OSX used FreeBSD as a base, and hired some of the FreeBSD devs to work on it. They still communicate, so it continues to be a mutually beneficial decision/relationship.
It also shows that there's a business case to be made for using BSD-licensed code, and that the BSD license doesn't mean that companies won't "give back" some of their improvements, if only because they see it in their long-term benefit to have the devs working with their improvements so any breakage in future releases can be taken care of by the FreeBSD maintainers instead of with more patches, etc.
MS might very well provide things like xboxes and plasma screens, but let's face it - when you're trying to get "in the zone" (which you'll have to be pretty much constantly to do this) you keep weird hours (I don't know about you, but my most productive times are after midnight for some strange reason, when "fix that last little bit" becomes ZOMG here's 3 different features I can quickly add that will make a big difference... and the next thing you know, they're all added and it's 4am, or in last night's case, "only" 3:15 am). Not having the equipment right at hand is a productivity killer. I'd want the team to be living with the hardware, not commuting, or worse, just rolling over and going back to sleep because they can't feed their inner inspiration.
What this shows is the level of desperation out there - even a small development team is going to have 1-6 each of artists and coders, and several testers who can do more than the minimum-wage "tester drones" that agencies employ - they know how to report bugs, have enough knowledge of what the programmers are working on to be able to mostly speak their language, and even point out good places to start looking in the code for the current bug. Even 2 of each is still 6 people, and housing, transporting, and feeding 6 people for 3 months in a strange city where you don't know the ins and outs, plus getting them and all your gear there and back, $20k isn't going to cover it unless you go with a monthly rental - which probably comes with bedbugs.
The proper way to do this type of event would be to rent a lodge or summer camp during the off season, and invite people to work out of there for 3 months. Communal cafeteria, weekly kegger around the fire, bring your pets (as an aside - whatever happened to the "tech companies are pet-friendly" meme anyway - I know that at Netscape, it was because Marks' 2 Newfies scarfed down a banquet before the humans got to it, but still...), no worry about places to bunk down, and lots of tables for working at as well as enough space to give each team not only their "own space" but some real privacy.
There are different types of prototypes. If you have something to show, with an alternate interface to demo how it works and just need to write the code to "hook it to a kinect", that's one prototype that will stand out.
If you have not-so-good prototype - static graphics that demo what "might" happen when you get things working, and you need to develop both the underlying app and the kinect interface, you're going to be at a serious disadvantage.
Finally, if all you have are some photoshopped crap or a powerpoint presentation, and a bunch of bs about how great it will be, how do you expect to even be taken seriously? It's called "doing your homework."
All this is in addition to the actual market demographics and business plans.
I read it while it was in the submission queue a few days ago. AND I went to the website to check it out. It stunk then and it stinks now.
Do you really believe that given a choice between 100 groups that have a prototype, and 1000 that don't they won't pick all 10 from the 100? Doesn't it show which teams are more likely to succeed, and which ones are just blue sky with no ability to execute?
It's not THAT hard to get a prototype up and running. You know, something more than screen shots and photoshopped vaporware. Worst case scenario, you provide input with a Wiimote instead, just to bug their a**:-p
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Execution is what counts. Any VC would tell you this.
You know, people have speculated about the existence of a Microsoft tool to post pro-Microsoft blog spam to forums and blogs. I was skeptical that any company would be that stupid, but I guess I was wrong.
No, timing is not central. If your product idea will be totally trounced by the competition in 6 months, it's proof you need a better idea, because there are always delays and road-blocks that cause time slip.
#1 example - the iPad. Microsoft had one a decade before. Amazing how Microsoft so dominated the market that nobody can compete.
#2 example - Android and iPhone. Microsoft had been in the mobile market for so long that there wasn't room for even one competitor, never mind two.
#3 example - Linux got onto netbooks faster, and so totally dominated the netbook market that even trusty familiar XP couldn't gain a toe-hold.
In other words, from the success of the iPad, Android, and iPhone, and the ongoing failure of Linux on netbooks, we can see that timing is not as critical as having something that is usable. A crappy rushed product in 3 months won't beat a good product in 12 months. All your crappy product will do is make people avoid the better iteration 12 months down the road, in favor of your competitor. And kill you with restocking fees.
You know what, if it's such a great deal, stop b*tching about MY pointing out the potential downsides and go apply for it yourself.
$20k is not even semi-serious money for a start-up - especially considering that, with the competition, you're going to be at least at the working prototype stage, in which case you should be looking for first-round investors, not seed money.
So who cares if you don't "buy it"? 4.3BSD was released in 1986. Net/1 was released in 89, removing AT&T-licensed code to create a free version. Net/2 was released in June 1991. AT&T later sued over the Net/2 release. Linux 0.01 was released in September of that year.
Why would I rent a separate office? Because the space they are going to be offering is also going to be used by 9 other sets of strangers, all looking for an edge, all looking for other great ideas to "borrow" if they strike out after the original 3-month period. And with dozens of new faces in one space (even if it's separate offices), that's a great way for equipment to develop feet. After all, it's not like they're going to be keeping "office hours".
And no, I wouldn't apply considering:
1. Since they're going to be flooded with applications, you'd better have a working prototype already running.
2. If you have a working prototype already running, why would you be looking for initial seed funding instead of going to a first round of investors? More $$$, less equity given up.
3. They want 6% of your business - not just that one project. So, if you come up with a second great idea, you're not free to develop that one on your own and reap all the bennies.
I've worked at VC-funded startups (including one that had $25 million to play with) - at each stage, the initial founders have to give up more and more, until in the end they own pretty much nothing.
I can't believe how naive everyone is thinking this is such a great deal. You're giving up 6% initially, and since you're going to need more $$$ after the first 3 months, you're going to end up owning less than 6% at the end. After all, it costs a lot more than $20k to get something from prototype to being an SKU sitting in a warehouse somewhere, with proper support in place (technical, sales/marketing, accounting, legal).
It reminds me of one place I interviewed at this summer. They had a failed project, and a month after the interview, they were "still working on the budget in terms of how many people it would take, etc." What a joke. I took an hour to figure that out, and emailed them back: $420k +/- 20% for the first 6 months, just under a million the first year, 3 year total (costs go up as you ramp up, but income doesn't go up as fast) of ~$3 million. And that was doing it "on the cheap." I also gave them a list of gotchas that had to be checked before anything else was done (one legal, several technical).
They had thought that they could do it for less than 200k all in in 3 months, then the money coming in would pay for the "much lower cost since it's already developed."
Their web site still shows the original default HostPapa landing page that's been there since the spring. Is it dead, or is it dead?
For that same $15k, you'd be better off working on something else to pay the bills, and take the time to get your project into better shape - the further along it is when you look for $$$, the more $$$ you get, and the less equity you cede.
If it takes you 6 months or 9 months instead of 3, so what? One of the benefits of that is that you've also had more time to think, and for others to test, so you end up with a better project anyways.
If your idea is so time-sensitive that a few extra months will break you, then it's not that great an idea anyway, right?
There is no way in HELL that I would let my stuff sit somewhere that I didn't control access. My laptop, for example, has source for several commercial projects for others (one of which cost in the 7 figures to develop, so no, not "shits and giggles" stuff), as well as some of my current and past projects. And personal stuff. "Gee, sorry, but it seems to have disappeared."
It's the same story with my desktop box.
So you may want to reconsider leaving your stuff overnight where someone else controls access, esp. since you'll have 9 other groups of strangers wandering around at the same time.
I guess you didn't read the actual article. You'll be competing against the rest of the world - this is not a "every contestant is a winner" - so, if you don't have a product already mostly running, you won't get in the door.
If you do have a worthwhile product, you already have the engineering mostly licked, right? And do you really want to trade the "opportunity" to share your work and ideas with them and lose money at the same time?
Nothing is stopping you from starting new business though. Yes, you will not get the trademarks etc. along, but it's not like they will own you for life.
The contract you sign prevents that. You leave, they sue, and get an injunction against you.
Sure, 2 grand a month - on a 12 month lease. So, you're already at MINUS $4k over the initial $20k allotment and you haven't even bought tickets to get there yet. Plus the non-refundable carpet cleaning deposit, the security deposit and whatever else... plus utilities (what, you actually want electricity???!!!).
Furniture? Oops... Desks, work tables, etc?
Got any pets? Screwed!
Got a significant other (I know, this is/., but still... ) or a kid in school? Double screwed.
And you've still got to get all your equipment out there and back.
If a company asked you to work on-site in a different state for 3 months, how much would you charge, for ONE person? Because basically, they've already screened your project, believe it's viable, and they're throwing you a bone.
If your project is already viable, you can do much better than losing money. But let's face it - this isn't about creating viable products - it's about spending $200,000 to get a whole bunch of nerds to go out and buy xboxes and kinects in the hop that maybe THEY can come up with a winner - and getting all sorts of free publicity.
Er, how much does Microsoft take to sell your product on their market? Bias much?
How much does Microsoft give YOU when they sell a kinect and xbox thanks to your new app?
Also, wrt Microsoft's app market (since the 30% cut is wrt online app markets) - 100% of zero (to within a rounding error) is a lot less than 70% of Androids' or Apples' markets. No bias at all, just simple math.
The relocating for 3 months is a deal-breaker for ANY small team. They'll be losing money b the time they pay for air fare there and back, meals, rooms, car rental, cost or moving all your equipment (computers, screens, big-screen TVs, consoles) both ways, rental of a secure site, work tables, chairs, (what - you were going to just let them "offer" you a convenient place to work out of that they have the keys to? Are you retarded????) etc.
So - they're out of pocket AND give up 6% for the "privilege" of doing what they can do w/o relocating and being out of pocket.
The $20k will be eaten up and then some in travel expenses + 3 months of motel rooms, rental cars, meals, etc. This is a raw deal.
Yes, Apple and Google take 30% to sell your products, but they don't OWN 6% of your business (and any future products you come up with). And when you sell an item on one, you're not paying a cut to the other on that sale.
1. Why do I have to justify a fact?
1.a. What is YOUR justification for ignoring same?
2. So you now formally admit that you were just trying to BS when you asked what the center of a surface of a sphere was, and that you never expected a logical answer.
2.a. You also concede that you have no basis for contesting the answer given.
3. Not my fault if you can't see something. And there are planes through each of the 26 centers that cut the die exactly into two parts, so what's your problem? Oh, right, you're just being silly for silly's sake.
One says linux wouldn't have been started by him. Imo it would have been started by the FSF and we'd all be using a full blown micro kernel.
*UMPOSSIBLE* - Stallman announced such a project a couple of decades ago, then couldn't find anyone willing to contribute code to it.
The other implies linux's success was based on the problems of BSD and nothing to do with the license. Total nonsense.
How can a project be a success if it's never even started? So no, not total nonsense, as even Torvalds says. Why are you disagreeing with the one person in the whole world who is in the best position to make that call?
2. Because the center is a POINT, duh! In a 3-dimensional solid, it's a point along the x,y,z axis. In a 2-dimensional object, it's a point along the x,y axis.
3. You don't have to transform the die surface - that's just a "visual aid" - just look at it and you can see the various centers by simple inspection.
Slashdot Mirror
OSX used FreeBSD as a base, and hired some of the FreeBSD devs to work on it. They still communicate, so it continues to be a mutually beneficial decision/relationship.
It also shows that there's a business case to be made for using BSD-licensed code, and that the BSD license doesn't mean that companies won't "give back" some of their improvements, if only because they see it in their long-term benefit to have the devs working with their improvements so any breakage in future releases can be taken care of by the FreeBSD maintainers instead of with more patches, etc.
MS might very well provide things like xboxes and plasma screens, but let's face it - when you're trying to get "in the zone" (which you'll have to be pretty much constantly to do this) you keep weird hours (I don't know about you, but my most productive times are after midnight for some strange reason, when "fix that last little bit" becomes ZOMG here's 3 different features I can quickly add that will make a big difference ... and the next thing you know, they're all added and it's 4am, or in last night's case, "only" 3:15 am). Not having the equipment right at hand is a productivity killer. I'd want the team to be living with the hardware, not commuting, or worse, just rolling over and going back to sleep because they can't feed their inner inspiration.
What this shows is the level of desperation out there - even a small development team is going to have 1-6 each of artists and coders, and several testers who can do more than the minimum-wage "tester drones" that agencies employ - they know how to report bugs, have enough knowledge of what the programmers are working on to be able to mostly speak their language, and even point out good places to start looking in the code for the current bug. Even 2 of each is still 6 people, and housing, transporting, and feeding 6 people for 3 months in a strange city where you don't know the ins and outs, plus getting them and all your gear there and back, $20k isn't going to cover it unless you go with a monthly rental - which probably comes with bedbugs.
The proper way to do this type of event would be to rent a lodge or summer camp during the off season, and invite people to work out of there for 3 months. Communal cafeteria, weekly kegger around the fire, bring your pets (as an aside - whatever happened to the "tech companies are pet-friendly" meme anyway - I know that at Netscape, it was because Marks' 2 Newfies scarfed down a banquet before the humans got to it, but still ...), no worry about places to bunk down, and lots of tables for working at as well as enough space to give each team not only their "own space" but some real privacy.
There are different types of prototypes. If you have something to show, with an alternate interface to demo how it works and just need to write the code to "hook it to a kinect", that's one prototype that will stand out.
If you have not-so-good prototype - static graphics that demo what "might" happen when you get things working, and you need to develop both the underlying app and the kinect interface, you're going to be at a serious disadvantage.
Finally, if all you have are some photoshopped crap or a powerpoint presentation, and a bunch of bs about how great it will be, how do you expect to even be taken seriously? It's called "doing your homework."
All this is in addition to the actual market demographics and business plans.
I read it while it was in the submission queue a few days ago. AND I went to the website to check it out. It stunk then and it stinks now.
Do you really believe that given a choice between 100 groups that have a prototype, and 1000 that don't they won't pick all 10 from the 100? Doesn't it show which teams are more likely to succeed, and which ones are just blue sky with no ability to execute?
It's not THAT hard to get a prototype up and running. You know, something more than screen shots and photoshopped vaporware. Worst case scenario, you provide input with a Wiimote instead, just to bug their a** :-p
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Execution is what counts. Any VC would tell you this.
You know, people have speculated about the existence of a Microsoft tool to post pro-Microsoft blog spam to forums and blogs. I was skeptical that any company would be that stupid, but I guess I was wrong.
No, timing is not central. If your product idea will be totally trounced by the competition in 6 months, it's proof you need a better idea, because there are always delays and road-blocks that cause time slip.
#1 example - the iPad. Microsoft had one a decade before. Amazing how Microsoft so dominated the market that nobody can compete.
#2 example - Android and iPhone. Microsoft had been in the mobile market for so long that there wasn't room for even one competitor, never mind two.
#3 example - Linux got onto netbooks faster, and so totally dominated the netbook market that even trusty familiar XP couldn't gain a toe-hold.
In other words, from the success of the iPad, Android, and iPhone, and the ongoing failure of Linux on netbooks, we can see that timing is not as critical as having something that is usable. A crappy rushed product in 3 months won't beat a good product in 12 months. All your crappy product will do is make people avoid the better iteration 12 months down the road, in favor of your competitor. And kill you with restocking fees.
You know what, if it's such a great deal, stop b*tching about MY pointing out the potential downsides and go apply for it yourself.
$20k is not even semi-serious money for a start-up - especially considering that, with the competition, you're going to be at least at the working prototype stage, in which case you should be looking for first-round investors, not seed money.
You've never read a non-compete, have you? Or are you just asking that question out of your a** just to argue for arguments' sake?
So who cares if you don't "buy it"? 4.3BSD was released in 1986. Net/1 was released in 89, removing AT&T-licensed code to create a free version. Net/2 was released in June 1991. AT&T later sued over the Net/2 release. Linux 0.01 was released in September of that year.
Why would I rent a separate office? Because the space they are going to be offering is also going to be used by 9 other sets of strangers, all looking for an edge, all looking for other great ideas to "borrow" if they strike out after the original 3-month period. And with dozens of new faces in one space (even if it's separate offices), that's a great way for equipment to develop feet. After all, it's not like they're going to be keeping "office hours".
And no, I wouldn't apply considering:
1. Since they're going to be flooded with applications, you'd better have a working prototype already running.
2. If you have a working prototype already running, why would you be looking for initial seed funding instead of going to a first round of investors? More $$$, less equity given up.
3. They want 6% of your business - not just that one project. So, if you come up with a second great idea, you're not free to develop that one on your own and reap all the bennies.
I've worked at VC-funded startups (including one that had $25 million to play with) - at each stage, the initial founders have to give up more and more, until in the end they own pretty much nothing.
Sorry, my mistake :-)
I can't believe how naive everyone is thinking this is such a great deal. You're giving up 6% initially, and since you're going to need more $$$ after the first 3 months, you're going to end up owning less than 6% at the end. After all, it costs a lot more than $20k to get something from prototype to being an SKU sitting in a warehouse somewhere, with proper support in place (technical, sales/marketing, accounting, legal).
It reminds me of one place I interviewed at this summer. They had a failed project, and a month after the interview, they were "still working on the budget in terms of how many people it would take, etc." What a joke. I took an hour to figure that out, and emailed them back: $420k +/- 20% for the first 6 months, just under a million the first year, 3 year total (costs go up as you ramp up, but income doesn't go up as fast) of ~$3 million. And that was doing it "on the cheap." I also gave them a list of gotchas that had to be checked before anything else was done (one legal, several technical).
They had thought that they could do it for less than 200k all in in 3 months, then the money coming in would pay for the "much lower cost since it's already developed."
Their web site still shows the original default HostPapa landing page that's been there since the spring. Is it dead, or is it dead?
They're both bad deals.
For that same $15k, you'd be better off working on something else to pay the bills, and take the time to get your project into better shape - the further along it is when you look for $$$, the more $$$ you get, and the less equity you cede.
If it takes you 6 months or 9 months instead of 3, so what? One of the benefits of that is that you've also had more time to think, and for others to test, so you end up with a better project anyways.
If your idea is so time-sensitive that a few extra months will break you, then it's not that great an idea anyway, right?
There is no way in HELL that I would let my stuff sit somewhere that I didn't control access. My laptop, for example, has source for several commercial projects for others (one of which cost in the 7 figures to develop, so no, not "shits and giggles" stuff), as well as some of my current and past projects. And personal stuff. "Gee, sorry, but it seems to have disappeared."
It's the same story with my desktop box.
So you may want to reconsider leaving your stuff overnight where someone else controls access, esp. since you'll have 9 other groups of strangers wandering around at the same time.
I guess you didn't read the actual article. You'll be competing against the rest of the world - this is not a "every contestant is a winner" - so, if you don't have a product already mostly running, you won't get in the door.
If you do have a worthwhile product, you already have the engineering mostly licked, right? And do you really want to trade the "opportunity" to share your work and ideas with them and lose money at the same time?
The contract you sign prevents that. You leave, they sue, and get an injunction against you.
Sure, 2 grand a month - on a 12 month lease. So, you're already at MINUS $4k over the initial $20k allotment and you haven't even bought tickets to get there yet. Plus the non-refundable carpet cleaning deposit, the security deposit and whatever else ... plus utilities (what, you actually want electricity???!!!).
Furniture? Oops ... Desks, work tables, etc?
Got any pets? Screwed!
Got a significant other (I know, this is /., but still ... ) or a kid in school? Double screwed.
And you've still got to get all your equipment out there and back.
If a company asked you to work on-site in a different state for 3 months, how much would you charge, for ONE person? Because basically, they've already screened your project, believe it's viable, and they're throwing you a bone.
If your project is already viable, you can do much better than losing money. But let's face it - this isn't about creating viable products - it's about spending $200,000 to get a whole bunch of nerds to go out and buy xboxes and kinects in the hop that maybe THEY can come up with a winner - and getting all sorts of free publicity.
Just look at this slashvertisement ...
How much does Microsoft give YOU when they sell a kinect and xbox thanks to your new app?
Also, wrt Microsoft's app market (since the 30% cut is wrt online app markets) - 100% of zero (to within a rounding error) is a lot less than 70% of Androids' or Apples' markets. No bias at all, just simple math.
It wasn't available because of the lawsuit. Duh!
The relocating for 3 months is a deal-breaker for ANY small team. They'll be losing money b the time they pay for air fare there and back, meals, rooms, car rental, cost or moving all your equipment (computers, screens, big-screen TVs, consoles) both ways, rental of a secure site, work tables, chairs, (what - you were going to just let them "offer" you a convenient place to work out of that they have the keys to? Are you retarded????) etc.
So - they're out of pocket AND give up 6% for the "privilege" of doing what they can do w/o relocating and being out of pocket.
The $20k will be eaten up and then some in travel expenses + 3 months of motel rooms, rental cars, meals, etc. This is a raw deal.
Yes, Apple and Google take 30% to sell your products, but they don't OWN 6% of your business (and any future products you come up with). And when you sell an item on one, you're not paying a cut to the other on that sale.
Forget it charlie brown.
1. Why do I have to justify a fact?
1.a. What is YOUR justification for ignoring same?
2. So you now formally admit that you were just trying to BS when you asked what the center of a surface of a sphere was, and that you never expected a logical answer.
2.a. You also concede that you have no basis for contesting the answer given.
3. Not my fault if you can't see something. And there are planes through each of the 26 centers that cut the die exactly into two parts, so what's your problem? Oh, right, you're just being silly for silly's sake.
*UMPOSSIBLE* - Stallman announced such a project a couple of decades ago, then couldn't find anyone willing to contribute code to it.
How can a project be a success if it's never even started? So no, not total nonsense, as even Torvalds says. Why are you disagreeing with the one person in the whole world who is in the best position to make that call?
You're having a bit of a logic fail today. If Linux didn't exist, it would certainly not have ANY measure of success.
Also, BSD is having a much higher success rate on the desktop than Linux will ever have, in case you haven't noticed.
1. Any point along that line is itself a center.
2. Because the center is a POINT, duh! In a 3-dimensional solid, it's a point along the x,y,z axis. In a 2-dimensional object, it's a point along the x,y axis.
3. You don't have to transform the die surface - that's just a "visual aid" - just look at it and you can see the various centers by simple inspection.