5 ms·

pg's essays aren't written at a grade-school level.

run4yourlives 18y ago
And? Just because something is explained simply doesn't make it any less true. As I suspected, it seems that there is not much more than a simple dislike for 37S behind many of these comments.
- davidw 18y ago
  I think 37S is pretty cool, generally like their message, and love Ruby on Rails. However... there's something that gets annoying about their writing style and "aren't we clever" attitude (intended or not, it starts to sound that way after a while) after a while.
  - ph0rque 18y ago
    If that's all that is wrong with 37S, I'll happily continue reading their stuff.
    - davidw 18y ago
      So will I, of course, but at times I wish I could see a full, third party analysis of them and their success. "Get rich in just 10 hours a week" sure sounds seductive, but, for example, just how important was Rails in making them profitable? Without Rails, would they be able to work 4 day work weeks? In most companies I've ever worked for, the competition has been way too fierce to do stuff like that.
      - dhh 18y ago
        Rails wasn't even released until 6 months after Basecamp was a out (and doing very well). It didn't really get popular until about 1-2 years later. By that time, Basecamp was doing incredibly well and we had released other products. As the creator of Rails, it's flattering to think that the framework had a big say in the success of 37signals, but I think it's role is generally overstated by people who happened to find us through the framework. The vast majority of our customers have no clue what Rails is and couldn't care less. It helped, surely, but so did many other things, like having a popular weblog, like writing a popular book on our approach, like speaking at conferences, etc.
        davidw 18y ago
        Interesting, thanks. I guess what my skepticism (which is certainly not limited to 37S - it comes natural to me about many things) revolves around is seeing a lot of things that are easier said than done, in my experience, at least. Four day work week, successful products in 10 hours a week, "just ask for money", and so on. It makes me wonder how much of that is really "repeatable", and how much is due to things like Rails. Thinking about it some, one of the other things that I'd like to know is what your barriers to entry are - the things that make it so that you can work less, limit features, etc... and still stay ahead of competitors who hire smart people themselves and are willing to work more, and perhaps invest more money. "Being popular" (whatever the source of said popularity) would certainly be one answer: that popularity gives you the possibility to have a much larger customer base than a less visible company whose products might be high quality and relatively inexpensive.
        edw519 18y ago
        It makes me wonder how much of that is really "repeatable", and how much is due to things like Rails. Probably a little of both. I hear you, davidw, and understand why one would be a little skeptical of capricious claims like that. OTOH, aren't these "out of the box thoughts" exactly what it sometimes takes to have a breakthrough. Some of my biggest breakthroughs weren't necessarily from lots of hard work, but from looking at things differently and doing much less work. I believe 37signals has earned enough "literary license" to preach a little without losing too much cred. I trust their demonstrated performance before anyone else's theory, no matter how logical it sounds.
        davidw 18y ago
        > I trust their demonstrated performance before anyone else's theory, no matter how logical it sounds. This stuff isn't a science, but still, one example doesn't mean that something works for anyone but the example. I like their approach and what they have to say, by and large, just that I have some nagging doubts that it may only apply to them. One of the things I like about PG and YC is that he's taken his approach, and applied it to many companies, and gathered data in the process. It's still not, nor ever will be "scientific", but at least he's getting some more data points.
  - ssharp 18y ago
    "Don't do something unless you can brag about it" isn't a bad philosophy to have. It means you're doing things worthy of envy.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  Eh. The medium is the message. There's a reason that the verbiage changes as you go from "Go Dog Go" to "Getting real" to "Reader's digest" to "The NY Times" to "Nature". It's not all conceit on the part of the authors. Aside from that, 37signals tends to posit rules of thumb as if they were categoricals. http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch03_The_Three_Musketeers.php http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch03_The_Three_Musketeers.p... "For the first version of your app, start with only three people." This seems to assume that an audience consisting of programmers is ignorant of the facts that... 1) Multics started with a huge team. 2) Unix started with a team of three. 3) Linux started with a team of one. ...and so would presumably realize that no rule of thumb on the subject of team size can be made. In fact, successful projects have wildly varied geneses. Were I to make a rule, I would account for that fact and say, "Start with the best people you know, who are willing to commit to a project". Does this make more sense? Rest assured I am no genius for saying it. It's common sense. But it's common sense that 37signal's almost always consistently lacks, despite their 'tude for simplicity.

And? Just because something is explained simply doesn't make it any less true. As I suspected, it seems that there is not much more than a simple dislike for 37S behind many of these comments.

davidw 18y ago
I think 37S is pretty cool, generally like their message, and love Ruby on Rails. However... there's something that gets annoying about their writing style and "aren't we clever" attitude (intended or not, it starts to sound that way after a while) after a while.
- ph0rque 18y ago
  If that's all that is wrong with 37S, I'll happily continue reading their stuff.
  - davidw 18y ago
    So will I, of course, but at times I wish I could see a full, third party analysis of them and their success. "Get rich in just 10 hours a week" sure sounds seductive, but, for example, just how important was Rails in making them profitable? Without Rails, would they be able to work 4 day work weeks? In most companies I've ever worked for, the competition has been way too fierce to do stuff like that.
    - dhh 18y ago
      Rails wasn't even released until 6 months after Basecamp was a out (and doing very well). It didn't really get popular until about 1-2 years later. By that time, Basecamp was doing incredibly well and we had released other products. As the creator of Rails, it's flattering to think that the framework had a big say in the success of 37signals, but I think it's role is generally overstated by people who happened to find us through the framework. The vast majority of our customers have no clue what Rails is and couldn't care less. It helped, surely, but so did many other things, like having a popular weblog, like writing a popular book on our approach, like speaking at conferences, etc.
      - davidw 18y ago
        Interesting, thanks. I guess what my skepticism (which is certainly not limited to 37S - it comes natural to me about many things) revolves around is seeing a lot of things that are easier said than done, in my experience, at least. Four day work week, successful products in 10 hours a week, "just ask for money", and so on. It makes me wonder how much of that is really "repeatable", and how much is due to things like Rails. Thinking about it some, one of the other things that I'd like to know is what your barriers to entry are - the things that make it so that you can work less, limit features, etc... and still stay ahead of competitors who hire smart people themselves and are willing to work more, and perhaps invest more money. "Being popular" (whatever the source of said popularity) would certainly be one answer: that popularity gives you the possibility to have a much larger customer base than a less visible company whose products might be high quality and relatively inexpensive.
        edw519 18y ago
        It makes me wonder how much of that is really "repeatable", and how much is due to things like Rails. Probably a little of both. I hear you, davidw, and understand why one would be a little skeptical of capricious claims like that. OTOH, aren't these "out of the box thoughts" exactly what it sometimes takes to have a breakthrough. Some of my biggest breakthroughs weren't necessarily from lots of hard work, but from looking at things differently and doing much less work. I believe 37signals has earned enough "literary license" to preach a little without losing too much cred. I trust their demonstrated performance before anyone else's theory, no matter how logical it sounds.
        davidw 18y ago
        > I trust their demonstrated performance before anyone else's theory, no matter how logical it sounds. This stuff isn't a science, but still, one example doesn't mean that something works for anyone but the example. I like their approach and what they have to say, by and large, just that I have some nagging doubts that it may only apply to them. One of the things I like about PG and YC is that he's taken his approach, and applied it to many companies, and gathered data in the process. It's still not, nor ever will be "scientific", but at least he's getting some more data points.
- ssharp 18y ago
  "Don't do something unless you can brag about it" isn't a bad philosophy to have. It means you're doing things worthy of envy.
mynameishere 18y ago
Eh. The medium is the message. There's a reason that the verbiage changes as you go from "Go Dog Go" to "Getting real" to "Reader's digest" to "The NY Times" to "Nature". It's not all conceit on the part of the authors. Aside from that, 37signals tends to posit rules of thumb as if they were categoricals. http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch03_The_Three_Musketeers.php http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch03_The_Three_Musketeers.p... "For the first version of your app, start with only three people." This seems to assume that an audience consisting of programmers is ignorant of the facts that... 1) Multics started with a huge team. 2) Unix started with a team of three. 3) Linux started with a team of one. ...and so would presumably realize that no rule of thumb on the subject of team size can be made. In fact, successful projects have wildly varied geneses. Were I to make a rule, I would account for that fact and say, "Start with the best people you know, who are willing to commit to a project". Does this make more sense? Rest assured I am no genius for saying it. It's common sense. But it's common sense that 37signal's almost always consistently lacks, despite their 'tude for simplicity.