In Austin's airport there are several security lines that you can choose from. Each line shows its average wait time as well as the average wait time for the other lines. It's helpful to be able to see that the lines closest to you is 20 minutes but the line just down the terminal is only 5 minutes.
Sort of at the front of the security line. Right before you get to the area where you load up the conveyor belt. It is visible from the back of the line.
Same in Atlanta. Also, if the main security is backed up and the other security areas are faster, there will actually be an employee directing passengers to the faster one.
The author first suggests getting supervisor buy-in as a means for allocating resources towards a demo. It doesn't sound like he's mandating that you work nights and weekends to prototype.
This is by far the most common question we get asked, and this weekend I'm going to write a full length blog post about that decision. What might shock you even more is that we originally charged to pre-order the alpha version.
The short version:
- We needed to quickly figure out if we were building a product that people loved and thought was worth paying for.
- We're trying to build a product a small number of people love instead of one a large number of people like.[1] If someone loves a product, we've found that they'll pay for it.
- The support issues from growing too quickly would overwhelm us.
The long version involves us offering a traditional free paid beta for our first product: http://codeconnect.io and the lessons we learned from that experience.
I can see your point, but I would never pay for a product like this without a free demo version.
These Visual Studio extensions often have the side effect of taking up way too much of the computers resources. Without having a fully functioning (time limited?) version of the product on my machine, working with a large VS solution, I will just move on and probably have forgotten about this by tomorrow...
With a free version available, I would have tested it and if it works as well as in the video, I'd most likely pay for it and recommend it to colleagues by the end of the day.
These are fair points and I can definitely see where you are coming from.
If a free beta is out of the question, maybe a time and/or (severly) feature limited trial version could be possible. You are addressing this on you page however there seems to be no obvious reason why this is not possible at this time.
I'm intrigued by the idea and concept of this tool in it's current state and I am definitively looking forward to other languages being supported, however at this time my budget does not allow spending 100$ just because of a very pretty product page.
Please don't take this as an attack against what your are building! Judging from personal experience it's really hard to estimate the value of a new tool without the chance to test how well it integrates in your existing workflow and setup or many experience reports of other developers.
In the meantime I wish you all the luck and success for this very interesting product.
Edit: Did you write about your former experiences with giving out free versions of your software?
"We needed to quickly figure out if we were building a product that people loved and thought was worth paying for." - how are people supposed to know if they love it and think it's worth paying for without paying for it in the first place?
What about a free trial period? Something that expires after a few short months.
We used that to try out ReSharper and ended up loving it to the point we bought a few dozen licenses. Management is much easier to convince once you get half the developers wanting the same thing :)
The title clearly says "A Teenagers View on Media". It's not a little disclaimer at the bottom of the page that says "This is only my view". It's right in the title and opening paragraph.
Right, but I think it serves the same purpose. People willingly ignore it.
Either way, the original poster I responded to with the anecdote wasn't even the author of the article, but someone on here who provided another anecdote, but didn't give the same such warning or any indication that they knew what they were saying wasn't an actual relevant argument....
Still, Android has ~52% of the market. The antitrust laws used against Microsoft were due to the fact that Windows was nearly all of the market, both home and business. Plus, people using Apple now can switch off of it, unlike Microsoft at the time which had no viable options.
How do you monetize a large user base without credit cards?
Ask Facebook. With Snapchat's curated "Our Story" stream it would be easy for them to superimpose a brand's logo on top of snaps that would get viewed by an audience that fits a particular demographic. I'd wager that companies see value in that.
I'd agree with that. You have to have a market's attention before the sell -- whatever that may be -- and Snapchat has that right now. I think this particularly applies to younger markets. For example, when I was a kid cartoons were basically 30 minute advertisements for toys and games. And you had better believe I let my parents know those toys were must haves. Snapchat might be in the best position to be that platform for the teenage market, a new MTV if you will.
They didn't stop. The industry term of art these days is "embedded advertising" and it's used in television and movies far more than you would think. Hear a character mention a current brand name seemingly off-hand? Yeah, not an accident.
It's actually beyond product placement. It's about getting something in the story line that triggers brand awareness. This doesn't even mean showing or mentioning the product directly. I know several screenwriters who have their work subjected to this kind of editing. It is utterly subliminal and not at all similar to the popular culture version of "subliminal messaging" that you refer to.
On the subject of James Bond there's another scene in the same film where he's using a Sony Ericcson phone. Really, the suavest man in the world rocks a Sony phone? It's embarrassing to watch.
When I moved to SF in 2012 I rented a new apartment in SOMA/South Beach (Carmel Rincon). My rent was $3300/mo for ~600sqft w/ no laundry. When I moved out they were increasing the rent past $3400/mo.
