they use that word to describe themselves or their clients.
Could also be a trigger for me, I word with a lot of designers, artists, and videos guys/gals. Most are pretty good, but all the ones that call themselves "a creative" are guaranteed to be pretty elitist about it.
What would be a better word? "Creative professionals" comes to mind, but then that seems to exclude hobbyists, who could still derive a lot of value from a program like this.
Heh, I was actually looking for those very words. While similar in style, this lacked them, which I found unsatisfying. Maybe people are more careful now to stay away from some specific keywords...
A product which provided actual value and novel functionality to end users has been swallowed up by a larger corporation with maybe a 25% chance of actually getting any kind of continued life, if this plays out as these things usually do.
And once again, this is pitched as winning the trophy, because the culture has become more obsessed with collecting a payoff than actual long-term growth and innovation.
In the 1990's when Creative Labs bought out and shuttered Aureal and basically killed 3D audio in its crib, it was a fucking travesty that audio buffs still mourn to this day.
If that'd happened now, in 2015's "startup culture," we'd be expected to cheer that they got theirs.
In an alternate universe, this genre would sound like: "We produced a great product which costs $60k a month to run but which only charges customers $8k. We hope you have enjoyed being subsidized by our investors and below-market salaries, but there is simply no more subsidy left. We received an offer of a soft landing, which means the team is taken care of and the founders get a consolation prize which doesn't quite make up for spurning the BigCo offers they turned down to get here. We took it. Please tell uninvolved third parties who have never even heard of us before to mock us on the Internet, as is customary in these sorts of situations."
We do not ask people to actually write that because to do so would be petty, cruel, and beneath a community organized around people who make things.
"We produced a product that was never, ever going to pay for itself in the hopes that it would convince a bigger company to give us all stable jobs and/or a truckload of cash so we could stop pretending that this boondoggle was sustainable. And it worked! We're so happy!"
"Oh, you...you used the product? Wow. Sucks to be you."
Any time you hear a startup guy talking about their "exit strategy," understand that this is what they mean.
Substantially nobody starts a startup with the idea that they will get bought out by $NAME_AN_ACQUIRER. This is a sucky and very stressful way to buy yourself a job interview at the cost of two years of your life. There's a much, much easier way to get a job interview with, without loss of generality, Dropbox: ask for one. If you're a designer with sufficient chops to get a prototype funded by YC, you can have a job at Dropbox by Friday. (Step 1: identity any design lead at Dropbox. Step 2: coffee date. Step 3: interview. Step 3 may even be optional, depending how good you were at steps 1 and 2.) It's the hottest hiring market in the Valley in the history of ever.
Many people have a poor understanding of the rough economics of selling a company in a soft landing vs. taking a hiring bonus from AmaGooFaceSoft. The hiring bonus is substantially more lucrative, particularly for non-founding employees, when you amortize it over the time (and opportunity cost) required to achieve it.
I appreciate that it is frustrating if someone pays $19 a month loyally and then finds one day that $19 doesn't suffice to field a team of five engineers and designers continue to work on producing them bespoke software development. The source of frustration is not "unsustainable models" or "evil VC funding" -- it is, simply, that $19 doesn't buy that caliber of software development unless it's being paid by, oh, +/- 4,000 people in parallel.
There exist options if one desires continuity of service in a SaaS app. They require custom legal language and start at $10k. If you don't remember signing custom legal language and you denominate your SaaS spend in dollars or tens of dollars, you haven't purchased continuity of service, even if you think you're entitled to it.
> Substantially nobody starts a startup with the idea that they will get bought out by $NAME_AN_ACQUIRER. This is a sucky and very stressful way to buy yourself a job interview at the cost of two years of your life.
True. Generally the hope isn't to get a job but a payout big enough to retire immediately, which is why I said "and/or a truckload of cash." Ideally, merely getting hired is a consolation prize for the employees, not the founder.
And I disagree that "substantially nobody" does this. "Build a service, sell it to Google, retire at 25" is an actual business plan that I've seen people propose more than once. It's true that they're probably not trying to make something unsustainable that Google/etc will kill on acquisition, but they're also not trying to make something that will stand the test of time. Once they've got their payout, they don't care what happens.
Patrick, you are right that most startups are not started to end their life as acqui-hires.
However and this is a bit of generalization on my part, startups in todays ecosystem are often started upon an assumption that acqui-hiring is the fallback plan if things go sour.
Source: anecdotal
If one values steady returns getting a regular job might be more financially rewarding especially as a non-founder.
There have been countless discussions on HN about low payoffs in aggregate for early non-founder employees.
However a steady job does not give you "a buck and a dream".
> Because it's often of no interest for the customer. At all.
So what? Why must every single word be about the customer? I find "our incredible journey" posts inspirational and as long as they are clear what will happen with the service and what it means for the customers I don't see what the problem is.
