Who Do You Trust?

I’m into distribution, I’m like Atlantic
I got them mutherf**ers flying across the Atlantic
—Rick Ross, “Hustlin’”

Hustlin' | Listen for free at bop.fm

Can we talk about hair for a minute? Yes, hair. And I don’t mean your own hair, I mean the market for buying and selling hair. It turns out that in the U.S. alone, it’s a $5B/year market. The way that it functions is truly bizarre. Basically, women in India sell their hair to buyers from China, who treat and package it, then sell it to primarily Korean distributors who sell to Korean-owned beauty supply shops in the U.S., who then sell it to primarily African American women. The result, as you might expect, is one of the worst customer experiences in the world today. 

A customer must first book an appointment with her stylist. Then she has to go to one of these beauty supply stores, which are typically poorly lit, dirty, and barely organized. Once she finds the hair product section, she has to determine which product to buy with almost zero information and nobody in the store who has any clue as to what might be right for her. Next, she must take that hair to her appointment and hope that it’s the right product or repeat the entire process. And, oh by the way, there are no refunds under any circumstances for the hair, so you are also out anywhere from $100 to $800. You might wonder why these customers cannot simply get the hair from their hairstylist. Well, it turns out that 95% of African American hair salons have no retail capability due to minimal credit and cash balances. Basically, they cannot afford to keep inventory. 

Enter Diishan Imira and his company, Mayvenn. Diishan aptly named the company after the Yiddish word meaning “trusted expert”. After studying the hair market and its byzantine supply chain for years, Diishan figured out how to radically improve the hair buying experience by empowering the trusted experts in the delivery chain—the hairdressers—to recommend, offer, and deliver the right products to their customers in the most convenient way possible.  They do this by ingeniously creating individual mobile e-commerce sites for each hairdresser where they can sell goods without any inventory cost or risk. Mayvenn supplies each stylist with a broad variety of excellent hair products, so they can provide an excellent service to their customers to greatly expand their businesses. 

The early results have been spectacular. In less than two years, Mayvenn has signed up over 26,000 hair stylists. The most successful of these have more than doubled their income via Mayvenn while dramatically improving life for their customers. Even more exciting, Mayvenn’s methods and platform can easily be extended to trusted experts in many fields, enabling gifted craftspeople to become economically empowered.  

Capitalism is the best system in the world, but also extremely frustrating. The gifts that you are born with go a very long way in determining your economic status. The best hair stylist in the world makes far less than a mediocre venture capitalist. A nurse, whose dedication to her craft saves lives and brings hope to the hopeless, will make a fraction of what a crappy banker, who brings misery to everyone she encounters, earns. Mayvenn cannot correct that entirely, but it does give truly great craftspeople a way to improve their own lives and the lives of their customers. That’s why I am delighted to announce that Andreessen Horowitz is leading a $10M investment in Mayvenn, the platform for trusted experts. 

Share

Career Advice for Recent Graduates

Share

Little Things

“I have seen far too many people who upon recognizing today’s gap try very hard to determine what decision has to be made to close it. But today’s gap represents a failure of planning some time in the past.”
- Andy Grove

When you run a company, big things stay on your mind. Will we make the quarter? Did we hire the right engineers? Will the release be on time? Do we have a quality problem? Do we have enough money in the bank?

The Catch 22 is that if you attempt to act on those “big things,” you will usually do big damage. In order to move big things in a positive direction, it’s generally best to focus on little things.

If you are worried about the quarter, you might think that it’s a good idea to call your head of sales twice a day to get the status. By doing so, you might think you are creating the appropriate sense of urgency. In reality, you are just distracting her from closing the quarter twice a day. In fact, by radically overemphasizing the quarter, you will likely cause your sales leader to begin focusing on the cover up — the byzantine set of excuses that she will deploy in the case that she actually misses her number.

These excuses will then cause a new set of problems. She might say, "Why did we miss the quarter? We really did not get the right support from the product organization." So now you go over to the head of products to harass her. She’s responds: “What? If the VP of Sales wasn’t getting enough support, then why didn’t she say something to me?” Do you see what you did there? Not only did you fail to make progress on the sales issue, but you created a new political issue which will contribute to you missing the next quarter.

While it’s correct to worry about the big issues, you must resist the urge to act on them directly. Before acting, you should first translate the big thing into a related set of little things. For example, if you are worried about making the quarter, then you should go on a few sales calls and see if you are selling your product in the most effective way possible. Are your sales people properly trained? Do they run a process that puts your product in the very best light and sets appropriate traps for your competitors? Are you selling at the right level in the organization? Is your product truly competitive? As you get the answers to these questions, you will develop more constructive little things to take action on. These little things might not help you make this quarter, but they will certainly help you make next quarter.

Similarly, if you are deeply worried about engineering throughput, lamenting that your engineers don’t work as hard as other companies that you’ve heard about will achieve very little other than making your engineers think they are the “B” team. On the other hand, spending time going through their day and really understanding what’s slowing them down in the code base, where their build environment is working against them and how the communication overhead between groups slows them down might help a great deal.

This is true for almost anything in your company. You should set high-level goals, but those goals will or will not be achieved by the organization that you assigned them to. If you want to help them reach their goals, do so by focusing on the little things.

My old boss Jim Barksdale used to say that all of the knowledge was with the individual contributors and the customers. As CEO, you need to hire the right people and set a clear direction. Once you do that, you should fly low and fast rather than high and slow. Focus on the little things and the big things will take care of themselves.

Share

The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

The truth is hard to swallow, and hard to say, too
But I graduated from that bullshit, now I hate school

—Lil Wayne, "CoCo"

Coco | Listen for free at bop.fm

My greatest disappointment as CEO was the day I realized that helping my executives develop their skill sets was a bad idea. Up to that point in my career, I prided myself on my ability to develop people and get the most out of them. In my jobs running product management, product marketing and engineering, developing young talent was the most rewarding part of the job. Helping them learn to manage, improve their judgment and be more effective in their domains made my organizations better, and people genuinely appreciated the effort.

How could a great practice for a functional manager be a destructive one for a CEO? Let me count the ways.

You don’t have the skills. The first question that you must ask yourself is how are you going to develop a poor performing head of sales into a good one if you have never run sales? What exactly are you going to teach them? Would a sales VP who became a CEO be able to develop you into a better engineering manager?

You don’t have the time. A company depends entirely on the CEO for an important set of functions, which includes timely and high-quality decisions, clear direction, hiring a great team, and architecting and implementing a super-high-functioning communication architecture. Any time wasted trying to develop executives when you don’t even have the skills to do it takes away from the essential CEO functions.

They don’t have the time. A leader’s effectiveness is largely a function of how much confidence her followers have in her. If someone is running a large organization and doesn’t show competence immediately, her people will quickly write her off, and she will never recover. Executives have no time to be developed before they become useless.

Your results will suck while you work on a task that you cannot complete. It’s bad enough that you will work on something that you will add zero value to, but as you are doing that, the organization in question will continue to be awful. You will lose time and ground in the marketplace while you try and fail to figure it out. Meanwhile, everyone who works for that executive will be working in a crappy organization, doing crappy work and developing a crappy reputation for being part of it.

Executives are compensated for their existing ability, and therefore should not be evaluated on their potential. While it’s common practice and a good idea to take potential into account with regular employees, this methodology does not work well for executives. When you hire an executive, he will demand around 1 percent of the company. How do you explain to a great engineer with less than one-fifth that amount of stock that you are waiting for the executive’s potential to kick in?

Trying to help can make things far worse. If an executive is failing and you keep him around, thinking that you will develop him, things will get ugly quickly. You know he’s incompetent, so you will likely discount everything he says. When he raises a point in a meeting that contradicts a high-performing executive, you will take the high-performer’s side 100 percent of the time.

This will make your failing executive feel badly, but more importantly, it will completely destroy the credibility of the function that he is running. If the exec is, for example, the head of marketing, everyone in the rest of the organization will draw the conclusion that marketing is unimportant in your company. That conclusion will be surprisingly long-lasting.

While you cannot develop an underpowered executive into a high-performing one, there are several things that you can do in your role as his manager that will help all of your executives succeed.

Provide the proper context. When you hire an executive, she may know her function, but she does not know your company. She does not know your management philosophy, the top performers, the history of the decisions that were made, how product flaws were created and fixed, etc. This information will be invaluable to her success and you should invest heavily to make sure that she quickly gets all the context she will need.

Be very clear about the rules of the game. You should be extremely clear up front that you expect your executives to be world-class in their functions. If they are not, they will not keep their jobs. Furthermore, you will not be able to make them world-class, because you are not world-class in their areas.

Know what you want, and be clear about it. Tell them what you think world-class performance is. If you don’t know, go find out by interviewing some world-class CEOs and world-class executives, and then tell them.

Be clear about relative performance. If you think your marketing is not as good as other companies in your sector, then let your head of marketing know. If you know that other companies generate five times the number of qualified leads than you do and you don’t understand why, then say something. This will make it much easier for you to make a swift decision if your executive does not know what he is doing.

In the end, a CEO has got to know her limitations.

 

This post first appeared in Re/code

 

Share

The Past and Future of Systems Management

“I said that I’mma ride for my motherf*ckin' n***as
Most likely I’mma die with my finger on the trigger
I’ve been grindin outside all day with my n***as
And I ain’t goin' in unless I’m with my n***as
My n***as, my n***as
My n***as, my n***as (My muthaf*cking n***as!)
My n***as, my n***as (My n***as, my n***as)
My n***as, my n***as"

—YG, “My N***a”

My Nigga | Listen for free at bop.fm

Ten years ago I had a big problem. I was CEO of Opsware, a systems management software company, and we were losing a lot of deals to our major competitor, BladeLogic. We were losing, because they had a better product. There were many reasons for that, starting with the fact that we never designed Opsware for broad based usage, but in a desperate move, had yanked it out of our cloud computing business, Loudcloud, and began to offer it as a commercial product. As a result, Opsware worked okay for some, but was not ready to go up against an excellent competitor. Naturally, nobody cared about our excuses and our business was spiraling down the drain. 

When I fully realized what was happening, I went to see my chief architect, Phil Liu to tell him the bad news. He and I meticulously went through the details of why customers thought BladeLogic's product was better and why they were probably right. It was a come to Jesus moment, but Jesus wasn’t there, so it was up to Phil and me.

As Phil thought through the implications of re-architecting the product and how little time he had to do so, his face told the story. It said: “Oh fuck, this is going to be hard if not impossible and the company is going to die if we don’t figure it out. But we will figure it out or die trying.” When I saw that look, I thought: “My guy."

After nine months of grueling effort by Phil and the team, we released our new product code named Darwin. As soon as it hit the market, our win rate went from sub 50% to 80%. We had done it. It was a new day and we weren’t going to squander it. I will never forget that moment with Phil. When things go perfectly in a company, it’s sometimes difficult to differentiate amongst good employees as everyone consistently beats their objectives. However, when things go horribly wrong, the greatest people distinguish themselves. Phil could have made many excuses and blamed many people — most of all me. But, he would have none of that. Instead, he simply found his greatness. 

Years later, HP acquired Opsware and Phil went on to design a system for monitoring and managing a leading, massive, billion-user application called Facebook. Because Phil intimately knew the traditional systems management market, he quickly realized that the traditional systems would not work for modern, massive, cloud-based architectures. In fact, they would not work properly for cloud-based architectures of any scale. A new system had to be developed. The reasons were several:

Traditional systems are server centric — Even relatively modern systems management products like New Relic treat servers as sacred resources which must be kept alive, but Facebook loses servers every day and it doesn’t matter. Facebook doesn’t care about servers; they care about services. Knowing when a cluster of services that provides, for example, an identity service is out of capacity is critical, but getting paged in the middle of the night because you lost one server in a cluster of 20 is asinine. 

Developers are central to the business — Developers are now playing a much more critical role in the business and need an application intelligence solution the same way marketers need business intelligence. Developers need to answer questions like: Which APIs are being used the most frequently by which customers? Is a sudden spike in latency for my top customers the result of an increase in load or some upstream service using my APIs inefficiently? Which customers are taxing my infrastructure in the most expensive way? How should I think about scaling my systems if my user base were to double?

Monitoring is now an analytics problem — How many milliseconds should a packet take to travel from the database to the application server for the photo app? Don’t feel badly if you can’t answer that because it would be a silly thing to know, yet monitoring systems have wanted people to know such things for years. How about a system that reports the moving average and anomalies such as 3 standard deviation variances from it? 

Applications are now a collection of micro-services — These micro services are often managed by separate teams with all sorts of upstream and downstream dependencies. Having a solution that tracks all the relevant metrics across all the services fosters a much more collaborative environment where teams can communicate with one another (versus logs, where only the developer who wrote the app can really understand what's going on).

Time is money — Facebook is now a $10 billion company. That means that if the site is down for an hour, that’s roughly $11.5 million. So, logged data and dashboards that aren’t real-time won’t cut it. Every second counts and a proper system must enable you to see all of the data in real-time. 

After building a system, which solves the above and serves Facebook amazingly well, Phil co-founded SignalFx with another stellar ex-Loudcloud employee and legendary VMware executive, Karthik Rau. Together, they have built the systems management product of the future. The current product is amazing, but more importantly, Phil and Karthik will make sure that it remains the best product for a very long time.

I am so pleased to announce that Andreessen Horowitz is an investor in SignalFx.

Share

Learning from My Mistakes

"The campaign is global - the dollar ain't what it used to be
Switch a franc for a dollar, you get like 1.3"
—Ryan Leslie, Swiss Francs

Swiss Francs | Listen for free at bop.fm

Three years ago I made an investment decision that I have regretted ever since. 

My friend Sten Tamkivi told me about a great new company founded by his old Skype colleague, Taavet Hinrikus. Naturally, I reached out to Taavet to hear his pitch. 

The basic idea for the business came from a personal need.

Taavet had worked for Skype in Estonia, so was paid in euros, but lived in London. Kristo, his co-founder, worked in London, but had a mortgage in euros back in Estonia. Simply getting money from their paychecks cost them 5%. They thought that was outrageous. Since Taavet and Kristo were friends, they devised a simple scheme to solve their expensive problem. Each month the pair checked that day’s mid-market rate on Reuters to find a fair exchange rate. Kristo put pounds into Taavet’s UK bank account, and Taavet topped up his friend’s euro account with euros. Both got the currency they needed, and neither paid a cent in hidden bank fees. That became the core idea for TransferWise.

Kristo’s background in financial services and Taavet’s background building a very large scale, peer-to-peer software system gave them the perfect backgrounds to tackle the problem. On the one hand, TransferWise was exactly the kind of thing that we like to invest in: two great founders who had discovered an important problem that they were eminently qualified to solve. On the other hand, they were based in London and I could not see how I would have the time to help them start a company from half way across the world, so I passed on the investment. I chose the wrong hand.

After I passed, Taavet and Kristo went straight to work. They built a peer-to-peer foreign currency exchange in the same way that the original Skype was a peer-to-peer phone system. Like the original Skype, Kristo and Taavet built in enough central components to make the network work seamlessly and flawlessly for consumers. Kristo's banking industry expertise enabled them to complement their peer-to-peer network with an impressive international banking network, which made every currency exchange work and work quickly. Once they got it up and running, the business worked beautifully. 

When funding new products, a good rule of thumb is that the new product must be at least 10 times better than the old way of doing the same thing or customers will stay with what they have. It’s an easy concept to understand, but sometimes a difficult one to quantify. Not so with TransferWise: A typical FX transaction costs a consumer 5% and TransferWise profitably charges 10 times less for the exact same transaction. Ten times better indeed. In addition, the customer experience is amazing, yielding an 80% NPS score, which is unheard of in financial services. 

From a macro perspective, such innovation could not come at a better time. Due to the financial system nearly destroying the global economy in 2008, traditional banks have been under incredible pressure from regulators to reduce their leverage from highs of close to 40:1 to less than 10:1, forcing them to dramatically cut costs to fit into their safer cost structures. As a result, we see little to no innovation from the traditional banking sector, which creates a massive opportunity for new financial institutions like TransferWise. 

It should not be a surprise that TransferWise’s resulting performance has been spectacular and makes my original decision to pass look worse and worse every day. Since launching in early 2011, TransferWise has grown to a team of 250 providing 292 currency routes. They continue to grow 15-20% per month and have helped customers transfer £3 billion, saving users over £135 million.

For all these reasons, I am absolutely thrilled to announce that I am correcting my mistake and a16z is leading TransferWise's $58 million round, the money transfer platform of the future.

Share

One Management Concept

 

One Management Concept

Lecture for Sam Altman's How to Start a Startup class, CS 183B at Stanford University (November 2014); the slides are available here. 

Share

Making Any Web App Mobile: The Capriza Advantage

"Even if it's jazz or the quiet storm
I hook a beat up and convert it into hip-hop form"
-Rakim, "I Ain't No Joke"

Rakim - I Ain't No Joke | Listen for free at bop.fm

Over the past 20 years, enterprises have spent over 3 trillion dollars building web applications, but now most of their users would rather access those applications from mobile devices as mobile is indeed eating the world. In related news, most people think that packaged enterprise web applications suck and suck worse when they move to mobile. If you run a company and need your people to have the right information and the right tools to make decisions in a timely fashion, then these are big problems. 

The conventional wisdom has been to rebuild the most important applications by hand on mobile or wait for the big vendors to provide acceptable mobile solutions. The conventional approach has several problems:

1. Workers aren't partially mobile -- Many companies have 100s of internal applications. If employees can only get to 2 or 3 of them via a mobile device, they are not actually able to be mobile and they are certainly not able to exclusively use a mobile computing device. 

2. Big enterprise applications don't fit on a phone -- SAP has 300,000 screens. I don't care how great a designer you employ, you can't make a 300,000-screen application usable on a phone. Of course, most users don't need all of SAP. They might only need to see a forecast or retrieve the number of a key supplier via their phone. There ought to be a way to do this customized for each user and use case. 

3. Security and manageability -- If you do hire people to rewrite your web apps in mobile, chances are each app will have its own security model and its own management hooks, which look nothing like any of the other mobile apps. Your mobile solution will soon turn into a mobile nightmare. 

4. Cost -- In addition to the "rewrite your apps" approach being incomplete, impossible to use, insecure, and unmanageable, it's incredibly expensive. Even using the best development tools, building a fresh mobile app to replace a web app typically costs around $250,000. Multiply that by 100 and you have one big expensive mess. 

For all these reasons, led by Yuval Scarlat, the team that revolutionized software testing at Mercury Interactive is now doing the same thing for mobile application development at their new company Capriza. Rather than re-implementing every web application by hand, Capriza simply observes you using a web app and automatically constructs a mobile app with the same functionality. You take from the web app only what you need and will find useful on mobile -- not 300,000 screens. Capriza is so robust that it can translate virtually any piece of any web app into a mobile app including the SAP colossus. Beyond that, every Capriza app comes with an integrated and consistent security and management model, so the more apps, the better. 

For any company with a big investment in web applications and a real need to mobilize its workforce, Capriza is a magical solution. That's why I am extremely excited to be an investor and board member.

Share

The Prophets of Rage

"You're quite hostile,
I've got a right to be hostile,
my people been persecuted."
- Public Enemy

Public Enemy - Prophets Of Rage | Listen for free at bop.fm

A while back I wrote a post called "When Smart People are Bad Employees." In that post, I wrote about employees that you think will be incredible, but turn out to be destructive. The other day, my partner Lars and I were talking about the opposite: employees who appear to be destructive, but if properly managed can be spectacular. In reference to hip hop's great prophet Chuck D., I call them "The Prophets of Rage."

If you've worked in a company for any length of time, you've probably seen one of these prophets. People refer to them as glass breakers, cowboys, toe stompers, or just plain assholes. Yet it's difficult to get rid of them, because they produce massive amounts of high-quality work. Beyond that, they have indomitable will. No obstacle is too great, no task too large, no problem is too hard and they do not care who they offend, upset, undermine, or piss off to get the job done. In fact, they are so self-righteous that it's difficult to even have a conversation about the right way to do things, because in their minds if they are doing it, it must be right. If you are not them or not on their team, you are very likely "a lazy idiot" or worse. Even if they don't call you names outright, they will deliver searing, totally impolite insights that will cause you to question your own motivations. They specialize in making people uncomfortable.

Their backgrounds are almost never consistent with the typical hiring profile. They do not come to you right from central casting. Often they grew up poor and went to the wrong schools. Or they were the “wrong” religion, sexual orientation, or skin color. In general, they believe that they grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and everybody is judging them on that all the time. They will walk through fire to prove everyone wrong. They have to succeed and are willing to do whatever it takes.

This is not to say that everyone with this background is a Prophet of Rage, just that Prophets of Rage tend to have this background.

These employees are the corporate version of W.M.D.s. The ultimate weapon in any arsenal, but their deployment can lead to highly unpredictable consequences. How can they be used as a force for good? How can you prevent them from destroying your culture and possibly your company?

When managing a Prophet of Rage, the first thing to understand is that they often dish it out much better then they take it. While they won't hesitate to viciously attack their peers and bring them to tears, even the slightest criticism from a prophet's manager may cause him or her to go into a deep funk and become incredibly depressed. Most managers will find this behavior to be totally ridiculous and give up when they see it. Most managers will forfeit greatness at that point.

Prophets of Rage are perfectionists. They work harder than anybody in the organization and expect total perfection from themselves and everyone around them. When they see others deliver sub par work or sub par thinking, the Prophets become enraged and lose all control of themselves. But it's the same dynamic that enrages them and causes them to stomp on other people's toes that makes them recoil at any criticism: they have dedicated their entire life force to doing great work; any rejection of their work is a rejection of them personally. Keep in mind that a prophet's background makes her a bit paranoid about you wanting her there in the first place, so if she doesn't become depressed, she will certainly question your motives.

In my experience, there are at least three keys to managing these super high performing, super volatile personalities.

1. Don't give them feedback on their behaviors, give them feedback on what their behaviors mean

If you tell a prophet, "It is totally unacceptable to scream at your peers in meetings," he will hear: "It's totally unacceptable for you to scream at people in meetings, but others can do it all they want, because I am out to get you." In the prophet's mind, everyone is out to get him, so this is the logical reaction.

A better approach is to focus on how the behaviors were interpreted by the other people in the room. "You have a very important mission, but when you screamed at Andy that his team was blocking you from your goal, his response wasn't to work harder to unblock you. His reaction was to get you back for embarrassing him in public. Your method was totally ineffective." He will initially bristle at the criticism, but when he thinks it through, he will realize that you were right and he will work extremely hard to fix it, because he is, after all, a perfectionist.

2. Realize that they will never be completely accepted in polite society

No matter how clearly and effectively you coach a prophet, you will be unlikely to completely transform her. She has spent her entire life getting to this point, so words from her manager won't get her to the point of corporate acceptance. The more people don't accept her, the worse the behaviors will become, because the rejection will reinforce her life narrative and increase her rage. The more effective approach will be to do your best to moderate your prophet while letting the rest of the team know that you expect them to accept her due to her incredibly high productivity. If they believe that you won't flinch, they will meet her half way. It's absolutely critical that they do this, because she will never be completely congenial.

3. Coach them on what they can do

If you keep in mind that your prophet is paranoid, then you will realize that giving entirely negative feedback will not work. Rather than focusing on what he is having trouble with or can't do, spend most of your time working with him on what he can do. This will enable his true super powers to come out and take your company's production out of the stratosphere.

Even with the best coaching, it's quite possible that a prophet has too much rage to function in an organization as it grows. At this point, they become smart people who are bad employees and there may be nothing that you can do. 

In the end, realize that a talented Prophet of Rage may be the most powerful human force in your company. Your challenge is to help that be a force for good.

This post first appeared in Billboard.

Share

The New Foursquare

"Damn, here we go again
People talking shit, but when shit hit the fan
Everything I'm not, made me everything I am"
—Kanye West, "Everything I Am

 Audio version of the post

Kanye West - Everything I Am | Listen for free at bop.fm

In 2000 Dennis Crowley founded a company called Dodgeball, which built an application that ran on your not-so-smart phone. The point of Dodgeball was to link up with your friends and discover new things to do. It was great fun for extremely social, high tech geeks. The founders eventually sold the Dodgeball to Google in 2005. 

In retrospect, Dennis observed something about Dodgeball that he believed would be the key to creating a magical product. Because Dodgeball captured where people really were and therefore what they actually liked to do, the data set could be the basis for the greatest local recommendation engine that the world had ever seen. Rather than finding out about local businesses via payola and advertising schemes, people could get real information based on where their friends and people with similar tastes actually went. He could build a system based on accurate data rather than perverse incentives. The product would truly make cities more usable. 
 
Obsessed by his observation, in 2009 Dennis co-founded Foursquare. This time, he was building on the smart phone platform, which had things like GPS making the original dodgeball functionality more powerful and the data set richer. From a feature standpoint, Foursquare started out much as Dodgeball before it, but always evolving towards the vision of being the ultimate local recommendation engine. 

Along the way the team added many features designed to make cities more usable. The cumulation of this work was a breakthrough mechanism called Pilgrim. Pilgrim enables a user to "checkin" without ever having to take her phone out of her pocket. Without ever taking action or even opening an app, a user who loves sweets instantly discovers that a local bakery has the bomb ass cupcakes.  This magical functionality was made possible through over 6 billion checkins, which enabled the Foursquare software to figure out the exact shapes of over 60 million venues. Such data exists nowhere else in the world today. 

Despite the breakthrough functionality, the application itself did not feel quite right. Combining the database building social networking features with the local recommendation service meant putting two very different sets of use cases into one app. Most problematically, this meant two separate privacy models. While you probably want every Foursquare user to see your recommendations, you definitely don't want them to all know where you are. Most users find two privacy models in one app to be quite confusing.  

For the past year, the Foursquare team has been working to solve this important problem. They recognized that although the local social networking features had been an essential part of building the data set, with Pilgrim in place, they were no longer needed for the recommendation portion of app. So they split the app into two: 1) An app to keep up with your friends: Swarm 2) An app to get the most relevant and honest recommendations imaginable: the new Foursquare. The old monolithic Foursquare is now two apps with very straight-forward, super clean privacy models and consistent use cases. 

When you try the new Foursquare, you will understand exactly why splitting the app in two makes perfect sense. The new products are straight-forward, easy to use and truly unlock the best of what cities have to offer. And, if when using the new Foursquare, you miss the features of the old monolith like checking in, just remember that everything Foursquare is not made it everything it is. 

Share

About
Ben's Book
Archive

App.net