7 ms·
This inc article is painfully light on details and writing. It also doesn't mention what year (2010 or 2011?) for the June cover. All the same, some might like
by jcr 16y ago
This inc article is painfully light on details and writing. It also doesn't mention what year (2010 or 2011?) for the June cover. All the same, some might like the pictures.
- dclaysmith 16y agoAnd it wreaks havoc on your browser history.
- follower 16y agoI assume 2011, given: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20100601/ http://www.inc.com/magazine/20100601/ Also, it seems more like an "audio/video slideshow" than an article.
- jcr 16y agoIt might be a pre-publishing announcement for a yet-to-be-released article? I'm really not sure. On the other hand, PG on the cover of inc seemed noteworthy. Congratulations!
- pmjordan 16y agoMonthly print magazines love to name their issues by the month after the one you'll be reading it in, so usually 1-2 months later than the publishing date. It's supposed to make it seem more newsy or something - I assume this is the intended reader reaction: "A message from the future? For me? What an honour!" That said, the images and the cover look familiar. It also says ©2010. Pretty sure it's from sometime last year.
- vladd 16y agoThe picture seems to be the one used in http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090601/the-start-up-guru-y-combinators-paul-graham.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090601/the-start-up-guru-y-com... .
- Gaussian 16y agoI prefer the Forbes PG cover.
- ssharp 16y agoWelcome to Inc. magazine. I've been a subscriber* for three years now and most of its articles are light on details, high on dramatics, and low in practical value. I think the magazine serves as more of a comfort to entrepreneurs / wannabe's than a source of learning. * I think I subscribed for one year at a discount, and have been receiving the magazine gratis for the past two years.