Comments on: Getting good at screwing up http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/09/01/getting-good-at-screwing-up/ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:14:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: randy belaire http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/09/01/getting-good-at-screwing-up/comment-page-1/#comment-180180 randy belaire Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:05:32 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/?p=1113#comment-180180 I think success and failure are relative terms. An undesirable outcome may be defined as a failure, yet the experience or knowledge gained could be a potential benefit for future improvement. For this reason, most successful endeavors are built upon earlier failures. I think success and failure are relative terms. An undesirable outcome may be defined as a failure, yet the experience or knowledge gained could be a potential benefit for future improvement. For this reason, most successful endeavors are built upon earlier failures.

]]> By: Angel http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/09/01/getting-good-at-screwing-up/comment-page-1/#comment-177571 Angel Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:42:09 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/?p=1113#comment-177571 Thanks for the article, I enjoyed reading it. You are right, it does feel like there should be a book about this...there probably is. Thanks for the article, I enjoyed reading it. You are right, it does feel like there should be a book about this…there probably is.

]]> By: Luis Dias http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/09/01/getting-good-at-screwing-up/comment-page-1/#comment-176909 Luis Dias Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:42:14 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/?p=1113#comment-176909 I can't believe what I read on kerry's comment. Come on, no one should buy anyone's kool-aid, but to equate MS to Google is <i>insane</i>. MS profits from monopoly where competition was <i>destroyed</i> by that same company. Since the beginning (copying Xerox's GUI interface from Apple, betraying IBM in the OS/2 development, betraying QuarkExpress by telling them future was OS/2 when they were building win95 <i>with</i> office 95, the NetScape destruction, DRM quagmire, etc., etc.) MS has done nothing but buy innovation, patent it, destroy competition using its own monopoly, tax consumers with its "inevitability", and stiffle all breakthroughs. I can cope with Google being a "corporate mega-evil capitalist pig house of hell", whatever that means, but their business is simply <i>unable to do</i> the bullyisms that MS was able to do. Google.com is as accessible as Yahoo.com or Live.com. If people use it, its because they have <i>chosen</i> it, not because google somehow "owns" your computer. People use Gmail because they like it. And yes, they also buy things, but YouTube wasn't exactly profitable, so it <i>had</i> to be bought, same as Blogger and Google Earth (GE before being google's was not going to be free, I fail to see its offering as something <i>bad</i>, but that's probably the sheep inside me). Chrome is everything IE isn't. It's OPEN SOURCE, which means anyone can take it and improve it without asking for permission. Try doing that with IE and you'll be in jail before you even press "compile". If it's open source, it means that Google will simply be unable to monetize from doing irritating things to users (if chrome is irritating, it won't be popular, and someone will just grab the source code and build a less irritating "Chrome", that's the power of open source). And it's going to innovate in good ways. I like the multiple thread, the security characteristics and the ability to form net apps. It also doesn't seem particular-apps oriented. Google Gears is based itself on AJAX and it develops open standards, so that's another non-issue. The claim that Google steals from FIrefox is stupid and unwarranted. Google is the major contributor to Firefox (d'oh!!), and Firefox is open source, so it is <i>meant</i> to be "stolen", that's the purpose of it! By making Chrome Open as well, it means that Firefox team can also "steal" from Chrome as well, so there. I can only see innovation and good stuff in here. I can’t believe what I read on kerry’s comment. Come on, no one should buy anyone’s kool-aid, but to equate MS to Google is insane. MS profits from monopoly where competition was destroyed by that same company. Since the beginning (copying Xerox’s GUI interface from Apple, betraying IBM in the OS/2 development, betraying QuarkExpress by telling them future was OS/2 when they were building win95 with office 95, the NetScape destruction, DRM quagmire, etc., etc.) MS has done nothing but buy innovation, patent it, destroy competition using its own monopoly, tax consumers with its “inevitability”, and stiffle all breakthroughs.

I can cope with Google being a “corporate mega-evil capitalist pig house of hell”, whatever that means, but their business is simply unable to do the bullyisms that MS was able to do. Google.com is as accessible as Yahoo.com or Live.com. If people use it, its because they have chosen it, not because google somehow “owns” your computer. People use Gmail because they like it. And yes, they also buy things, but YouTube wasn’t exactly profitable, so it had to be bought, same as Blogger and Google Earth (GE before being google’s was not going to be free, I fail to see its offering as something bad, but that’s probably the sheep inside me).

Chrome is everything IE isn’t. It’s OPEN SOURCE, which means anyone can take it and improve it without asking for permission. Try doing that with IE and you’ll be in jail before you even press “compile”. If it’s open source, it means that Google will simply be unable to monetize from doing irritating things to users (if chrome is irritating, it won’t be popular, and someone will just grab the source code and build a less irritating “Chrome”, that’s the power of open source). And it’s going to innovate in good ways. I like the multiple thread, the security characteristics and the ability to form net apps. It also doesn’t seem particular-apps oriented. Google Gears is based itself on AJAX and it develops open standards, so that’s another non-issue.

The claim that Google steals from FIrefox is stupid and unwarranted. Google is the major contributor to Firefox (d’oh!!), and Firefox is open source, so it is meant to be “stolen”, that’s the purpose of it! By making Chrome Open as well, it means that Firefox team can also “steal” from Chrome as well, so there.

I can only see innovation and good stuff in here.

]]> By: Michael Huxley http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/09/01/getting-good-at-screwing-up/comment-page-1/#comment-176854 Michael Huxley Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:41:17 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/?p=1113#comment-176854 The article was about screwing up - not an opportunity for the old monopoly MS rant. The point of the importance of failure is well made and mainly overlooked. The vast majority of "inventions" and "Innovations" fail. Not in terms of they don't work but in terms of significant market success - the only measure of business success. The success rates of "Innovations" or new business ideas in the marketplace is worse than 1 in 200. In the food industry I have heard quotes of ~1 in 5000 make it good. Most businesses don't have a KPI for failure and as pointed out, most CEOs don't use failures as drivers for their business. Unfortunately, one of the best modes of learning is failure. and it is important to remember the mantra: that if you want to succeed, you must do everything possible to avoid failure. Too little planning is done for Innovation, - we get too excited and passionate about our new ideas, we don't want to wait and plan - we"know" that it will work and rush ahead like headless chickens ad delude ourselves that it has been successful, denying any failures. With business planning (due diligence) , you can identify any potential trip-wires & hurdles that may precipitate a failure and make sensible decisions on the ideas commercial viability. Repeat the above mantra for every new idea you have and you are more likely to be innovative & rich. The article was about screwing up - not an opportunity for the old monopoly MS rant. The point of the importance of failure is well made and mainly overlooked.
The vast majority of “inventions” and “Innovations” fail. Not in terms of they don’t work but in terms of significant market success - the only measure of business success.
The success rates of “Innovations” or new business ideas in the marketplace is worse than 1 in 200. In the food industry I have heard quotes of ~1 in 5000 make it good.
Most businesses don’t have a KPI for failure and as pointed out, most CEOs don’t use failures as drivers for their business. Unfortunately, one of the best modes of learning is failure. and it is important to remember the mantra: that if you want to succeed, you must do everything possible to avoid failure. Too little planning is done for Innovation, - we get too excited and passionate about our new ideas, we don’t want to wait and plan - we”know” that it will work and rush ahead like headless chickens ad delude ourselves that it has been successful, denying any failures. With business planning (due diligence) , you can identify any potential trip-wires & hurdles that may precipitate a failure and make sensible decisions on the ideas commercial viability.
Repeat the above mantra for every new idea you have and you are more likely to be innovative & rich.

]]> By: kerry bradshaw http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/09/01/getting-good-at-screwing-up/comment-page-1/#comment-176711 kerry bradshaw Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:01:36 +0000 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/?p=1113#comment-176711 Another article claiming that Google's failures are seen as indications of "cutting edge efforts." Creating another browser, especially when there is an extreme lack of demand for same, and it is transparently an attempt to garner more money from web user's pockets, will not be viewed as advancing the technology. Advancing the technology means creating a set of standards so that crappy monopolies like Mcrosoft and Google simply cannot occur. What's astounding is to hear those who have basjhed MS for comprising a restraint of trade getting behind Google, a clear monopolistic enterprise that only can afford all those failures because they have the pot locked for web browsing ads. Google has contributed zilch to the technology and deserves zilch. It's a sad commentary on the immaturity of the computer and web business. We deserve better than the xrap that's out there now, and we DON'T need Gooogle to steal Firefox and then claim they've created "from scratch" (!!!) yet another web browser. Another article claiming that Google’s failures are seen as indications of “cutting edge efforts.” Creating another browser, especially when there is an extreme lack of demand for same, and it is transparently an attempt to garner more money from web user’s pockets,
will not be viewed as advancing the technology. Advancing the technology means creating a set of standards so that crappy monopolies like Mcrosoft and Google simply cannot occur.
What’s astounding is to hear those who have basjhed MS for comprising a restraint of trade getting behind Google, a clear monopolistic enterprise that only can afford all those failures because they have the pot locked for web browsing ads. Google has contributed zilch to the technology and deserves zilch. It’s a sad commentary on the immaturity of the computer and web business. We deserve better than the xrap that’s out there now, and we DON’T need Gooogle to steal Firefox and then claim they’ve created “from scratch” (!!!) yet another web browser.

]]>