This is more common than you might think, particularly on older iPhones. I co-own a repair store in Austin, TX and we get several of these every month--usually on older iPhones that have been dropped "just right". (Not saying yours was the fault of a drop, but if you leave it plugged in 99% of the time, that was probably your issue.)
Anyway, it's stupid easy to replace these batteries--they're just glued in, usually, so you just buy a replacement battery and back cover, use a tool to pry up the battery, place a new battery in along with some adhesive to hold it down, and pop the new back cover on. One pro tip: Buy at least one more new battery than you need, as some percentage of them, no matter where you buy them from, are defective.
We do these in-store for iPhone 4/5 in under 10 minutes--I don't doubt you can do something similar on the N4.
A couple people here have said "Sales", but in my opinion (technical founder who usually takes non-technical roles), the most important is hiring.
I often talk to non-technical people who want to start a tech company, and I ask them really baseline questions about the tech people they want to hire: "What language do you want someone to be able to code in?"
Usually, I get glazed-over eyes followed by a defensive response like "Well, I just need a developer! They should be able to pick a language to code in! That's their job!"
This is exactly the wrong answer, and I typically leave the conversation with a comment about how they really need to understand the basics of "which language does what", even if they, themselves, do not want to be a programmer.
It is so much easier to hire technical talent when you can at least communicate in their language--when you can have a real conversation about priorities, UI/UX, and how long this darn thing will take to get out the door!
So many non-technical founders really do not get this, and I believe it's one of the huge reasons non-technical founders will continue to struggle with founding tech companies.
Actually, you're wrong. Many languages (and other technologies) are versatile and can do different things, so they're not as important here. What is needed are people who know how to design and build the product/prototype, and leave them to decide which technology to use.
I am not talking from a "Hacker News" perspective here, where we can debate the details of functional programming or talk about which language makes the most sense. I am speaking of conversations (that I've actually had, on a regular basis) that go like this:
Me: So do you plan on building that as a web app, or a mobile app?
Non-technical founder: Um. I don't know. Both?
Me: Okay, do you understand that you will probably need at least 2 different developers (and possibly 3 or more, depending on which mobile app platforms you use) to help you build that out?
NTF: It's a great idea! I just need a developer! Don't you know some developers you can introduce me to?
The conversation is on an entirely different level from most of the ones we'd have here.
It's not a "Hacker News perspective", it's the basic principle of anything. If you have a car and want to take a ride, you need a driver or you'll crash. If we're talking about a non-technical founder starting a tech startup, the first advice to the is only one: find a technical co-founder and don't even think about starting it without them. What you're describing should be the job for that technical co-founder, and not for our non-tech guy (or gal) to do. Unless they are also willing to learn enough to become technical enough to play that role too; that takes a lot of time and effort to do right, but it's a viable route too.
So, next time you have a conversation like the one above, don't waste your time on trying to teach tech stuff to non-tech people -- simply, just tell them "find a tech co-founder".
Actually you're wrong. (Sorry, but I just felt the need the illustrate the obnoxiousness of your original reply).
I have to side with Erica on this one for the simple reason that you'll never be able to attract a good developer or a technical co-founder with this attitude of throwing your hands up in the air and eyes glazing over. That doesn't mean that you ignorantly blunder in and tell developers how to do their job, but it means that whatever area your company needs to move in you are keen to learn enough to have an intelligent conversation about it.
I've met dozens (hundreds?) of wantrepreneurs with this attitude of not wanting to know anything about the tech, and invariably they see themselves as brilliant masterminds who just need a peon to execute their vision. Little do they realize that the success of any tech company depends on bridging the gap between the technical execution and the business reality. I am much less turned off by a business guy who is ignorant but trying to learn about tech versus someone who feels they can start a tech company without learning anything about technology.
The problem with your answer is that nontechnical people will never be able to hire technical people well. They simply do not have the skills to judge technical talent; at best they can hire based on secondary characteristics like "they really sound like they know what they are talking about". Nontechnical founders who successfully hire good tech talent are just lucky.
I think this same maxim goes for tech people trying to hire sales talent, or nonfinance hiring a CFO, etc. You're just not equipped to judge, and you don't have the time to take CPA classes (or learn to code, or get an MBA, etc) just to hire someone.
The situation is not really this grim, because you should have a social network which can help vet hiring choices - either because the candidate is already known, or because you know someone that can do the interview for you. But "knowing people who can help you hire" is not really a skill.
I think you're right, but it's more nuanced. Nontechnical people can be very helpful early in the recruiting funnel though, and that's a critical time suck/skillset that the technical folks don't have to invest in and can instead focus on their core role.
I know bridges can be built out of metal or wood! I'll just hire an engineer and let them figure it out.
Which is great, because that's exactly what the engineer knows how to do. This should be the same case with the technical co-founder, if not, they're the wrong person to choose as your technical co-founder.
Anybody qualified to be CTO of a company should be able to asses the needs of the software, architect the solution, get up to speed on any technologies they're not yet familiar with, and implement the solution.
Understanding the product doesn't require to know in what language it has been built (unless you're selling a library that can be called from a certain language but I don't think that the kind of product we have in mind here). What you say is akin to a car salesman knowing how the car factory works.
Frameworks and languages have a part in defining the structure of the organization, how development grows, how people's work is measured, and so on. It will ultimately have a significant role in office politics. Once a company scales past 25-100 people, developer politics will be there to stay regardless of language. So you have to pick what kind of trade offs you want to deal with. And a founder should be the informed final word on that crucial choice
Simple answer: Only take meetings with VC firms and angels who have direct experience in the area where your product helps the most.
I mentioned to you in a reply, below, that my marketing software company got immediate YESes from angels who had been leaders of marketing teams and intuitively understood the need for our software. I think my record time to close an angel was under 2 minutes. For those who had never led or been part of a marketing team, it was an uphill battle the entire way.
Once I learned that filter, I was able to raise money more quickly, with much higher close ratio.
You might be surprised on that. I got many of the same style of rejections you did. I got very few clear-cut "No"s and lots of "We like what you're doing and it makes sense, but we need a bit more time." Which is the most frustrating form of "No", as I suspect you know.
My guess as to what made us different than Airbnb circa 2008--maybe some of these apply to you, too:
1) Founder with previous exit/acquisition in the tech space
2) Product had some traction (paying customers, including a F500 company)
3) Product was in a domain that most VC's/angels didn't have experience with (in my case, software designed for marketing teams) -- some were nice enough to outright reject us based on the fact that they had never been in marketing; the people who had previously been in marketing almost immediately saw the need and said "YES" right away; many of them saw that we had traction but felt like they needed to understand the market better to see what we were seeing, so to speak.
Spoken like someone who has never done a long road trip in a Miata. :)
I have owned two Miatas, most recently a 2008 PRHT Grand Touring, which is about the most "luxury" Miata you can buy. I also have a 2015 Mercedes-Benz C400, which I've done 3 long road trips in since buying it in Oct. 2014.
The Miata and the Benz actually get comparable gas mileage (Miata: 29mpg; Benz: 26mpg) on the highway, so the difference there is negligible.
The huge difference is how you feel after having sat in each car for several hours. Miata seats are great for short road trips or the track, but absolutely horrifying after about 3-4 hours on the road. Plus, you can barely stuff any luggage in it!
As someone who owned and used 2 Miatas as daily drivers (and each one being my only car!) from the year 2000 to 2014, you won't find a bigger Miata fan than me, but you have to be realistic--5 straight hours in that thing is enough to make anyone beg for mercy. The Benz is so much better equipped (OMG Bluetooth!), and so much more comfortable, that there is no comparison.
Also, the C400 is pretty zippy. It's not a Miata, but it's a nice sporty feel.
This is one time when having the actual headline on the article can be misleading. The first thing I think when I see "A note from [company]'s CEO" is that the company is going out of business. My second guess would be announcing a funding round.
How about something like "Shyp Transitions Couriers to W2 Employees"?
This also encourages people to submit paywalled articles because they have better headlines, when (I assume) most of us would prefer to read it from the source.
This is like arguing that every brand of cereal should be labeled "Box of Cereal" because it is a box that contains cereal. It's possible for a label to be completely true and completely uninformative at the same time.
Hi Kevin and Sam, I'd like your advice on startups that connect real people/experts with those who need them.
Background: I'm building freedom.biz, which is currently a course for retail business owners who'd like to take their business to the next level. I sent out a survey to those on my interest list, and it became clear that I couldn't personally fulfill all their needs. However, I know people who can.
I'd love to build a company that connects vetted experts with the business owners who need them. I've seen startups in this realm, but they all feel generic and unfocused. What do you think would be a competitive advantage in this realm? What would you like to see that's not out there right now?