Well, whether or not you agree with Rand Paul as a politician, I think an actual discussion of the economics at hand would be more fruitful. And by the economics, I do not mean "regulation attacks our liberties and cripples the economy," but more specifically I'm interested in the following quote:
"Many of the calls for additional legislation depend on the false premise that there is a 'market failure' regarding cybersecurity, and that businesses cannot adequately protect themselves."
From what I understand, the Obama administration believes that cybersecurity is a public good, and that there is a free riding problem. One company finds a vulnerability or comes up with a new security solution, shares that information with other companies, and then everyone benefits. The idea is that many companies would assume that others will put in the resources to solve these problems, and that they can benefit from the resulting information.
Overall expenditure in cybersecurity may be increasing, however, I'm curious what the distribution of spending looks like across various industries. Are there a few players that make up the large portion of spending, or is it spread out among more companies. In the former, a free rider problem seems more likely, while in the latter I don't really see a problem.
Personally, I'd assume that many companies are very worried about cybersecurity and free riding is a minor issue. It's bad for a business' bottom line and reputation to have a security breach, especially if they deal with customer finances. Honestly though, I do not know enough about the industry and would love to hear from someone who is more familiar with the economics and incentives.
The main issue I could see implementing this is that you'd have to constantly get permission from the user to use their webcam. I'm not sure I'd trust a site to just use my mug for improved readability.
I'm a little put off by the author's reaction to users suggesting features that didn't make the MVP cut. It's great that your users are requesting features that are already on your roadmap! That means you're potentially on the right track or at least know a bit more about your users.
When you complete them, you can tell your users that, "we listened to YOU the community and have delivered what you have asked for". You'll be able to keep those early users through the early stage roller coaster much more easily.
Your job isn't to be smarter or always one step ahead of your customers--it's to provide value to them so they can't live without you. Otherwise, sounds about right to me =)
Exactly -- (1) you are getting direct feedback, which shows interest and engagement (2) that feedback is pointing in the direction you were already going; shortest path, meet straight line. The main thing is not to put TOO much stock in these requests as people will often ask for many things they wouldn't actually pay for.
Full Disclosure: I was one of the participants in the first Boston Startup School class.
One of the great benefits of the program was the plethora of networking opportunities that appeared via the instructors and the constant interaction with local startups. The program also focused on a diversity of skill sets & preparation for positions that are critical to the success of most startups: Marketing, Product Design, Sales & Biz Dev, and of course Software Development. We also had participants come in from all over the United States and the world, so I don't think drawing in top talent would be too difficult once the program has established itself. Even so, the program thrived on people with an entrepreneurial spirit and drive to learn & create rather than pure technical talent.
I'm not sure that BSS could have done well in a startup poor environment since it's success depended a lot on the participation of local startups. That's not to say, however, that a different program with a different business model couldn't succeed in such an environment.
Apple and a number of publishers have already settled with the EU Commission [1], which began an investigation before even the DOJ. From a legal standpoint this is not an admission of guilt. Apple believed that either a) the legal costs of mounting a defense were about the same as the potential damages, b) they could not win in the European Courts (this could be because of the interpretation of their anti-trust laws), or c) the PR debacle would harm their brand and reputation too much. I would pick a combination of B and C in this case, though mostly B.
As far as the DOJ anti-trust division is concerned, their job is to investigate and prosecute companies that allegedly partake in anti-competitive behavior that adversely affect consumer prices. They saw a rise in prices as competition increased, which is contrary to how price dynamics are supposed to work in an increasingly competitive market. Given that the source of this rise in prices was due to simultaneous pressure from publishers on Amazon to switch to an agency pricing model from a wholesale pricing model, it makes sense that the DOJ would investigate. This suit will likely take a few years to come to a conclusion.
I'm curious if bottles using this coating will be recyclable. Reducing food waste is great, but if it's at the expense of recycling plastics or glass I'm not sure if there is a net benefit.
"Many of the calls for additional legislation depend on the false premise that there is a 'market failure' regarding cybersecurity, and that businesses cannot adequately protect themselves."
From what I understand, the Obama administration believes that cybersecurity is a public good, and that there is a free riding problem. One company finds a vulnerability or comes up with a new security solution, shares that information with other companies, and then everyone benefits. The idea is that many companies would assume that others will put in the resources to solve these problems, and that they can benefit from the resulting information.
Overall expenditure in cybersecurity may be increasing, however, I'm curious what the distribution of spending looks like across various industries. Are there a few players that make up the large portion of spending, or is it spread out among more companies. In the former, a free rider problem seems more likely, while in the latter I don't really see a problem.
Personally, I'd assume that many companies are very worried about cybersecurity and free riding is a minor issue. It's bad for a business' bottom line and reputation to have a security breach, especially if they deal with customer finances. Honestly though, I do not know enough about the industry and would love to hear from someone who is more familiar with the economics and incentives.