on product
رفتن به کانال در Telegram
895
مشترکین
اطلاعاتی وجود ندارد24 ساعت
اطلاعاتی وجود ندارد7 روز
اطلاعاتی وجود ندارد30 روز
آرشیو پست ها
895
> The new wave of products - Muse, Town, Instinct, Grokbot, etc - come from taking the power and magic of Openclaw/Hermes but wrapping it in polished, secure, consumer-friendly. (...) Thousands of startups that have been working on vertical agents in X (travel, shopping, family, work, SMB, etc etc) have big existential questions to answer.
> These agents are tools, not networks. They inherently provide a solo experience. (...) They’re more like email clients - I can use Superhuman and someone else uses Outlook and someone else is on Gmail. (...) Further, you can swap out the underlying LLM. (...) The memory and underlying context are just text files.
> In the pre-AI world, [network effects] were driven [by] sending an invite, sharing a piece of content, or getting mentioned. (...) An agent might suggest, “hey, do you want me to help organize a New Years celebration with family”. (...) It might build a microsite for the event and ask people to sign up. (...) AI is so good at codegen that creating a one-off disposable artifact will [be] more useful than not.
> The question there is, does your agent get better when other people are all using the SAME agent? (...) “Who are 10 people in San Francisco that I should meet?”. (...) “Find me a VP of Engineering who isn’t publicly looking for a new job, but would leave for a fast-growing startup”. (...) “Who’s a trustworthy seller of X that I should buy from?”.
> Perhaps Muse creates a proprietary ecommerce marketplace that only Muse agents can use, but perhaps there will just be a next-gen eBay for any agent to sell to any other agent. (...) Professional discovery could happen through an agent-native LinkedIn. (...) Perhaps the centralization will still happen, but just at a layer above agents.
https://andrewchen.substack.com/p/will-agents-have-network-effects
895
> The obsession with the metaverse seems to have solidified in Silicon Valley after Matthew Ball published an essay in January 2020. (...) In hindsight, it feels like a particularly narrow period of hype coinciding with — and, I think, benefitting from — the most urgent years of the COVID-19 pandemic.
> With the pandemic undoubtably came a realization of how much money Facebook stood to make, if only it had a platform. In 2019, there were two publicly traded companies worth over a trillion U.S. dollars; by the end of 2021, there were five. (...) This was a financial decision before it was a product or service people might actually want to use.
> Facebook held its Connect conference, (...) laid out its metaverse-centric vision, and changed its name to Meta to reflect this new focus, and because it had to. (...) Our world was permanently changed, or so it would have seemed, and we would surely want to virtually attend concerts and buy PNG files of band t-shirts with real money. And these companies would take their cut.
> Zuckerberg [touted] Horizon Worlds as the place users will go to socialize, and Horizon Workrooms as the virtual environment for their job. The latter has since been completely shut down, while the former was put on ice. (...) He said “remote work is here to stay for a lot of people”, (...) less than two years before ordering in-office work three days per week.
> ChatGPT launched in November 2022, and the pandemic ended. (...) It turns out we are okay with having meetings and playing games online, but we actually like seeing live music in-person and travelling to real places. (...) In Q4 2022, mentions [of the metaverse in the investor calls] are half that of the year prior. By Q1 2024, (...) there were just four mentions of “metaverse”, there were ninety of “A.I.”.
https://pxlnv.com/blog/metaverse-fever-dream/
895
> The obsession with the metaverse seems to have solidified in Silicon Valley after Matthew Ball published an essay in January 2020. (...) In hindsight, it feels like a particularly narrow period of hype coinciding with — and, I think, benefitting from — the most urgent years of the COVID-19 pandemic.
> With the pandemic undoubtably came a realization of how much money Facebook stood to make, if only it had a platform. In 2019, there were two publicly traded companies worth over a trillion U.S. dollars; by the end of 2021, there were five. (...) This was a financial decision before it was a product or service people might actually want to use.
> Facebook held its Connect conference, (...) laid out its metaverse-centric vision, and changed its name to Meta to reflect this new focus, and because it had to. (...) Our world was permanently changed, or so it would have seemed, and we would surely want to virtually attend concerts and buy PNG files of band t-shirts with real money. And these companies would take their cut.
> Zuckerberg [touted] Horizon Worlds as the place users will go to socialize, and Horizon Workrooms as the virtual environment for their job. The latter has since been completely shut down, while the former was put on ice. (...) He said “remote work is here to stay for a lot of people”, (...) less than two years before ordering in-office work three days per week.
> ChatGPT launched in November 2022, and the pandemic ended. (...) It turns out we are okay with having meetings and playing games online, but we actually like seeing live music in-person and travelling to real places. (...) In Q4 2022, mentions [of the metaverse in the investor calls] are half that of the year prior. By Q1 2024, (...) there were just four mentions of “metaverse”, there were ninety of “A.I.”.
https://pxlnv.com/blog/metaverse-fever-dream/
895
> A few weeks ago, a friend called me at 01:40 AM. Not texted. Called. For a brief second, my body prepared itself for bad news. (...) She had just finished work, was driving home through near-empty roads in London, heard a song we both used to jam on together, and suddenly missed me. So she called. We spent thirty minutes talking about things.
> Romantic heartbreak has an elaborate infrastructure. There are films for it. Songs for it. (...) Most friendships dissolve through unattended accumulation – postponed calls, exhausting jobs, geographic distance, emotional fatigue, different sleep schedules, different priorities. (...) And because ‘nothing happened’, we often deny ourselves the right to grieve it.
> Friendships in school and college survived because institutions did most of the work for us. (...) Encountering the same people repeatedly builds closeness over time. (...) Ambition transforms everyone into project managers of their own lives. (...) Friendship – the one relationship built almost entirely on voluntary presence – begins slipping through the cracks.
> This loneliness often coexists with constant digital interaction. (...) We maintain ambient awareness of one another’s existence without participating meaningfully. (...) I know what my friends eat. (...) I know when they get promoted. (...) And yet sometimes I hesitate before calling because I no longer know the emotional weather of their lives.
> Everybody is working on themselves. Everybody is ‘going through a lot’. (...) Affection sometimes feels evaluated through invisible cost-benefit analysis: Who texts first? Who makes more effort? (...) [Friendship] has always depended on a certain irrational generosity. A willingness to waste time together magnificently. To listen to the same anxiety for the fifth time.
> Adult friendship feels increasingly radical. It resists the transactional logic modern life rewards. (...) Because a real friend offers something profoundly rare: unoptimised presence. Family is structured by blood. Marriage by institution. Work relationships by utility. Friendship survives purely through mutual choosing. Nobody has to stay. And yet some people do.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/civil-irony/the-quiet-grief-of-adult-friendship/
895
> You’re driving somewhere important…maybe running a little bit late. A few minutes into the drive, your car pulls over to the side of the road and asks: “How are you enjoying your drive so far?” (...) “Did you know I have a new feature? Tap here to learn more.”
> There was a time when software shipped on physical media: floppy disks, CD-ROMs. (...) If you shipped a serious bug, you lived with it until the next release. (...) Then the internet arrived. (...) Bugs could be fixed. Security holes could be closed. Documentation got easier. Support got easier.
> Once software could reliably connect to the internet, it no longer just received instructions. It could talk back to the company. (...) Instead of arguing in a meeting about which features mattered most, you could look at usage data. (...) Usage data stopped being a tool for improving software and became a tool for optimizing behavior.
> The product stops being a finished artifact and starts behaving like a laboratory. (...) Every interaction becomes a hypothesis. (...) Iit’s very hard not to optimize for what moves fastest, even if it moves the wrong thing. (...) You add a little callout. Then a tooltip. Then an onboarding tour. Then a “What’s New” screen. Then a little survey.
> Not every prompt is evil, and not every notification is marketing. Some categories are basically made of alerts: messaging, security, banking, calendars, delivery tracking. (...) Once a company builds the machinery to do it, that machinery becomes cheap to reuse, and the incentives gradually pull it away (...) toward “move the metric.”
> Great tools get out of the way so the user can accomplish their goal. (...) You open them, do the thing you came to do, and close them again without ever feeling managed, marketed to, or delayed. (...) If you want to survey me, fine. Ask at a sensible moment and accept “no” as a real answer. Most importantly, if I turn something off, it should stay off!
> Each step made sense in isolation, and each step could be defended. Together, they reshaped the priorities of an entire industry. Once software became measurable in this way, it became optimizable in this way. And optimization has a way of eating everything else.
https://blog.mikeswanson.com/backseat-software/
895
> The demand for software, at least inside my 10 year horizon, is for practical purposes infinite, or software developers wouldn’t be as highly paid as they are. (...) Look at the website of your dentist, your insurance company, your kid's school. (...) Then think about all the things software hasn't touched at all, which is most things.
> If agents are going to eat the entire software development life cycle, what does that leave behind? (...) Figuring out what the customer actually wants. (...) Deciding the definition of “good”. (...) Making it delightful. (...) [Then] marketing, user acquisition, retention, branding. Who knows what agents can do with them, but I’m not considering them.
> Entry-level hiring at the big tech companies is down 65% since 2019, at early-stage startups it's down 75%, and yet engineering as a share of hiring went up, from 46% to 55%. (...) If you don’t need juniors to handle well-specified tickets any more, where do the seniors come from? We have to train them in a different kind of job.
> So if the code is free and the operations are free, what’s left? It’s sometimes called "product sense", and it’s highly valued in senior developers. (...) Software is a formalization of a human desire. (...) It’s in the head of one specific baker who's never written it down and wouldn't know how to if you asked them. Somebody has to go and get it out of her, and then turn it into something exact enough to build, and then check that what got built is actually what she meant.
> Palantir coined "forward deployed engineer" for a person who goes and sits with the customer, figures out what they actually need, and builds it. (...) Then in 2025 postings for it grew by something like eight hundred percent in nine months. (...) The code-writing is in there, but it's the smallest part, and it's the part the agent does; what the company is paying $240,000 for is the person who can walk into a car parts factory and come out with a correct definition of "good."
> Product got separated from engineering as a career. (...) My speculation is that it’s about to collapse back into one job. (...) As the cost of software creation falls to zero, the bottleneck moves to the description of the problem. (...) For the horizon I can see, the forecast is: more software, more people making it, and almost none of them typing. We are all product engineers now, whether we like it or not, and a lot of us won't.
https://seldo.com/posts/we-are-all-product-engineers-now/
895
> every couple of years Apple cooks up a UI animation that reminds us why they’re worth $5T
895
> every couple of years Apple cooks up a UI animation that reminds us why they’re worth $5T
