<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is This a Feature OR a Company?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bomega.com/2008/02/19/is-this-a-feature-or-a-company/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bomega.com/2008/02/19/is-this-a-feature-or-a-company/</link>
	<description>Internet Entrepreneur, Public Speaker, Blogger</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:21:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jansegers</title>
		<link>http://bomega.com/2008/02/19/is-this-a-feature-or-a-company/comment-page-1/#comment-9880</link>
		<dc:creator>jansegers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bomega.com/2008/02/19/is-this-a-feature-or-a-company/#comment-9880</guid>
		<description>Simple things tend to grow organically into complex ones. I think this is due to the flexibility of them to adapt based on bottom-up input feedback loops.

Top-down reorganisation fails very often, bottom-up reshuffling is much less costly and generally more efficient.

del.icio.us , shoulddothis.com , sellaband.com , flipfact.com, kiva.org and others are also based on rethinking and simplicity...

More recent examples are hellotxt.com, instapaper.com and babl.nl .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Simple things tend to grow organically into complex ones. I think this is due to the flexibility of them to adapt based on bottom-up input feedback loops.</p>
<p>Top-down reorganisation fails very often, bottom-up reshuffling is much less costly and generally more efficient.</p>
<p>del.icio.us , shoulddothis.com , sellaband.com , flipfact.com, kiva.org and others are also based on rethinking and simplicity&#8230;</p>
<p>More recent examples are hellotxt.com, instapaper.com and babl.nl .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Rafer</title>
		<link>http://bomega.com/2008/02/19/is-this-a-feature-or-a-company/comment-page-1/#comment-9878</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Rafer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:12:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bomega.com/2008/02/19/is-this-a-feature-or-a-company/#comment-9878</guid>
		<description>as intended, boris, as intended.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>as intended, boris, as intended.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten</title>
		<link>http://bomega.com/2008/02/19/is-this-a-feature-or-a-company/comment-page-1/#comment-9877</link>
		<dc:creator>Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:06:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bomega.com/2008/02/19/is-this-a-feature-or-a-company/#comment-9877</guid>
		<description>Thanks Scott for sharing that. Made me VERY curious too about who you are talking to...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Scott for sharing that. Made me VERY curious too about who you are talking to&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Rafer</title>
		<link>http://bomega.com/2008/02/19/is-this-a-feature-or-a-company/comment-page-1/#comment-9876</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Rafer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:27:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bomega.com/2008/02/19/is-this-a-feature-or-a-company/#comment-9876</guid>
		<description>I agree with the conclusion but came to it differently. I think the &quot;My company is just a feature, and I think that&#039;s OK,&quot; is a Web2 thing. Consumer broadband made it economically viable. I&#039;m starting to advise another EU company, whose name will remain quiet for brief time. Here&#039;s the response I suggested they send to one of the big EU VCs who had that exact critique:

&lt;blockquote&gt;We think that the current players, including us, are missing a large, disruptive opportunity in [redacted]. We&#039;re all being very Web1.0 and widgets-for-their-own-sake about it. The large opportunity is to treat [redacted] as shared social media and create the tectonic shift in our area that flickr did in photosharing and last.fm in music sharing. 

It means that:
-- yes, we care about a small set of features to the exclusion of a &quot;solution&quot; by the traditional definition.
-- broad usage is more critical to us than attracting users to our particular destination site.
-- vertical market targeting will happen but after we see what segments organically take up our new offer.
-- we&#039;ve figured out how to put off fundraising until after the summer and are now figuring out what milestones we need to hit before that time. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

I created this cleaned up text from my initial private version to the founder:
 &lt;blockquote&gt;wow is [this VC] in for a rude awakening. single product companies are
 the only decent early-stage investments and destination sites are a
 terrible idea. we haven&#039;t yet chatted about how the directory gets
 syndicated but pls put it on the agenda for wednesday.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with the conclusion but came to it differently. I think the &#8220;My company is just a feature, and I think that&#8217;s OK,&#8221; is a Web2 thing. Consumer broadband made it economically viable. I&#8217;m starting to advise another EU company, whose name will remain quiet for brief time. Here&#8217;s the response I suggested they send to one of the big EU VCs who had that exact critique:</p>
<blockquote><p>We think that the current players, including us, are missing a large, disruptive opportunity in [redacted]. We&#8217;re all being very Web1.0 and widgets-for-their-own-sake about it. The large opportunity is to treat [redacted] as shared social media and create the tectonic shift in our area that flickr did in photosharing and last.fm in music sharing. </p>
<p>It means that:<br />
&#8211; yes, we care about a small set of features to the exclusion of a &#8220;solution&#8221; by the traditional definition.<br />
&#8211; broad usage is more critical to us than attracting users to our particular destination site.<br />
&#8211; vertical market targeting will happen but after we see what segments organically take up our new offer.<br />
&#8211; we&#8217;ve figured out how to put off fundraising until after the summer and are now figuring out what milestones we need to hit before that time. </p></blockquote>
<p>I created this cleaned up text from my initial private version to the founder:</p>
<blockquote><p>wow is [this VC] in for a rude awakening. single product companies are<br />
 the only decent early-stage investments and destination sites are a<br />
 terrible idea. we haven&#8217;t yet chatted about how the directory gets<br />
 syndicated but pls put it on the agenda for wednesday.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

