When working on a project, don't solve problem that haven't arrived yet. It doesn't mean we don't know them, but we need to focus on the main problem first. The youtube guys didn't think of copyright videos before they started youtube. They were set to solve the web video sharing problem, and that's what they did. Stay focus; that's the reason we're working on the project in the first place. We're not working on a prject to look for future problem; we're working on a project to get the best solution to a main problem.
I have to disagree. There is a main goal, there are implications. We need to solve both of them to deliver good/great product or at least have proper precaution. Every now and then I remind myself about vista problem and how they got class action lawsuit.
I completely disagree. It's shoddy and inefficient to wait for a problem to arrive. Imagine if the guys at Google just sat around waiting for their server to kick the bucket before they fixed it; they'd be out of business.
Problems aren't mutually exclusive, I can fix more than one at once. If my server is bust, it doesn't matter if my ISP is cutting me off in a week, but if all it takes is a call to another ISP to get another connection before the deadline then I'm not going to turn 1 week of having a downed server into two weeks with no useable service.
Only solving problems as they arrive is the work of the mediocre, the good fix things before they arrive. By your own example, the YouTube guys -didn't- think of copyrighted videos and they got a $1 billion lawsuit! That isn't a smart thing to allow to happen, if precident gets set against YouTube in one single case, they're broke and gone because they didn't think ahead.
"Imagine if the guys at Google just sat around waiting for their server to kick the bucket before they fixed it; they'd be out of business."
Funny that you said that. Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken but I've understood that's exactly what they do at Google. Due to their scaling, self-replicating, and dynamic architecture, they figured out that it's cheaper to just let the boxes fry and replace them rather than trying to maintain and service their gazillion servers. I don't know how many boxes they replace each day but I'd guess it's routine.
Obviously you're missing the point. In google's case a server problem is a main problem. It's a software company. I didn't say only solve problems as they arrive. I said don't waste time on problem that haven't occurred yet. What that means is stop making excuses; look for reasons instead. In youtube case, it was still acquired for $1.65 billion. Youtube revolutionize the way people share and watch videos online. That $1 billion lawsuit probably will be dismissed. Worst case scenario, it still won't kill youtube. By the way, name me one succesful company that haven't been sued yet? goole, microsoft recently iphone from apple.. all them. "If you haven't been sued, you haven't made it". The point is start your project now, stop worried about employee health insurance. Deal with problems you have today, don't worry about problems you will have in 5-10 years. Stop making excuses; find reasons.
I think the point is to be a successful company and not get sued.
Getting sued is patently moronic, and being proud of it is more so. Wal-Mart is being sued for 11 billion (and growing), and they make 11 billion profit. If Wal-Mart doesn't get profit for a year it will have to sacrifice 11 billion of assets and put every company around it into a better position. Thus shareholder/stock decrease and a vast loss of capital meaning it'll be harder to recover from.
Wal-Mart can suffer it, probably with some dire consiquences, but it won't disappear, now YouTube:
So far YouTube isn't worth shit. It is yet to turn a profit, and a $1 billion lawsuit means that around 60% of YouTube's capital has to go. Capital = Equipment. YouTube is gone if it loses 60% of itself, not to mention there'll likely be multiple and far larger suits on the way from Sony, Disney, News Corporation and everyone else who wants a chunk and all of those three have a much bigger grivance than $1 billion; precedent means a Judge basically stamps these approved. I'd say easily it would amount to $20 billion as Sony owns Colombia, Tristar and MGM as well as Sony Pictures; that's easily $8 billion right there.
Now you do the math on that, how can youtube even exist when it's about -$19 billion? I'm serious, where does your belief come from that worst case youtube still won't be killed. It'll be a 404 if it loses.
Whilst merely thinking about the future will get you nowhere, never thinking about the future will jeopordize your company to no end. YouTube should have thought ahead, Wal-Mart shouldn't have been sexist pigs... and perhaps you should worry your ass off about Employee Health Insurance, cause I bet Wal-Mart didn't expect a Class Action worth an entire years profit. I don't think you want to lose an entire years profit either, especially when it's your ownly take home money.
So I'm serious, and I'm not missing any point. Think or your company won't last long. The creators of YouTube likely got lucky... if they're not still with the company. And if they are with the company, well Karma is a bitch now isn't it.
If you're going to solve a problem that's not an issue yet, you'll never create anything of value. You'll just be in a looping of solving problem that doesn't exist. Because of youtube, the video copyright law will change. We start startups to make the world a better place: change laws, change the way we do things; not staying on the same corrupted path we're on. When goog started, people were concern on how goog could make sure not to index webpages without webmasters permission. That was an issue; but goog didn't think it was important. Now webmasters pays $1000 of dollars for their link to be listed on goog first page search. Sometimes an issue appears because the mass population hasn't adopt to it yet. I truly believe ones can break any law or disregard a problem as long as he/she has a purpose reason. If you don't agree, ask the US commander-in-chief.
In general, I agree. But was there a huge demand for online video before YouTube launched? They were smart because they made it super simple, but they were a chicken chasing an egg in the beginning.
