Tell us about yourself

When visitors come to our office, one of the first things they notice is how quiet it is. Naturally, one of the first questions they ask is “how do you keep it so quiet?”

My answer is “library rules.”

Everyone knows how to behave in a library. You keep quiet or whisper. You respect people’s personal space. You don’t interrupt people who are reading or working, learning or studying. And if you need to have a full-volume conversation, you hit a private room.

So if you want to keep things quiet at the office, treat it like a library. It works surprisingly well.

When the geography of labour ceases to be an important part of production, attempts to keep foreign workers out of a country become counterproductive. Workers who stay remote will be subject to remote expenses. If those are lower, it’s harder to compete.

Say the cost of living in San Francisco is 100 and the cost of living in Prague is 50. You can thus pay a remote worker living in the latter city 70 and he will have as much disposable income as a local worker in the former earning 120 (both will have 20 in disposable income).

This is much lower than importing labour to San Francisco and “underpaying” them. Say you do that and only pay them a disposable sum of 10. Your labour cost is thus still 110. Not much of a comparable saving to that of going remote.

So if you’re a local worker, would you rather compete against imported labour that undercuts your rate by 10 or a remote worker that undercuts it by 50? That depends on the efficiency of that remote worker, of course. If being remote means they can only do half as good a job, no problem. If they do 90% as good of a job, big problem.

Another angle: What if you pay both the local and the remote workers the same, say, 120? In Prague, that would mean you can attract the same quality of talent that it would cost you 170 to attract in San Francisco (holding all other things equal, for the sake of argument).

As the world gets better at remote collaboration, this is only going to get worse—or better, depending on your perspective. Up until recent history, protectionists have been able to claim that having someone in a remote location is simply too inefficient. So the argument could stay about the process. (Pair programming and other co-location techniques are great fodder for these kinds of arguments).

When the process becomes a minor issue, it’ll have to become about the people, if you want to stay a protectionist. That is the claims will have to be about how the remote workers are worse workers. Not as smart, not as easy to talk to, not as proficient. I reckon those arguments are not going to have a long term future.

Likewise, I reckon that fighting to keep local supply of skilled labour down in areas of work that can be done remotely also does not have a long term future.

Twitter started out life as a wonderfully inclusive society. There were very few rules and the ones there were the people loved. Thou shall be brief, retweet to respect. Under this constrained freedom, Twitter prospered and grew rapidly for the joy of all.

Budding entrepreneurs built apps that made life better for everyone. Better, in fact, than many of Twitter’s own attempts. They competed for attention on a level playing field and the very best rose to the top. Users saw that this was good and rewarded Twitter with their attention. Twitter grew.

Unfortunately this inclusive world was not meant to last. From the beginning, an extractive time bomb was ticking. One billion dollars worth of eagerness for return. Hundreds and hundreds of hungry mouths to feed in a San Francisco lair.

And thus began Twitter’s descent into the extractive. First, they paid lip service to the society. Their curtailing of freedoms was for the betterment of all, you see.

The “consistency of the user experience” was imported as a new ideal. But the populace was nonplussed. Who was this ideal for? Who had asked for variety to be curtailed? Not us, said the people.

But objections be damned, the Twitter lords marched on. After all, they knew the billion was growing restless and the minions in their lair equally so. Turning back now was not on the table, lest they risk the anger and fury of the billion.

So it went that the extractive provisions were rolled out quicker and wider. The initial feigned attempts at covering new rules and restrictions with “it’s in everyone’s interest” fell further by the wayside with every new decree from the lords.

While the original rules were simple and fair—140 characters for all—the new rules were complicated, opaque, and easy to bend for the favored.

Some early app entrepreneurs would get access to 200,000+ users by the nature of their legacy stature; new ones would get half. Favored masters of Big Media would get to break the law of 140. And the Twitter lords themselves would expropriate and evict on a whim.

The populace grumbled and groaned, but like the frog boiled slowly, they adjusted to their new temperature one degree at a time.

Twitter’s billion was happy. Progress was being made to extract the most from these fertile lands it had lent. And with the billion happy, the lords were happy, and so too all of the lair.

“I wonder how long this one will last?”, asked the Web to his friend Email. “Who knows”, said Email, “Facebook is still around”. “Aye”, nodded the Web, “Winter might be longer this time around, but inevitably Spring will return”.

The book Why Nations Fail makes the argument that sustained societal prosperity is only possible when economic and political institutions are inclusive instead of extractive. It’s a little long-winded, but the historical accounts of the rise and fall of the Roman Republic and the Venetian city-state in particular are fascinating.

Both societies entered eras of strong growth and prosperity when they allowed larger parts of its citizens to partake in political and economic life. This glory phase lasted for generations, but eventually the elite sought to protect entrenched power and privilege and turned inclusive institutions back to being extractive. Thus began the decline and eventually demise of their success.

This is a drastic simplification and there is much more to both stories, but it got me thinking about just how fragile the commercial freedoms for software developers I listed yesterday are. There are many forces and elites working to turn this wonderland of prosperity and innovation into another wasteland. Here are some of the threats as I perceive them:

• Patents and trolls: When you can be shaken down at any time for bullshit patents, the risk of starting something new rises. Only elites with big protective patent portfolios and huge legal war chests are safe.
• Censorship and regulation: It’s easy to point at China and shudder at their explicit, heavy-handed shutdown of services, but there have been plenty “Why Won’t Someone Please Think Of The Children” campaigns elsewhere too. It usually starts with something like porn, and then everyone else is next.
• Net neutrality: Imagine if you had to enter separate agreements with every ISP in the world to get full-speed access to all your potential customers. Only the established elite would be able to navigate such shark-infested waters.
• The rise of app stores: When you’re at the mercy of the arbitrary whims of an elite landowner, you’re at constant risk of eviction or expropriation. This on top of, in classic extractionist style, working for free two days out of the week (30% cut).

If history is any guide, the amazing freedom and the prosperity we celebrate is easy to take for granted—right up until it’s gone. Progress often begets regression. The dark ages of commercial freedom is never more than a few elite power grabs away.

It’s easy to take for granted just how good we have it as software makers selling on the internet. This is truly a unique period in human history with unprecedented commercial freedom. It bears celebration and recognition.

Let me count the ways I love thee, unregulated internet:

• Access to world markets: Out of the 195 countries recognized by the US state department, we have customers in 191. There are no import tariffs to pay. No customs to clear. No multitude of electrical standards to comply with. Heck, we don’t even need to translate our products.
• Direct sale to customers: There are no distributors and no retailers with their hand out to take a cut. And we, the makers, get to talk directly to our customers—not someone else with a million other products to sell and none of our expertise.
• Free tools and education: All the software we needed to build our business with was not only freely available off the internet, it came with a wealth of free education that would shame any university. Programming languages, database systems, web servers, load balancers, operating systems. It was all there for the taking.
• No capital requirements: We didn’t need offices or fax machines or secretaries to get going. We could rent all our computing needs for next to nothing until customers with cash in hand started using our services and taxing our servers. This meant basically “no money down!” and no need to go hat in hand begging banks or venture capitalists for money.
• Self promotion can build a brand: We didn’t have to either convince journalists to write about us or buy expensive ads to get our name out. We “just” had to be interesting! It might not be easy, but it’s generally free. Aggregators like Reddit, Hacker News, and retweets have accelerated this power even more so recently.

Compare these extraordinary freedoms with just about any other business in the world. Nobody has it as good or are as free as software makers selling via the internet.

All we needed was an idea for a product that people were willing to pay for and the skills to pull it off. Ideas are all around us and the skills are learnable by self study.

You really can create something from nothing.

This past spring we decided to prune our product line.

We stepped back, took inventory, reviewed how things were growing, considered which products mattered most to us, thought about which direction we wanted to go, talked about what we were proud of, and made some decisions.

This process reminded me a lot of pruning a tree. Before you start pruning, you circle around the tree and take in the shape. You have to step back and get a wide view in order to see the whole thing.

Then you start making some observations.

You notice this branch crossing and rubbing that branch. You see suckers shooting straight up taking energy from the healthy limbs. You see dead wood, you see thriving wood, you see leaders, and you see future problems. And depending on when you’re looking, you might see next season’s buds.

It’s always hard to cut something you grew from scratch. You feel a fundamental obligation to see it blossom and continue to grow strong. You know how long things take to grow, so cutting things back is an emotional process. “Man, this branch has been growing for 10 years and I’m going to cut it down in 10 seconds…”

But you also know that cutting things back means that you’ve favoring what’s left. You pick the winners, you help the tree grow up strong. And most importantly, while pruning gets rid of a lot, it also opens up new opportunities. Light gets in where it couldn’t before. Air circulates better. And new growth comes to life.

Now let’s get back to software.

Initially when we decided to prune our product line, we did it because we felt we had too many products to maintain. We’re bigger than we used to be, but we’re still a small company. It’s so easy to create (because creating is fun), but it’s also easy to ignore (because ignoring doesn’t involve work). Over time, if you create too much and don’t clean it up, you can lose control over quality. Quality, like time, is a limited resource. We felt like we might be on the verge. Hence the pruning session.

So we decided to stop accepting new signups for Ta-da List, Writeboard, and Backpack. We also stopped selling our Draft iPad app. We sold Sortfolio, stopped selling the Getting Real PDF (we’re giving it away for free now), and pruned some internal non-customer facing tech, too.

But an interesting thing happened. Not too long after we pruned, a couple new product ideas started bubbling up. Before pruning, the last thing we were thinking about was adding more products. Now, with some breathing room, new ideas are getting light, getting fresh air, and coming to life.

Not only are we thinking about a few new products, but we’re thinking very differently about these new products. One is a variation on an existing product. And one is entirely new for us. But both are also attached to a new business model.

I feel like our exploration into new business models would have never happened had we not cut some old growth back and let some new light in.

We’re finishing these two new products up now. We aren’t ready to announce release dates or talk much about them yet, but hopefully it won’t be too long now.

So, while it’s hard to cut back, it’s good to remember that subtraction can lead to addition. New shoots, new sprouts, and new ideas often need new room to grow. They’re waiting, but you need to clear the way.

I’m looking to hire an “iOS Prototyper” for one year. This is a full-time, 1-year contract. You must be in Chicago. Pay starts at $100,000 – I’m all ears if you want to make an alternate pitch. After the year is up we may decide to work together some more, but that’s a discussion for another time.

The role is clear: You’ll work with me on a daily basis to explore a variety of iOS app ideas for 37signals. We have a good half dozen ideas in the idea closet already, and more will materialize as time goes on.

This is a distraction-free position. Your only job will be exploring iOS ideas for 37signals. Ideas include new apps, new interface concepts, and a healthy helping of crazy ideas. You’ll report directly to me. We’ll riff, review, and spend time together nearly every day.

This position is for one person. You have to have the Obj-C chops and the design/ui/ux chops to be a one-person-iOS-shop. You have to be strong – and already up to speed – on both.

This is a perfect position for someone who knows how to work fast and smart. You know where the rabbit holes are and you’re good about avoiding them early on. You know which details make all the difference, and which ones don’t make any difference. You know the difference between spending time wisely and wasting time.

You’ll teach me a few things and I’ll teach you a few things. We’ll both gain great experience.

This job is primarily about prototyping, not shipping. Some ideas may ultimately ship, but the main goal here is to explore. You have to be OK with that.

If you’re interested, please email me directly. [email protected]. Since we’ll be working together closely, you must live in Chicago or be willing to relocate to Chicago for at least one year. Creative applications are encouraged.

I’ll be accepting applications until November 30th. I’m looking forward to working with you.

Some people get excited about building something new that the world has never seen.

Others get excited about making something more beautiful than it was before.

Others like making things faster.

And some others get off on making something less expensive.

To differing degrees, these are all personal driving factors of mine as well. But the one that stands out above all the others is the drive to make things easier. I like to make things easier for people. I love competing on easy.

I find easy to be the most personally rewarding, too. It has such direct impact. When something is easier, you feel it. You’ve done it the hard way before, so when you experience the easy way you immediately know the difference.

Easy feels like a cold Coke on a hot day. It’s just so satisfying. The harder it’s been – the thirstier you are – the better it tastes, too.

Another thing about easy – it’s personal. “Thank you” is often a response you hear when you make something easier for someone. Easier is appreciated.

Easy could mean faster. Easier could mean more obvious. Easy could mean a lot of things. But the part of easy I like is when you take an existing problem, study it until it becomes clear, toss out everything that makes it blurry, and carefully polish what’s left over.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately because we’re finishing up a brand new product. In some ways it’s entirely new territory for us, but in other ways it’s familiar.

This new product eliminates the hassle of one thing in particular. After that it’s about the same as anything else it competes with. In some ways, it does significantly less than the competition.

Plus, the other products are totally free. Ours won’t be.

We’re charging – betting, even – on easy. I like our chances.