Jonic 16 May 06

Matt, on the subject of Getting Real I’d like to ask you something…

I live in the UK and don’t have any of the cards that your payment system accepts… I’ve only got a Maestro card…

I’d love to get hold of a copy of GR, but you’re not letting me! Is it possible to make a payment via PayPal? I emailed to ask, but I received no reply, I assume you get far too many emails to deal with, so I thought I’d ask here too…

You can have my $19, you just need to let me give them to you!

If you could email me to let me know that would be great, thanks :)

Jeff Croft 16 May 06

This solidifies it. 37signals has officially tried to patent Common Sense�.

Dan Boland 16 May 06

Hurry up offenses in football pick up big chunks of yards by eliminating the �bureaucracy� of huddles and play-calling.

Huh? A true no-huddle offense relies on one of two scenarios — the quarterback calls each play at the line of scrimmage or a series of plays are determined beforehand on the sideline. Not having a play called at all almost never works because nobody knows what they’re supposed to do.

The helter skelter kind of offense you’re describing usually comes up at the end of the game when the team is losing. In this instance, the amount of success on offense is as much, if not more so, a result of the defensive scheme than what the offense is doing. (A prevent defense leaves gaps all over the secondary because the defense’s chief concern is not allowing a touchdown.)

You guys make a lot of sense a lot of the time, but not with this metaphor.

Jeff Croft 16 May 06

A “hurry up” offense and a “no huddle” offense are not the same thing — but now I’m just being pedantic. :)

John 16 May 06

The White Stripes embrace restraints by sticking to a simple formula: two people, streamlined songs, childlike drumming, keeping studio time to a minimum, etc

They don’t use a metronome either. Which reduces retakes.

Apple�s iPod differentiates itself from competitors by not offering features like a built-in FM radio or a voice recorder.

Which is why several of my friends didn’t buy one. I love mine, and hate the radio now. I guess it takes all kinds. Some people will love minimum design, and some will hate it.

Jeff Croft 16 May 06

Matt, I wasn’t litteraly suggesting you were trying to patent something. It was a joke. A joke about the fact that any time anyone does something intelligent, you claim they are Getting Real�.

Jeff Veen Got Real�. Apple Got Real�. The NFL is Getting Real�. The military is so Real�.

Isn’t it possible they’re just using common sense? If so, isn’t it possible that the “product” you’ve wrapped up and branded as Getting Real� is the same common sense we’ve been using for decades, just with an arguably prettier package and bow on it?

Basically, you’ve branded and are selling common sense. It’s brilliant. You are making money off something that everyone does, so you can’t point to litteraly millions of examples of it in practice as evidence of your methods. I commend you guys — it’s a really novel way to monetize something that no one else would have thought deserved monetization.

As for hurry-up/no-huddle. The no-huddle offense is absolutley a subset of the hurry-up. It’s not the same thing. That’s like saying that typography and design are the same thing. One is a subset of the other. But I understand that is totally irrlevenat to the point you were trying to make, and the point came across loud and clear. Which is why I called myself out on being pedantic before you could. But then you did anyway.

brad 16 May 06

When you’ve got a hammer, you have to be careful to not look at EVERYTHING as if it’s a nail.

For example, I can’t believe that offering fewer features is the sole reason the iPod has been so successful and differentiated itself from its competitors. Don’t you think it has more to do with its overall design and consequent “coolness” factor? I don’t think people buy the iPod because it’s simpler than the other MP3 players on the market; they buy one because it’s a status symbol.

Kenneth 16 May 06

Special ops forces, like the Green Berets or Navy Seals…

FYI, it’s Navy SEAL, not Seal.

Zane Rockenbaugh 16 May 06

I have to agree with Jeff. Your genius marketers, but it’s getting a bit thick. Your post is clearly intended to imply that all these examples are somehow examples of “Getting Real” (as oppossed to “getting real”) which is a bit absurd considering that they all existed long before “Getting Real”. I.e, “Getting Real” is a subset of “getting real”, not the other way round as the post implies.

Dan Boland 16 May 06

Dan, if you want to get down to brass tacks w/ the football talk, this passage is talking about eliminating the bureaucracy associated with traditional play-calling (i.e. rotating players while assistants in the press box tell coaches on the sideline which play to send in) in favor of letting the QB call plays at the line.

Well, what you call bureaucracy, I call taking the time to get things right. Haste makes waste, after all. And the play clock already serves as a restraint.

And of course, hurry-up is to no-huddle as rectangle is to square, but when you talk about eliminating the bureaucracy of a huddle, I’m going to assume you’re talking about a no-huddle offense.

But my main point is that the success rate of any kind of hurry-up offense isn’t very good, so why would it be a good example of getting real?

Mike 16 May 06

Re. hurry-up/no huddle, it is technology that aids the execution of these. The NFL allows quarterbacks to have speakers in their helmets, so sideline/booth coaches are able to communicate plays directly to the quarterback. So, if teams really do still shuttle in plays, they are not making best use of the tools at hand. There must be a Getting Real analogy in there somewhere.

Mark 16 May 06

…it�s not necessarily right for every situation
This metaphor can also get overplayed. Too much repetition lessens the impact.

Used too often it looks like nervous extra justification of a poor analogy rather than supporting the point that ‘getting real’ is not an absolute set of life rules.

Dave P 16 May 06

It’s not only the football metaphor that’s out of place:

Special ops forces, like the Green Berets or Navy Seals, use small teams and rapid deployment to accomplish tasks that other units are too big or too slow to get done.

No they don’t. Special ops are exactly that. Special. As in special circumstance. They do jobs that are different than what a regular unit would do. The green berets train foreign fighters and non-professionals into a fighting force (you know, the big slow ones?). The Seals specialize in securing beachheads, boarding ships etc.

If you tasked a special ops team with “taking and holding an objective” they would fail miserably. Although I suppose that there is an element of “getting real” in using the right tool for the job, the metaphors is off.

Oh, and the White Stripes suck. :-)

Zane Rockenbaugh 16 May 06

It may be a stylistic issue… I have no way to know what you’re thinking other than what you write, but:

1. “Real world Getting Real” can only be interpretted that the real world was not “Real”, or was at least not as “Real” as it is now
2. “Sure, Getting Real is about building great software. But there�s no reason why it needs to stop there. Take these ideas and try applying them to different aspects of your life.” The “it” in the second sentence can only be read as referreing to “Getting Real”, and the paragraph can only be interpretted as “Applying ‘Getting Real’ to the rest of your life will bring great benefits.” The implication that the previous examples are results of “Getting Real” (as opposed to “getting real”) is very strong, though admittedly not direct.

The only conclusion one can draw is that the post is telling me that “Getting Real” was the precursor to these other activities.

From your response: “we�re not saying our ideas influenced these people” but then you immediately say “We�re saying that Getting Real ideas are all around”. If “Getting Real” ideas are all around me, and given that “Getting Real” is a marketing phrase invented to describe a software methodology, how did these “Getting Real” ideas get out there unless you influenced them? Obviously I know you didn’t influence them, which is what makes the claim that you did see odd.

The sticking point for me is that you insist labelling all these other activities as “Getting Real,” which I think is a mistake. There’s a reason why Klennex insists that everything else be called a facial tissue. “Getting Real” *is* about software development. It was *derived* from these other things. Yes, software development is broken, but you guys are neither unique nor original in recognizing that, nor, in the large, are you unique or original in your solution to the brokeness. Your specific mix of maxims, constraints, and specific solutions works well, and there may be some original ideas on specific points in there (or at least indepently arrived at), but Jeff is right, you are, without a doubt and very explicitly labelling simply intelligent activities as “Getting Real”. Not similar to “Getting Real”, not “following the same philosophy as Getting Real” but directly and unequivically as “Getting Real”. As “Getting Real” is proper noun, signifying a body of work you specifaclly created, there is no way to understand these statements other than that you claim that other’s peoples actions (even from hundreds of years ago) are derivative specifaclly from your body of work.

You’ve applied a general strategy to specific case and packaged it beautufilly. Bully for you. But there is no way to interpret this post other than the claim that people should now generalize your specific case out. That’s, as we all have agreed, silly. They should return to the general case and apply the same fundamental strategies that you guys applied to other things. But that does not mean they should apply “Getting Real” (which is a specific subset) to anything outside of it’s proper domain. Shakespeare did not “Get Real”, he “got real” and those are two very different things. More on point, Agile development, XP, or what I do on a daily basis didn’t “Get Real”, we were real. You “Got Real” by getting real… by doing the same thing thousands of developers have done.. and now you’re selling your specific formulation. Awesome.

But I would hate to be labelled as “Getting Real” because thata would absolutely subsume my own work into your own. If I’d bought your book 10 years ago when I began, and followed it explicitly, that would be okay, but I didn’t. By the same token, I don’t think it’s fair to label Shakespeare, or the SEALs, or whatever as “Getting Real”. They did their own thing, just as you are doing your own thing. Applying your label to their thing diminishes what they did and presumes something that shouldn’t be presumed. I understand this is not your intent, but it is what you are doing.

Don Schenck 16 May 06

An aside to Paul: A _static_ stretch before any strenuous physical activity will _increase_ the chances of injury.

The typical stretches you see athletes do, for example, will make them more likely to suffer an injury.

So, you not only saved time … you’re reducing the incidences of injury.

Getting Real, once again, wins!

I'm With Stupid 16 May 06

Zane, get real.

August 16 May 06

Shakespeare reveled in the limitations of sonnets, fourteen-line lyric poems in iambic pentameter.

Well, actually the sonnet was the standard form in his time, and free-verse poetry didn’t really exist; writing in anything other than iambics would have gotten him laughed at for not knowing how to write poetry. He didn’t “revel” in sonnets so much as he used the most popular forms of his time, just to greater effect than anyone else. Everybody else in his time was subject to the same limitations. What truly set Shakespeare apart and secured his status was his ability to take someone else’s ideas and use them to greater effect because of a profound linguistic gift. He had very few genuinely original thoughts in his life. Hardly a model for your “getting real/less is better” philosophy (particluarly since Shakespearean drama is notoriously messy and tends to lean towards the excessive).

rzimmermon 16 May 06

The sports metaphors seem to be ubiquitous and often mislead. In this case however, Matt makes a very strong point but leaves out a very crucial element.

In football the hurry up offense does several things for you.
- Changes the pace
- Causes the Defense to loose their illusion of control
- Causes the offense players to focus
- You must concentrate on the basics
- Increase the constraints on your play book and focus on what you do best.

This is a short list, but fundamentally this is what it really does for you. Basically, focus on what you can do really well, do it quickly and catch the competition off guard. In the end, control the game.

The very crucial element is a strong leader. This is why Manning is so incredibly efficient at the hurry up offense. He is a leader and his men respect him.

I have coached youth sports for 10 years. Never is there a better example of getting real than in youth sports. To be successful you must have constraints on your training methods and expectations. Lets take the simple act of batting. An extremely simple skill yet most kids struggle with it. Why? Simple, coaches have overly complicated it. (elbow up, eye on the ball, squash the bug, hands inside, line up your knuckles, measure up to the plate, etc, etc, etc!) Kids are natural athletes rather they realize it or not and will do most things naturally. So let them do what they do naturally. As in most problems there is a key to the solution. In batting it is the hips. If the athlete turns his or her hips they will hit the ball square, far and often. It is that simple. Basically focus on what is important and reduce the noise in their heads.

Josh Rothman 16 May 06

>The point here is that one can look at constraints like these (fourteen-lines, iambic pentameter, etc.) as an obstacle or one can embrace those same restraints as a pathway to creative solutions.

But that’s not really how it worked. The reality is that Shakespeare was writing in a tradition, and in his use of the sonnet and even in his meter he was participating in a long literary conversation. His prosody—i.e., his use of meter—actually alludes and refers to the prosody of other poets, for example. Also: Shakespeare didn’t revel in the limitations of the sonnet—he actually changed the sonnet, thus the “Shakespearian sonnet.”

Hemingway and Carver, meanwhile, are hardly “direct” in their style. Tolstoy: direct. Hemingway and Carver are incredibly _indirect_, always leaving out the main point. What was Jake’s war wound? What is “Hills Like White Elephants” about? Indirection, leaving things out, is the whole point. Certainly indirection isn’t part of the Getting Real philosophy.

That’s not to say that Getting Real, etc., isn’t awesome. Really, though, these kinds of posts are total feature creep. Slowly, more and more stuff is getting sucked into the maw of Getting Real, when in fact it has nothing to do with the essentials of the approach. Getting Real needs to Get Real.

August 16 May 06

It’s not so much that your idea is a bad one (it’s not), it’s just that your examples were poorly chosen, in terms of writers, anyway. In the case of all of those writers the thing that appears to be going on isn’t really the thing that’s going on; it’s very often quite the opposite.

Analogies are great tools, but they need to be appropriate. It’s like using Hollywood’s “historical” movies to try and understand history; everything seems to fit on the surface, but any kind of closer look and it’s obvious they’ve missed the point. Using these particular writers feels right, but has entirely missed the point of their work and why it’s influential.

Call me Mr. More if you want; I like it when appropriate is the catchword. Less is excellent when it’s appropriate. And so is more. Appropriate is the only thing that works all the time.

Chris Plough 16 May 06

>Shakespeare reveled in the limitations of sonnets, fourteen-line >lyric poems in iambic pentameter.

I have to say that I love this reference - in my dubious spare time, I do some Shakespearian acting. In addition, he (and the actors who later wrote down his scripts) would incorporate acting notes directly into the script by capitalizing, intentionally misspelling or otherwise emphasizing certain words. A great way to convey a lot of information without adding any footnotes or small type!

John 16 May 06

I�m getting bored
Thinking about getting real
Time for something new

John 16 May 06

Project is bloated
Time to start getting real
Live simplicity

sorry, I love haiku. I even wrote a random haiku generator in Ruby.

Hubris Sonic 16 May 06

and its US Army Special Forces. A green beret is a hat. I would also point out that SF is muuuuuch more real than the SEALS. who really arent that good, and they smell funny.

Jonic 16 May 06

Matt, for crying out loud can I please give you $19 in exchange for Getting Real?

The text beneath the textarea that I’m typing into says “Let’s add value.”

I’m trying my best!

Anonymous Coward 16 May 06

Ernest Hemingway shot himself

Evan Wired 16 May 06

Let’s not all fall into the fallacy that minimalism is easy or always appropriate.

Hemingway and Carver worked very hard to do more with less in their language. Unfortunately, both dove into self-parody late in their careers (Hemingway to a far worse extent than Carver) and both influenced a whole generation of poseurs who arrived at minimalism by the short route — copying a pattern without understanding how that pattern emerged. See vast reaches of mainstream/literary American short fiction in the late 80s and early to mid 90s for far too many examples of minimalism for the sake of minimalist style, rather than minimalism done because it was the right expression for the story’s purpose.

Sometimes the problem software tries/needs to solve is, in fact, complex. The right interface should be neither oversimplified nor overcomplicated. “Getting Real” (tm) should be about focus, emphasis and context, not explicit minimalism.

Similarly, IMO, The White Stripes have “childlike” drumming because they have a drummer who is incapable of more sophisticated percussion. The minimalism there isn’t a cultivated style; it is as good as is available to the band. Kudos to Jack White for making it less of a liability.

Pete 17 May 06

Hey everybody! How about some black t-shirts with Got Real on them? Just like those milk ads?

Fuckin Awesome!

Dave Ferrick 03 Jun 06

It just occured to me that I never ever want to hear anyone equate anything in the music world with software development.

Here we have something ethereal that has existed as a concept beyond the dawn of civilization, which some people dedicate their entire lives to, not to make it big but to just touch a few people, maybe if they’re lucky, and what are we holding up next to it? A concept that’s existed maybe 70 years powered only by the force of making money (okay maybe 90% powered by money.)

So a message to all software companies, never ever EVER compare anything you’re doing to music. ever. You just don’t deserve it.

Even if it’s about one of the most marketable bands of the past 35 years as an example.