
Fireside Chat with Paul Graham [video] - rnc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWh_iAG9cGw
======
sparkzilla
For those interested, I have collected many of PG's interviews (as well as
those of Sam Altman and Jessica Livingston): [http://newslines.org/paul-
graham/](http://newslines.org/paul-graham/)

~~~
wamatt
Nice one. Oh and here's a random thought, you might want to try including the
transcripts. This may help with increasing Google organic traffic.

~~~
sparkzilla
Thanks. Can the transcripts be added automatically from Google?

------
bane
I really liked his idea that the users teach you about what you've made.
That's a really great philosophical point.

I think his comments about open source are interesting and how he's never seen
anybody open source too much. I humbly disagree, I've definitely seen a few
startups get nowhere because they ended up open sourcing their entire product,
meaning nobody needed to pay them for anything.

There needs to be a strategy for open sourcing your code...for example if
dropbox open sourced their client, they'd still own the relationship to their
storage back-end and act as the broker for that data. Their client isn't
really worth anything anyways...so it doesn't really matter.

But let's say Microsoft open sourced Office and Windows. Okay, now where do
they make their money? They're pretty much just left with services work, and
services and support often only exist if the software has problems. Anybody
else can then come along and code away their services business by fixing bugs,
making better interfaces etc.

Open sourcing needs to have a valid business strategy and it can't just be
putting your company's investment up on github because that feels good.

~~~
seiji
_Office and Windows. Okay, now where do they make their money? They 're pretty
much just left with services work, and services and support often only exist
if the software has problems._

Did you just casually imply Office and Windows don't have problems?

Fun fact: open source support isn't about fixing problems, it's about having
someone to contractually blame _in case_ of any problems, not _because_ there
are problems. It's more CYA and less TBD.

Also see the MonogDB model — release an open source platform full of bugs and
data loss edge cases, target people who don't really know what they're doing
so they build prototypes and platforms on top of it, then tell companies they
have to pay you if they want any help (and they _will_ need help since the
platform is fundamentally flawed in the first place).

 _Anybody else can then come along_

Technically, yes. But has that ever happened? If you open source your 5
million line code base, _you_ still have the expertise, not some outsider.

There's also the reverse problem of open source platforms with no owner (e.g.
the ecosystem of ever-growing, zero-authority hadoop vomit).

 _Open sourcing needs to have a valid business strategy_

The valid business strategy is nobody will trust you if you aren't open source
these days. The age of vendor-vanish = product-vanish is quickly going away.
Companies (as buyers) prefer widely used and open source solutions in favor of
closed source voodoo that works "just because we say so" with bad
documentation and a tiny userbase.

~~~
bane
> Did you just casually imply Office and Windows don't have problems?

No, I think you misread or I wasn't clear. Microsoft (and other companies)
support service contracts exist purely because of inadequacies in the
software. Microsoft wins twice because they sell the software and sell/certify
the service organizations.

> Technically, yes. But has that ever happened? If you open source your 5
> million line code base, you still have the expertise, not some outsider.

Yes. Why do you think your employees will stay with your company forever?

All a competitor has to do is put out a job req "looking for expert in foo,
will pay top $$$" and hire away your expert staff. This does happen and it
often happens because purchasing organizations prefer to "separate interests"
between vendors and service companies hoping that it forces vendors to build
better software that require fewer services. This creates a market for service
competitors, and if they're willing to make smaller margins, can pay your
people, the people you have in _your_ company doing service work more.

For example, how many people who don't work for Red Hat offer Red Hat support
services?

> The valid business strategy is nobody will trust you if you aren't open
> source these days.

I don't really disagree. Which is why you need to have a strategy that lets
you check the "is open source" box with a buyer, while still protecting your
business advantage.

~~~
seiji
_For example, how many people who don 't work for Red Hat offer Red Hat
support services?_

Oh, I've no idea. I'd only go to RedHat for "official" RedHat support?

Another intersecting approach is something like Postgres or MySQL. The
ownership of the code is irrelevant at this point and we just have independent
consultancies (or integrators) providing expert-level services. But, that's
almost a complete inversion of the original premise here of open sourcing your
own product while retaining product control + revenue from control of said
product. (which sounds like what you're afraid of most general "we open
sourced our product" situations devolving into.)

 _In general_ , I've seen little interest from random Internet companies in
providing support for private open sourced software. Nobody _wants_ to spend
months/years understanding your software to compete against your
knowledge/expertise (unless you get _really_ successful, but that's a whole
other game).

~~~
bane
> Oh, I've no idea. I'd only go to RedHat for "official" RedHat support?

Let's just say, it's pretty big.

Bonus, you don't need to hire an outside firm to administer your Red Hat
servers if you just hire somebody with "can administer Red Hat" on a job req.

Here's a short list just to fill out your curiosity (the real one is likely
much longer):

[http://www.linuxit.com/linux-support-services/](http://www.linuxit.com/linux-
support-services/)

[http://www.dcvast.com/software_support_services/redhat_linux...](http://www.dcvast.com/software_support_services/redhat_linux.aspx)

[http://www.netdigix.com/](http://www.netdigix.com/)

[http://h17007.www1.hp.com/us/en/enterprise/servers/supportma...](http://h17007.www1.hp.com/us/en/enterprise/servers/supportmatrix/exceptions/rhel_exceptions.aspx)

and so on.

Red Hat as a company more or less exists these days on name brand. In fact,
their EBITD margin is negative despite their stock price riding high.

------
badloginagain
I really like the bits of historical interest that comes out in the interview,
naval battles and Archimedes- you get the sense that he just loves learning,
even if it's not "useful" knowledge. What I like most is how that just comes
out as supplementary asides, reinforcing a point or framing a metaphor.

Definitely the kind of guy you could just talk to for hours.

~~~
baudehlo
He's a very interesting guy who I thoroughly enjoyed interacting with at the
anti spam conferences he set up. As a speaker at the conference we got to
visit his home where he graciously hosted many anti spam geeks with his own
resources. Our conversations were always interesting and funny - he has that
smart almost British wit about him.

He's been incredibly lucky to be a smart person who managed to make his seed
money, and then use it very wisely to turn it into what I guess is now many
times what he invested.

It is a shame he has become so busy lately that he can't interact as easily
with the "common man" any more. I emailed him not long ago and got no reply. I
guess that happens when you have hundreds or thousands of emails in your inbox
every day (a problem he has listed often as one he'd like to see solved by a
startup).

------
AlwaysBCoding
I've always thought that Apple's horrific App Store approval process was the
single biggest threat to the Apple empire. Glad to hear someone else speak out
about this. It's seriously absurd that there's an arbitrarily enforced
stopgate that prevents you from deploying code. It's a complete disaster. If
someone could make a way to instantly deploy code to mobile phones every
developer would switch in a second.

The Apple App Store approval process is like that one random weak spot on the
Death Star. The only question is what replaces it?

~~~
CamperBob2
Plenty of people are OK with the strict curation that the App Store's approval
process represents. It's the reason why we don't have to run AV apps on our
iPhones and iPads, after all.

If there's a Death Star-level weakness to the App Store, IMHO it's the app
discovery process. It consistently rewards the loudest marketers rather than
the best developers.

~~~
jfoster
"It's the reason why we don't have to run AV apps on our iPhones and iPads"

That's just not true. Android and desktop OSX are counter-examples. It is
security measures like sandboxing of apps that prevent mobile devices from
needing anti-virus software.

On desktop Windows, programs used to have unfettered access to the filesystem,
including Windows DLLs that were major parts of the OS. Looking back, it
actually seems incredible that it wasn't more of a disaster than it was.

~~~
CamperBob2
There has been enough nastyware on Android platforms to at least somewhat
justify Apple's approach. Sandboxes have a way of springing leaks.

I was 100% on the opposite side of this debate when the iOS SDK first became
available. (This was what I had to say about their limitations at the time, if
it lends me any street cred:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVkqbycvuKw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVkqbycvuKw)
).

But at this point the restrictions I objected to have mostly been lifted, to
the point where they don't interfere with the vast majority of developers who
aren't looking to do something slimy. It's very nice to be able to download
and install apps without having to wonder what the developer's real agenda is.

------
alayne
I wish Paul would give posting on hn another shot. I'm sure he's busy, but I
always thought he had interesting perspectives even if I didn't always agree.

~~~
bane
PG always came across to me as unusually thoughtful and smart and friendly
(let's be honest he's a great guy), but never enjoyed the kind of combative
debate that goes on in web forums.

~~~
FlaceBook
> PG always came across to me as unusually thoughtful and smart and friendly
> (let's be honest he's a great guy)

He's also amazing and incredible and handsome and witty and strong and I love
him oh so much.

~~~
logicallee
if your point is that your parent commenter is sucking up, it misses the mark.
there's no particular reason to say nice things about PG - other than that
somebody feels that way.

------
yesimahuman
Love the idea of owning consumer and then being "upwind" from enterprise. From
my experience in the dev tools space, that's exactly the pattern we've been
seeing.

------
plg
"it's that"

