This poster has missed the point of Jason Fried's post by a cosmic distance.

He talked to a CEO last week who fell ass-backwards into a huge deal that he can't win without recruiting 2-3 "enterprise SAS sales persons" "ASAP". Why, if he followed Fried's advice, he'd never close those deals!

You want to take the advice of people like Scott Olson if this is the situation you'd like to find yourself in: bouncing from make-or-break high-6-figures enterprise deals dogfighting with 3 other companies doing exactly the same thing you do. There is indeed a playbook that most direct sales enterprise software companies run from, and if you don't mind quietly crying into your hands for 5 minutes every day when you start your day sitting in the lobby of a telecom company you're pitching in Jackson Mississippi, you are well served by its plays[1].

I can't read Fried's mind, but here is the sense I get from how he writes --- and this may be my own bias here --- he would rather gnaw off and consume raw his own big toes than run this kind of company. He's writing his own playbook for his company. And in that playbook, he doesn't "staff up". He's unlikely to wind up in a situation where he has to delude himself that he can ramp up 2 sales reps so that they can close a single deal whose window is days to close.

Instead, the point of Fried's model appears to be: grow headcount as slowly as possible, and instead of posting job reqs, leave yourself maximally exposed to motivated talent. Exposed: running a company that people love, and that people are inclined to ping for openings. Motivated: people who are seeking out the opportunity to work with you. Talent: people who can prove themselves with something other than a sheet of paper that looks identical to everyone else's paper.

Scott Olson's friend can't do that. He runs an enterprise software company that needs "Enterprise SAS Salespersons". Guessing, regardless of the "deep technical rocket science" involved, that top talent isn't beating down the doors to get an interview at that company --- unless it's attached to a monstrous 1099 consulting rate.

But, I mean, what do I know? All I can say for reasonably sure is that Fried is crying his way to the bank because of this mean post.

By the way: I've lived in Chicago all my life, started 2 companies here, one of which I'm at now, and I don't know anyone who (a) works for the park district or (b) is hiring people with UofC MBA's. Scott might just have needed a better social circle here, and some different career choices. As someone who has spent a couple years in the valley, I will attest to the fact that it is easier to find people talking about the "rocket ride days at Netscape" there. That wasn't enough of a win for me to stay, but hey, if "heady stuff" like that does it for you, mazel tov! You be a mensch in the valley, I'll keep growing a business in Chicago.

[1] This playbook is also the reason every VC-funded enterprise software company with less than 10MM revs has products with pilot pricing at $70,000, and why they all have the exact same 3-person VP/Marketing, Dir/Marketing, and Marketing Communications Manager marketing team, solely responsible for giving the CEO a "marketing plan" that in no way influences the sole product the whole company develops. It is also the playbook that recruits 3 "sales engineers" so that there are enough people staffing the pointless industry conferences the playbook dictates they must spend $200,000 on every year. And it's the reason you're getting fucking obnoxious phone calls from "inside sales" people every other day.

And since nobody who actually knew what they were doing would ever go out of their way to subject themselves to this kabuki startup built out of PowerPoint "lego" slides and strip club visits, you do indeed need resumes to execute this plan.

But hey. Little stress balls with your company's name on it. Don't forget the perks.

It is pretty surprising that Apple hasn't been called on this cheap PR. Every person standing in line is being used as a stooge by Apple to get press, and the media always abides. This is the first article I've seen yet that points out this obvious exploitation of the Apple faithful.

It's positively archaic.

Just to be clear, as the article notes the people standing in line RESERVED a phone. They already have their spot. Apple makes them prove it by standing in line for 6 hours for the television cameras.

When the Motorola Droid was released, in comparison, I remember a lot of articles mocking the lack of lines. Yet somehow they sold 250,000 in the first week. It's kind of amazing what modern fulfillment processes can do, even if it doesn't lead to cult-like turnouts.

No advice is universal and the limited application of the 37signals crews' advice is apparent.

This article is unnecessary.

And it reads like it was written by an MBA-type who is upset that successful people are ignoring the gospel truth he was presented in college. There are very few hard-and-fast rules in any profession.

Is it really, really so bad to wait a couple days or weeks longer to get your precious fucking iPhone?

I hate queuing in general, but this is the kind of line-waiting that literally makes no sense at all to me.

Can someone explain to me why this Wikipedia article is at the top of the front page?

Oh god please not more "X reasons for Y"

9 Reasons Why You Should Hate "X Reasons for Y" posts:

1. They're overdone

2. They're uncreative

3. They're unoriginal

4. They're a crutch

5. They're assembly-line writing

6. They're used by tabloids to appeal to supermarket zombies

7. They've helped turn respectable mags into tabloids (or are a symptom of it, not sure which came first)

8. They're psychologically manipulative (I don't know how, I just know it)

9. They work

:)