Kenny Long

Just watched the first of the Steve Jobs appearances at the AllThingsD conference. For context, this was 2003, just a few weeks after Apple launched the iTunes Music Store, so music was the focus of his discussion with Walt Mossberg. No insightful analysis here; just things I found interesting:

- Talk of areas that Apple would eventually get into

• Explaining that internet-connected iPod wouldn’t be able to have a music store because of the need for PC-sized screen real estate
• Flippant dismissal Bill Gates talk of launching a tablet
• Saying that speech-cognition as a meaningful input device has always been “five years away” since he got into the computer industry 30 years prior

- It was almost funny watching how his presence changed when he went from the sitting discussion with Mossberg to standing demo of the iTunes store.

- He constantly referred to the music player as the “jukebox”. It seems like I haven’t heard that term since… well, maybe 2003.

- Part of his pitch was that you could get “three songs for the price of a Starbucks latte”. Earlier this week, I read an insightful post encouraging people to Stop Using the Cup of Coffee vs. 99¢ App Analogy, which (among other things) pointed out that an app’s value and craftsmanship is hidden until the purchase is made (unlike the familiar and trustable experience of a Starbucks coffee). This makes app purchasing a relative gamble.

- Building on that, Steve Jobs emphasized in his Music Store demo how important the 30 second song previews are to the buying process. I know the apps/music comparison isn’t perfect, but it’s still interesting that Apple has mostly ignored support for users previewing apps.

Fascinating notes from the class Peter Thiel is teaching at Stanford (CS 183: Startup) this quarter:

The path from 0 to 1 might start with asking and answering three questions. First, what is valuable? Second, what can I do? And third, what is nobody else doing?

The questions themselves are straightforward. Question one illustrates the difference between business and academia; in academia, the number one sin is plagiarism, not triviality. So much of the innovation is esoteric and not at all useful. No one cares about a firm’s eccentric, non-valuable output. The second question ensures that you can actually execute on a problem; if not, talk is just that. Finally, and often overlooked, is the importance of being novel. Forget that and we’re just copying.

The intellectual rephrasing of these questions is: What important truth do very few people agree with you on?

The business version is: What valuable company is nobody building?

These are tough questions. But you can test your answers; if, as so many people do, one says something like “our educational system is broken and urgently requires repair,” you know that that answer is wrong (it may be a truth, but lots of people agree with it). This may explain why we see so many education non-profits and startups. But query whether most of those are operating in technology mode or globalization mode. You know you’re on the right track when your answer takes the following form:

“Most people believe in X. But the truth is !X.”

Make no mistake; it’s a hard question. Knowing what 0 to 1 endeavor is worth pursuing is incredibly rare, unique, and tricky. But the process, if not the result, can also be richly rewarding.

I hope Blake keeps taking notes.

[Links from class one and class two]