Re:The 2005 email that spawned Picnik, Google's latest buy
by dougmccune on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @11:28AM
(#1161750)
My favorite quote, given the recent debates over Flash vs Canvas:
We’re at the intersection of demand (mass use of online photos) and capability (Flash 8 supports the first level of functionality we need). Flash 8.5/9 will take us to the next level. If Canvas becomes widespread and is hardware accelerated we can move to that. If WPF becomes widespread we can move to that and boost our functionality/performance even further.
That was 5 years ago. Not trying to start a flamewar, but I just want to point out the enabling capability that Flash brought (and still provides 5 years later).
Re:The 2005 email that spawned Picnik, Google's latest buy
by illumin8 on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @11:57AM
(#1161847)
It's important to note that the product was not important. It could have been Flash or HTML5 or Fooware. What the founders saw was an intersection between demand and capability, and built a business to exploit that availability gap.
Re:The 2005 email that spawned Picnik, Google's latest buy
by dougmccune on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @12:06PM
(#1161876)
I'd argue with this assertion. I think what you meant to say was that the technology choice wasn't important. The product was obviously important, since without the product there is no company, nothing for anyone to acquire etc.
But I agree in an extremely hypothetical way that the technology choice is unimportant, assuming you can make the same competitive product with a number of technologies. In this case though, especially back in 2005, you simply can't argue that they could have made that product with anything else (apart from desktop software, which is a totally different product space). They were clearly aware of their technology choices, were keeping tracking of the latest and greatest, and chose the only one that was technically feasible for the product they wanted to create.
Re:The 2005 email that spawned Picnik, Google's latest buy
by somebear on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @01:58PM
(#1162186)
I don't think illumin8 is trying to argue that it could have been done with anything else at that exact point in time, just that they identified an opportunity and the technology that could make that happen. That the technology was flash, is in this instance mere coincidence.
That said, I agree that flash has been an enabler for many advances on the web. Unfortunately, the flash plugins just seem to be bogged down more and more, and don't seem to evolve very effectively.
Re:The 2005 email that spawned Picnik, Google's latest buy
by MicahWedemeyer on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @01:05PM
(#1162044)
6. add features and customers forever and rake in the dough
Even though they eventually sold to Google, the initial plan including raking in the dough. I think that's an excellent lesson here: Hope for a massive buyout, but plan to make money.
We’re at the intersection of demand (mass use of online photos) and capability (Flash 8 supports the first level of functionality we need). Flash 8.5/9 will take us to the next level. If Canvas becomes widespread and is hardware accelerated we can move to that. If WPF becomes widespread we can move to that and boost our functionality/performance even further.
That was 5 years ago. Not trying to start a flamewar, but I just want to point out the enabling capability that Flash brought (and still provides 5 years later).
But I agree in an extremely hypothetical way that the technology choice is unimportant, assuming you can make the same competitive product with a number of technologies. In this case though, especially back in 2005, you simply can't argue that they could have made that product with anything else (apart from desktop software, which is a totally different product space). They were clearly aware of their technology choices, were keeping tracking of the latest and greatest, and chose the only one that was technically feasible for the product they wanted to create.
That said, I agree that flash has been an enabler for many advances on the web. Unfortunately, the flash plugins just seem to be bogged down more and more, and don't seem to evolve very effectively.
Even though they eventually sold to Google, the initial plan including raking in the dough. I think that's an excellent lesson here: Hope for a massive buyout, but plan to make money.
Future Founder # 2: How about we name it CutePuppy.
Future Founder # 1: Check if CutePuppy.com is available
I can bet this conversation theme has started 80% of new web-two-point-oh startups.
Most important part that is often glossed over by entrepreneurs is "GETTING THERE"