The Yo joke keeps on getting funnier. First 1.2 million dollars of funding for an app that allows you to send, "yo" to your friends and now this hack. What the hell was the money spent on? It certainly wasn't security. I'd imagine the developers threw a massive party with kegs and thousands of pizzas with the funding money because lets be honest: Yo is an MVP product that is not refined nor innovative and could be built by a 14 year old with a Udemy course on Objective-C. The fact it supposedly took 8 hours to build and started off as an April Fools Day joke says it all, right?
I like stupid apps and things like this, but the fact this received funding just reminds me of 1999. Apps like this shouldn't take funding, they're short-lived hype apps, they're not the next Twitter or Facebook. Can the bubble just pop already please? Save the VC funding for startup ideas that actually deserve it. This is the pet rock of mobile apps.
At least Mike Judge has a plot he can adopt for season two of Silicon Valley though.
Probably relocating from Israel to a new office in San Franscisco, in addition to hiring new staff, and marketing to keep the buzz going (they even turned the funding itself into a PR campaign, which is very well done).
I'd imagine the developers threw a massive party with kegs and thousands of pizzas...
I'd imagine this shows either some disconnect or envy, or a little bit of both.
Apps like this shouldn't take funding, they're short-lived hype apps, they're not the next Twitter or Facebook.
Why not? So they can slave for months on some feature set that needlessly bloats their simple product? Buzz around the funding grew them from 50k users to an estimated 250k users in a span of less than a week. Why sit still and not ride the wave to full-on virality or an early exit? If they manage to eat just 1% of WhatsApp's lunch, the investors would have made a fine investment.
Yo is an MVP product that is not refined nor innovative and could be built by a 14 year old with a Udemy course on Objective-C
The first version of Facebook was not refined or innovative. There are a lot of talented coders on HackerNews who could built any app currently on the market in a weekend. They either do not bother (because they don't think it is innovative enough) or they do bother, but fail to connect with the market. Yes, this product is a victory of smart marketing and user virality, not a victory of using the technology.
If you can build an MVP application that attracts funding, 250k users and a lot of media attention, then I suggest you go start that Udemy course and do so. I won't complain when you get funding to realize the full potential.
Save the VC funding for startup ideas that actually deserve it.
No. Save the VC funding for those startups that show promising growth and realistic strategies. Save the VC funding for startups that will bring return on your investment. Save the VC funding for the pet rock startups that managed to sell 15 million $ in profit in their first 6 months.
There are a lot of talented coders on HackerNews who could built any app currently on the market in a weekend.
I see comments to this effect every now and then on HN (ie. any skilled team could build out Facebook in 30 days)
It's great to shoot for the stars and have faith in yourself, folks, but shockingly lots of people who get paid to program also happen to be REALLY GOOD at what they do.
While I could focus on the benefits of a little bit of humility (and they are many) instead I'll say that there are people who come on to these sites and see ridiculous statements like this and will suddenly start to wonder what's the point of learning to code if they'll only be good once they can build any app in a weekend.
So no, there aren't people who can build any app on the market in a weekend. And that doesn't mean that any of those people are bad at what they do.
I am not saying I am one of those coders. But I know that they are on HackerNews. There is a large chance that the founder and VCs of Yo will see this thread. If you post about a computer language, chances are the authors are reading it.
Yes, there are a lot of coders on here that can code your MVP or a basic mobile app in 48 hours. And I think some of them are still constantly learning new ways to code and getting better.
I made no qualitative statements about these topcoders vs. those coders who can't (or won't) deliver in a weekend.
...will suddenly start to wonder what's the point of learning to code if they'll only be good once they can build any app in a weekend.
I think that's more of an issue with self-esteem than it is with the observation that there are hackers on here who can crank out production-ready code in a short amount of time.
HN really seemed to like the posts by Jennifer Dewalt (http://jenniferdewalt.com/). It is not unwelcome to starting coders. You may be interested in Norvig's article: http://norvig.com/21-days.html "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years" which aligns much more with my true view on this.
Speed is not everything. Often these weekend hacks lack market demand, lack user experience, can't overcome the chicken-and-egg problem.
I wont believe the funding until, it's been confirmed. This not funding, this is PR hype. Able worked for a company and the CEO wanted the Yo app. The same CEO has given him the funding. I've heard many stories of fake funding on Angellist why should this be any different.
Correct, yet totally besides the point. Instead of what "could be", do a search and find that it were more than 2 investors, and that Hogeg lead the round and invested 200k (of the 1.2 million).
For startups this young, it certainly IS NEVER security. -unless security is part of their core or value-add. (ie dropbox would be nowhere if security wasnt #1)
How can security be anywhere on their early timeline? (i agree it should) but the market (10-20yr olds) and investors are not asking for more security. Also, how secure is secure? Very difficult to know when you are secure enough - and what will your product be tomorrow?
Securing your API to an acceptable level and not exposing your users' details really isn't THAT hard. It's just something a lot of app developers have never even picked up a book on.
There is an excess of capital to be invested in start ups. As simple as this app is it shows that the founder had the ability to make something that people reacted to. 90% of apps are DOA. If you release an app that receives this amount of attention it almost does no matter what it is, you'll get funding. It may not be from top tier investors but the money will still work.
Maybe they haven't spent the 1.2 million dollars? Maybe they and their investors know a little bit more than we do and have something up their sleeves.
What we do know is they sure have recieved a lot of attention they wouldn't have otherwise.
I can think of many more ways to frivolously spend money. I think it highlights the lack of high-value or tech-intensive investment opportunities for investors.
Comments
The Yo joke keeps on getting funnier. First 1.2 million dollars of funding for an app that allows you to send, "yo" to your friends and now this hack. What the hell was the money spent on? It certainly wasn't security. I'd imagine the developers threw a massive party with kegs and thousands of pizzas with the funding money because lets be honest: Yo is an MVP product that is not refined nor innovative and could be built by a 14 year old with a Udemy course on Objective-C. The fact it supposedly took 8 hours to build and started off as an April Fools Day joke says it all, right?
I like stupid apps and things like this, but the fact this received funding just reminds me of 1999. Apps like this shouldn't take funding, they're short-lived hype apps, they're not the next Twitter or Facebook. Can the bubble just pop already please? Save the VC funding for startup ideas that actually deserve it. This is the pet rock of mobile apps.
At least Mike Judge has a plot he can adopt for season two of Silicon Valley though.
Probably relocating from Israel to a new office in San Franscisco, in addition to hiring new staff, and marketing to keep the buzz going (they even turned the funding itself into a PR campaign, which is very well done).
I'd imagine this shows either some disconnect or envy, or a little bit of both.
Why not? So they can slave for months on some feature set that needlessly bloats their simple product? Buzz around the funding grew them from 50k users to an estimated 250k users in a span of less than a week. Why sit still and not ride the wave to full-on virality or an early exit? If they manage to eat just 1% of WhatsApp's lunch, the investors would have made a fine investment.
The first version of Facebook was not refined or innovative. There are a lot of talented coders on HackerNews who could built any app currently on the market in a weekend. They either do not bother (because they don't think it is innovative enough) or they do bother, but fail to connect with the market. Yes, this product is a victory of smart marketing and user virality, not a victory of using the technology.
If you can build an MVP application that attracts funding, 250k users and a lot of media attention, then I suggest you go start that Udemy course and do so. I won't complain when you get funding to realize the full potential.
No. Save the VC funding for those startups that show promising growth and realistic strategies. Save the VC funding for startups that will bring return on your investment. Save the VC funding for the pet rock startups that managed to sell 15 million $ in profit in their first 6 months.
I see comments to this effect every now and then on HN (ie. any skilled team could build out Facebook in 30 days)
It's great to shoot for the stars and have faith in yourself, folks, but shockingly lots of people who get paid to program also happen to be REALLY GOOD at what they do.
While I could focus on the benefits of a little bit of humility (and they are many) instead I'll say that there are people who come on to these sites and see ridiculous statements like this and will suddenly start to wonder what's the point of learning to code if they'll only be good once they can build any app in a weekend.
So no, there aren't people who can build any app on the market in a weekend. And that doesn't mean that any of those people are bad at what they do.
I am not saying I am one of those coders. But I know that they are on HackerNews. There is a large chance that the founder and VCs of Yo will see this thread. If you post about a computer language, chances are the authors are reading it.
Yes, there are a lot of coders on here that can code your MVP or a basic mobile app in 48 hours. And I think some of them are still constantly learning new ways to code and getting better.
I made no qualitative statements about these topcoders vs. those coders who can't (or won't) deliver in a weekend.
I think that's more of an issue with self-esteem than it is with the observation that there are hackers on here who can crank out production-ready code in a short amount of time.
HN really seemed to like the posts by Jennifer Dewalt (http://jenniferdewalt.com/). It is not unwelcome to starting coders. You may be interested in Norvig's article: http://norvig.com/21-days.html "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years" which aligns much more with my true view on this.
Speed is not everything. Often these weekend hacks lack market demand, lack user experience, can't overcome the chicken-and-egg problem.
First 1.2 million dollars of funding
I wont believe the funding until, it's been confirmed. This not funding, this is PR hype. Able worked for a company and the CEO wanted the Yo app. The same CEO has given him the funding. I've heard many stories of fake funding on Angellist why should this be any different.
The funding came from the CEO himself, it's just a marketing scheme...
No it didn't. The funding came from multiple investors, not the CEO himself.
www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2014/06/19/app-raises-1m-in-funding-for-simply-sending-the-message-yo-back-and-forth/
The CEO of Mobli is not the CEO/founder of Yo.
Also:
So there are multiple investors, not a single one.
Multiple can mean "2." It could b 99% from the one angel and a $1000 from the CEO's mom, dad, siblings, etc.
Correct, yet totally besides the point. Instead of what "could be", do a search and find that it were more than 2 investors, and that Hogeg lead the round and invested 200k (of the 1.2 million).
Searched around and haven't found anything to indicate that.
Hogeg's angel fund (the only identified investor) may have multiple people in it, but they could all be _his_ friends and family.
For startups this young, it certainly IS NEVER security. -unless security is part of their core or value-add. (ie dropbox would be nowhere if security wasnt #1)
How can security be anywhere on their early timeline? (i agree it should) but the market (10-20yr olds) and investors are not asking for more security. Also, how secure is secure? Very difficult to know when you are secure enough - and what will your product be tomorrow?
My thoughts on a solution: Short term: "AMA request - Head of security for startup XYZ". Which leads to a community security score/rank. EDIT: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/28n64e/ama_request_per...
Long term: ONE COMMON Open Source framework that is way too easy to implement regardless of the languages used. Seriously way too easy NOT to use
Securing your API to an acceptable level and not exposing your users' details really isn't THAT hard. It's just something a lot of app developers have never even picked up a book on.
There is an excess of capital to be invested in start ups. As simple as this app is it shows that the founder had the ability to make something that people reacted to. 90% of apps are DOA. If you release an app that receives this amount of attention it almost does no matter what it is, you'll get funding. It may not be from top tier investors but the money will still work.
Someone doesn't believe in innovation through constraints! I spot a nonbeliever!
....
;)
Maybe they haven't spent the 1.2 million dollars? Maybe they and their investors know a little bit more than we do and have something up their sleeves.
What we do know is they sure have recieved a lot of attention they wouldn't have otherwise.
There's so much potential for this app, they could add a keyboard and allow you to send any message you want for instance...
I've read too many times the "they may know more than we do and they may have surprises". Cut the bs pls.
I can think of many more ways to frivolously spend money. I think it highlights the lack of high-value or tech-intensive investment opportunities for investors.
"Invested" != "Spent"