DISQUS

Yeah, I think YC pays some of your legal fees, because they have a vested interest in making sure your ducks are in a row to protect their own investment as well.

I find a few problems with this. One, you really ignore costs. Sure, you can get a few hours with a lawyer for free, but you can't keep going back and asking them questions. Nor will they probably write up your LLC documents for you for free, or research a really in-depth legal question for you for free. And the really good lawyers aren't just sitting around waiting for 20 year old kids who know nothing to come walking in expecting to get all their answers for free. I'm sorry, but good legal advice costs money.

And I think you'll agree that a lot of people at Hacker News don't have money. They're bootstrappers, get a prototype out then worry about it later types who don't have the capital for good legal advice. So what is your advice for them? Don't start until you can afford a lawyer? Go with a crappy cheap lawyer? I think the philosophy of Hacker News is "don't wait, do your start-up now." If everyone waited until they could afford a good lawyer to answer every legal worry they had, then we would have a lot less companies out there.

I'm certain we both agree that legalities are a huge deal, and doing it wrong can turn into huge problems. But I think you're ignoring the fact that some people who aren't you might be fine with that risk. You're assuming everyone wants to mitigate risk as much as possible. But what if people are perfectly fine with a huge amount of risk if it means they get their company up and running? For those people, the advice they get on Hacker News is good enough. They don't have the capital for real legal advice and they don't care. If they get sued and it all falls apart, well, thats just what happens. They want a quick and dirty answer that might be right and they move on, using their available capital for something else. Others have done it that way and so will they.

Your article makes the assumption that having your affairs in good legal order is a necessity for starting a successful company. Its not. You can have a successful company with completely messed up legal affairs and a substandard or even false knowledge of what the law really is. Will it be risky? Sure. Can it fall apart at any time and go from successful to huge crash in a moment? Yes. But for the time being, it will be a successful company, and at any time they can change things around and pay for legal advice.

Thanks.

I second all the people who have mentioned getting out of the office. And not just to a place you're already familiar with, but somewhere brand new or changed since you've been. The MOMA, the Sculpture Garden in Astoria, the train out of Grand Central to the Appalachian trail on weekends. Someplace where your phone doesn't work.... :)

Is there a way to find out when those happen without Twitter?

Sometimes the web cannot replace real world interactions with people you find entertaining and intellectual. Plan a big lunch and talk to people one on one.

It seems a common question people always have is when to go it alone, when to raise money, when to start looking for investors, that sort of thing. What about a few case studies on some companies that raised money/decided not to raise money. Give people some ideas on why it might be a bad idea to spend your time raising money, and when it might be helpful. Explain why you would want to raise money, and give people some tools for examining their own businesses a little more closely to figure out what might be best for them.

@Luke - it encourages small and independent software developers. But you're right, it discourages large developers and people selling applications for large amounts of money. On the other hand, its not like large developers will be losing money. Plus they can always sign thier own agreement with Apple on the side.

The 30% deal is an incredibly good deal if you're a tiny developer, because setting up all that Apple offers and maintaining merchant accounts, etc, is actually a rather large amount of work and cash outlay. Basically, if they hadn't offered it this way, you wouldn't have the interest from the developer community. In fact, the way Apple has structured it works best. Independent and small developers are encouraged to develop because it costs them nothing upfront. Large developers will also come, because even after 30% they will still be making money, and the largest sellers will just sign their own deals.

I think there's room for both. After all, there are a lot of people that want a lot of different things from their phone. A closed system does have its advantages in terms of standardization (like we standardize html, USB, WiFi specs, etc). People don't seem to realize that when Apple sees a problem, they can just open it up a little bit to solve it.

I think the complaints about the system come from the wrong perspective. People complaining about restrictions in the SDK are developers, not consumers. If people are happy with the Apps out there, then there's no problem with the restrictions. If they're not, and there are killer apps out there that people want, Apple can just allow them and solve the problem.

People talk about the openness of Android, but I really wonder how open it will be. I mean, VOIP over 3G destroys a mobile operator's business model. Do you really think they'll allow it on an Android phone any more than an Apple phone

I think his number of phones out there sounds a little high. Ugh, :) I hate when people call things [insert gadget here] killers. Especially something as silly as a gadget thats a phone and one thats not. I mean, if you need a phone, why would you buy a DS? They're not exactly comparable gadgets when it comes to core function.

I think Apple's App Store has the best implementation, which will differentiate it. How many DS owners have their credit card on file with an online store? How many other gadget owners will have access to an app that fills every possible purpose? If there's a need for an iPhone App, someone will build it. iPhone apps aren't hard to write. How many developers know the process for making a Nintendo DS app or getting it sold? Other gadgets have the pieces, just not the whole shebang. Thats what's going to make this big. .

I think Android will be great, but by definition, it will be fragmented. All different phones, different controls, screen sizes. Games especially will suffer, as they will have to be adapted. I think a few strong phones will emerge to take the market, and you'll see developers gearing their apps specifically to certain android phones (or groups of phones with similar specs) that have large followings. Microsoft can do well if they develop a more consumer oriented attitude and style.

I actually think he underestimates the amount of money that will come out of this. iPhone owners are generally affluent, which is one thing, and Apple has micro-payments down pat, I'd say one of the few people to get it right. They've made it easy, popular and they've gotten great developers on board, which means great choice for consumers. I can see myself buying way more than $10, just like I buy way more than $10 in music. $9.99 is an exceptionally good price point for full fledged games, and I think they'll be snapped up. Don't forget, everyone who gets an iTunes gift card can also use them on apps. I think he didn't think of that one.

Some of us are already on the case...