Sure, but parallel to the mobile device (featurephone) ecosystem, there was also the old smartphone ecosystem which grew out of the PDA market where you could install your own program without paying the middleman. I would argue that modern day smartphone is more similar to the old smartphones than the featurephones.

I doubt it was because people wanted The App Store. If the PocketPC/Windows Mobile had an App Store it would not have won.

Featurephones had App Stores like Verizon’s “Get It Now” and it was obvious that they were money grabs like Apple’s.

Apple and Google won the game because the phones were powerful enough to make web browsing feasible, and had great text input.

If nobody had thought of app stores, it would have been trivial to distribute .ipa’s and .apk’s on the Web just like Windows and Mac software still predominantly is.

Microsoft word also auto inserts em-dashes through.

The technical cofounder becomes less important as the company grows through.

Can you say a bit more here, genuinely curious as to why.

I made an observation that, as a company grows, there are more opportunities for increasing revenue from the business side than from the technical side.

Technical is important, but just saying that it is easier for the business side to toot their horn.

Doesn't that make them less important? Just hire people to do that, it is possible to hire business people.

For example if you want to sell to X market, hire a person from those companies, that isn't rocket science.

Business doesn't scale if tech can't :)

Depends who's wanting that look.

Technology doesn't stop scaling in complexity the larger you get, or the business hits a ceiling on what it can hit in revenue and growth.

It's cool if b-school teaches other wise :)

Both the business founder and technical founder has to grow.

Which one can learn to scale to the moon easier?

I wish all my friends well on any side of co-founding.

The thing that doesn't work is trying to grift someone else's hard work and leverage them.

Builders build.. sellers sell.

Learn to deliver and ship consistently or someone will.

No idea why this is downvoted, its completely true. Only inexperienced people think otherwise

Because it's not. Anyone who fails to grow, technical or business gets replaced in funded startups anyways, not just technical.

Something like over 90% of startup founders get replaced as CEO if it grows faster than they can.

I remember Facebook group - somewhere in the early 2010s, the group feature disappeared. Years later, group appeared again and I had to re-apply to get back into the group. Perhaps group was killed to boost public sharing.

Yes, it is really up to Adobe's marketing team to make sure that customers are not misunderstanding the plan. If the misunderstanding continues, then the government might end up stepping in.

Ahahahahahah! Not this government, that's for sure.

Those of us working in jobs use the same couple of functions in our office products. We don't really go and find features.

In the 90s, Windows was simple enough that I was able to read tech articles and understand a lot of what is going on inside, up to the point of Windows 2000, and to a certain extend, Windows XP. That completely changed with Vista/7 where I can no longer recognize the name of many processes that are running or understand what actions/situations make my computer lag.

Nowasdays, even through I don't worry anymore as Windows 11 is happy as long as you give it a quadcore cpu, ram, and an SSD, sometimes I still wonder why it writes 40GB to the SSD everyday.

I am slightly older and I don't really remember very much from around when I started work after graduating. It's kind of sad that works consume a lot of my time but I have no memory to show for it.

Could you tell me what companies did the same thing in the mobile phone industry? Did those companies notify the user?

I can guarantee you every Pixel, Samsung, or Huawei phone had similar functionality built in but was never scrutinized.

I felt that Westwood's strategy games were built around their single-player campaign experience. As a result, their story, FMV, and gameplay were designed to support that focus. The simplity meant that players could get into the game easily.

However, this also meant that the gameplay wasn't well-suited for deep strategy or multiplayer, which was what RTS ended up being about down the road.