Sweet. Something similar has been on my ideas list for a little while now. Glad someone is doing it, because it needs to be done, and the idea never excited me to action.
I see cost is mentioned a lot- but if BizSpark still runs how it used to, you can get a lot of tooling for free to start with, until you grow to where the cost wouldn't have as much impact on you. (http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/)
I have a friend in the Bay Area who started in .NET, and had so much trouble hiring programmers they scrapped it and started in a more fashionable platform.
I don't know what others' experience is like, but you might consider the ramifications of that potential problem.
So how do you get around your excuses to do nothing? What have you found to be most effective and least effective? I have some pretty terrible procrastination
I'm still learning to identify my sources of procrastination, so I'm not sure I've found anything effective yet.
On the other hand, I have done a couple of test/soft-launches this year, and have lost my fear of failing on those. That's more than I had done in the prior 10 years of being a programmer with aspirations, so it's progress.
I still struggle with probably doing too much before testing an idea, but I also struggle with doing too little, so I'm trying to find a balance. Learning, still, really.
"You could have asked any semi-competent engineer how would you build a digital music streaming service, and you would have received a similar general explanation."
The question I had after reading that was "who thought to ask about building a digital music streaming service in 1995?"
I was a little disappointed the post didn't cover that.
Statements like that remind me of the often cited "I could have done that" when people talk about art.
Patents are for actual technical implementation, not ideas for things which would be nice if they could actually be built. I don't get a patent for imagining how great it would be to have pizza delivered by slingshot even if no one has thought of it before, and even if it delivering pizza by slingshot turns out to revolutionize the world. I have to actually invent the slingshot capable of delivering a pizza accurately. And if that invention is obvious for a semi-competent engineer ("Put pizza on big pannk stuck in the ground. Pull back plank and release.") I won't be awarded a patent.
Now, I can agree that it's conceivable that there could be a benefit for allowing such ideas to be patented. For instance, I've always thought that it would be convenient to have a foot-pedal to turn on your kitchen sink so you didn't have to use your hands to turn on and off the water while you washed dishes. In my imagination, the everyone would immediately realize how great these pedals were if a single company started to produce them. And, in that case, everyone would enjoy a huge boost in utility.
However, there's no way for me to capture any of that surplus because I can't patent a foot pedal for a sink under the current definition of a patent. If I started a company to sell these foot pedal installation, and it became popular, a million other companies could enter the market and sink me. And, all things considered, it's probably better that way.
Every hospital I've ever been in has foot pedal operated sinks on the way into the OR's. Most of the gizmos either have a patent number or a pending etched somewhere on them.
The purpose of a patent is to compensate you not for inventing something but for disclosing exactly how it works. If what you did is straightforward, why should we grant a generation-long monopoly to whoever bothers to do it first?
I'm not advocating whether or not the patent should be awarded. Instead, I was trying to indicate that I felt like in 1995, it may not have been straightforward simply because not many people would have thought to even ask the question.
I guess one way to ask it might be, "how does one find a straightforward path to an unknown destination?"
Along the same line, the "Good, Bad, or Murky" value judgements are dependent on the POV, so it would be nice to see them explain how / why certain attacks got labelled one way as opposed to the others.
