We often define ourselves by what we strive to build, the markets we want to enter, the customers we want to serve, and the visions we want to pursue. These are of course necessary, but they are not defining. The deeper source of identity is not what an organization chooses to do. It is what it chooses not to do.
This is uncomfortable because possibility feels like power. A capable team can always imagine another feature, another market, another customer segment, another partnership, another product line. The temptation is especially strong for talented founders because talent creates options, and options create the illusion of progress. The more a team believes it can do, the more vulnerable it becomes to doing too much.
But strategy is not the accumulation of possibility. Strategy is the disciplined rejection of most possibilities.
A company does not become distinct merely by having ambition. Ambition is abundant. What makes a company distinct is the courage to refuse attractive alternatives. The refusal to venture off into yet another direction is what gives a company its shape. It tells the team what matters, tells customers what to expect, and tells the market what the company is willing to sacrifice in order to become itself.
Artist are seen as those that are free to chase their every imagination, but making a 2 hour movie work is painstakingly an act of constraint and commitment. Imagine the push back that comes from wanting to represent a seen so badly that you push the a $10M shot that lasts 10 seconds. Could you commit to it when everything inside and outside your world is saying it is falling apart? What makes art such an inspiring form of achievement is the commitment to see a singular vision though to the end for – well – what some would call “just a little piece of expression”.
Apple is known for going big on marketing and charging a lot for their products. What most don’t see is Apple is a hallmark of restraint. Apple is not simply Apple because it builds computers, phones, operating systems, or services. Anyone can have a vision for a great computer or experience. Apple is Apple because it has historically chosen control over ubiquity. Upgrades over legacy. It has preferred integrated experience over maximum openness. That choice requires saying no to many obvious opportunities: software for every device, infinite customization, broad compatibility at any cost, and the short-term revenue that comes from being everywhere. (In fact, their lack of constraint is what almost put them under early in their growth – but that is a story for others to tell. )
Those refusals are not incidental. They are central to the product. That isn’t to say their decisions are required for success, but making those decisions and sticking to their identity is.
Few would say Microsoft is not successful and they are a very different looking company. For most of its history they made an opposite choice. Its power came from not being tied primarily to its own hardware. Windows and Office became dominant because Microsoft chose scale, backwards compatibility, options via licensing and distribution across a vast ecosystem of machines it did not manufacture. That strategic refusal gave Microsoft its own identity. It was not Apple, and that was the point. Both companies are shaped more by what they refused as by what they pursued.
The same pattern appears in many industries.
A company making a fast car is not merely choosing speed. It is often giving up affordability, mass accessibility, or low-maintenance practicality. A luxury brand is not merely choosing premium materials or elevated design. It is refusing accommodate everyone’s requests – in fact – they hope they are not. A great restaurant is not merely choosing a menu. It is refusing to serve every taste, every trend, and every customer expectation. The strength of the experience comes from the boundaries around it.
Most people know it when they see it, but chaos, disorganization, and what can feel like a lack of brand identity is merely the manifestation of a lack of restraint. Picking your lane is not giving up on a grand vision, it is dedicating your time to a specific outcome; it is an example of discipline. It is the difference between a light and a laser.
Even Costco, which appears on the surface to sell almost everything to everyone, is built on disciplined refusal. Its model depends on giving up selection of a myriad of options for the same product. It carries a limited number of SKUs, uses warehouse-like stores, bulks up on few variation of a product, and optimizes ruthlessly for efficiency and value. It will not take profits that don’t meet within these restraints.
This distinction matters because every “yes” has a cost beyond the immediate work required. Every yes changes the product. Every yes changes the company’s internal logic and dilutes identity.
Yes you can do anything, but no we can’t do everything.
How do we decide that line?
Proving ambition with breadth is how companies lose coherence. Rarely all at once. More often, they lose it through a series of individually reasonable expansions. One more feature. One more customer type. One more exception. One more “strategic” partnership. One more “why not?” One more compromise that seems harmless in isolation but slowly erodes the original center of gravity.
The problem is not that expansion is bad. Growth often requires expansion. The problem is having expansion without a theory of refusal. An investor without a thesis is throwing money around. Even if they make wins it is not a story they can sell, and without that sale there is no fund.
Without a clear understanding of what the company will not do, growth becomes drift. The company may get bigger, but it does not necessarily get stronger. It gains surface area while losing definition.
This is why the question “What are we building?” must be paired with a harder question: “What will we never build?”
What customer will we not serve?
What feature will we not add?
What revenue will we walk away from?
What behavior will we not reward?
What pressure will we not yield to, even when yielding would make the quarter easier?
What do we cut?
As the great quote says: I don’t sculpt stone into what it should look like, I chip away all the stone that isn’t.
For founders, this discipline is especially important because early companies are fragile systems. A young company has limited time, limited attention, and limited resources. You are ALWAYS stealing from Peter to pay Paul – you can’t pay both.
With AI the lack of constraints required is the very dirt founder can now bury themselves in ten-times over. A product cannot afford to become many things at once – even if it is able to. The founder’s job is not merely to inspire motion. It is to protect the company from compounding motion it can not manage. By being weighed down by its options.
In this sense, refusal is not negativity. It is not small thinking. It is not fear. It is not the lack of vision. It is the architecture of commitment. Vision may be the destination, but focus is not blowing all your travel money on the first stop. It is not getting married on the first date.
To choose anything seriously you must give up many other things. The stronger the choice, the stronger the refusals required to preserve it. This is true for products, brands, companies, and creative lives. You do not become distinct by remaining available to every possibility. You become distinct by rejecting most of them with enough conviction that the few remaining possibilities can be pursued deeply.
The world does not suffer from a shortage of people willing to add more. It suffers from a shortage of people willing to define what must be left out. That is where real strategy begins.
Most builders have inherited a bad vocabulary for early product work.
We tell people to build an MVP, but the phrase has become so overused that it often clarifies less than it confuses. Some people hear “minimum” and interpret it as permission to ship something brittle, awkward, or barely usable. Others hear “viable” and inflate the work into a miniature production system, complete with abstractions, infrastructure, tests, edge-case handling, and design polish that may never matter.
To balance that out we encourage people to “just hack it together,” which pushes the pendulum into a different problem. Hacky can be useful when it means fast, practical, and unconcerned with unnecessary ceremony. But hacky too often becomes an excuse for bad work. It works in the narrowest technical sense, but some see it as license to create terrible unpleasant use, error laden, difficult to understand, and fragile the moment reality touches it.
This is the gap “right-but-light” is meant to name.
Right-but-light means building something correctly enough that it earns trust, while keeping it light enough that it remains easy to change. It is not about doing less work. It is about refusing to carry more weight than the moment requires. It isn’t minimal or maximal. It is that harmonious balance so many folks have trouble finding. We don’t hack down the scope to get away with a bad implementation, we do it so the one thing we choose to do is done well – while still not evergreen or perfect.
The “right” part matters because users do not experience your product through your intentions. They experience it through the surface area you give them. A button that is twice as large as it should be may not break the system, but it may still signal that your offering is dangerously unkempt. A workflow that technically completes the task but makes the user think too hard won’t get used – at all. A prototype that loses data, hides errors, or makes the user feel unsure doesn’t give you the real signals you are looking for. These things may be excusable in a throwaway 24-hour hack-a-thon demo, but they are not balanced for an initial product seedling. They train the builder, the user, and the team to tolerate roughness where clarity was needed.
The “light” part matters because early certainty is usually fake. At the beginning of a product, most of the important learning still has to happen. The shape of the problem will change. The user may care about a different part of the workflow than expected. The thing you thought was a feature may turn out to be a demo path. The thing you thought was temporary may become the center of the product. In that environment, heavy architecture is often a liability disguised as discipline and thoughfulness.
A right-but-light implementation avoids both forms of waste. It does not ignore usability in the name of speed, and it does not overbuild permanence into something that has not yet earned permanence.
This distinction has become more important with agents. Human teams already struggled with the nuance between fast and sloppy, or thoughtful and overbuilt. Agents amplify that ambiguity. Ask an agent to “build an MVP” and it may produce a sprawling approximation of a real application. Ask it to “make it hacky” and it may skip the very details that make the product usable. The instruction was vague, so the output becomes a coin flip between underbuilt and overbuilt.
“Keep it right-but-light” is a better constraint because it tells both the human and the agent what kind of tradeoff is being made. The work should be correct in the parts that matter. The interface should be understandable. The happy path should feel intentional. The data should not vanish. The user should not have to forgive the product in order to use it.
But the implementation should remain light. Maybe the data lives in a JSON file before it earns a database. Maybe the workflow is hardcoded before it earns configurability. Maybe the UI uses an existing design pattern rather than inventing a new system. Maybe the feature does not need role-based permissions, event streams, audit trails, background jobs, and a full settings page on day one. Maybe the right version is simply the smallest version that behaves with taste.
Right-but-light also gives teams a cleaner stopping rule. The question is not “is this complete?” because early products are almost never complete. The better question is: “Is this right enough to learn from, and light enough to change after we learn?”
That question changes the conversation. It moves the team away from false binaries. You are no longer choosing between a disposable hack and a production-grade system. You are choosing the minimum level of correctness required for meaningful use, and the minimum level of structure required for responsible iteration. Yes, that is what MVP and lean startup. It is just that I have tried for YEARS to explain that to people and it either doesn’t land or get me in to trouble with “you said to do the minimum!”
For example, a right-but-light onboarding flow may not need analytics dashboards, branching personalization, enterprise configuration, and a polished admin panel. But it probably does need clear copy, coherent visual hierarchy, a reset path for testing, and enough state handling that the user does not get trapped. A right-but-light internal tool may not need a formal database schema or complex permissions. But it probably does need predictable inputs, readable outputs, and error states that do not require the builder to stand nearby and explain what went wrong.
There are many great product folks out there building things you love, and I am sure you have used a product you loved and realized there was no delete button and wonders “WTF? Why can’t I delete?!”. If you get a req for your unaware peers in different departments they would have died on the sword to put the obviousl “delete” in on v1, but no feature is truly “simple” and without a time cost. So, that product manager says “they need to love what they create before they need to delete.” One less unit of time for one side of the product, one extra unit of time for another. No one has infinite time or infinite money. No one.
So how do you chose? The point is not to lower standards. It is to place the standard in the right part of the work and be okay with walking away from the other.
Long-lasting applications deserve robustness, scalability, observability, automated tests, security reviews, edge-case handling, and design precision. But not every early feature has earned that full burden yet.
Premature permanence slows learning. It turns every change into a negotiation with yesterday’s assumptions.
Speed without standards is not iteration. It is motion.Wheels spinning fast in the mud.
It asks for seriousness without heaviness. It asks for speed without sloppiness. It asks for taste without vanity. It asks the builder to cut everything that is not required, while doing the remaining things with care.
That is the deeper meaning of the phrase.
Right-but-light is not another way to say MVP. It is a correction to what MVP has become. It restores the part people forgot when “agile” and “MVP” became a household term.
Three stages separate ideas from products, and products from things people love.
The first stage is capability.
Can it be done? Can the software be written? Can the company be started? Can the product be built? Can the problem be solved?
These questions matter because capability is the foundation upon which everything else rests. Nothing can be executed, adopted, or admired until it is first plausible.
This is where most people rest comfortably.
The surprising thing about capability is that proving something can be done often provides many of the same emotional rewards as actually doing it. Once someone becomes convinced they could build the company, write the book, get in shape, learn the skill, or launch the product, the pressure largely disappears. Potential becomes a source of comfort.
The entrepreneur enjoys imagining the startup. The author enjoys discussing the book. The engineer enjoys architecting the system. The athlete enjoys knowing they could get serious whenever they decide the time is right. People tend to love their own brains and marvel at what it can achieve. Potential is attractive because it is free from accountability. It cannot fail because it does not yet exist.
Did you actually do it?
The second stage is execution. It only lives in the past tense. This is where the conversation changes. Ideas become products. Plans become companies. Discussions become outcomes. Concepts become features available for use and critique to the public domain. The world stops evaluating intentions and starts evaluating evidence.
A customer cannot buy potential. A user cannot interact with ambition. An investor cannot generate returns from possibility alone (though they push this rule as much as possible). The market, unlike our friends and colleagues, is remarkably indifferent to what could have happened. It only responds to what did happen.
People who reach this stage deserve significant credit. The distance between an idea and reality is far larger than most people appreciate. Building something that survives contact with the real world is difficult. Something complete, end-to-end. It accomplishes its intend (big or small) and no hand holding or excuses are needed for it to be used properly. Launching is difficult. Selling is difficult. Maintaining momentum is difficult.
Most people never get there. And I am being generous with “most”.
Yet many who do arrive at execution mistakenly believe they have reached the finish line. They assume that because something works, people will care. They assume that because a solution is objectively better, adoption will naturally follow. They assume that utility alone is enough. They believe a logical use case exists and therefore usage will follow. A good plan and execution is all that is needed.
History suggests otherwise.
The graveyard of technology is filled with products that worked. Many were faster than their competitors. Many were technically superior. Some were years ahead of their time. Their failure was not one of engineering. Their failure was assuming that human beings make decisions primarily through logic.
Taste.
Taste is one of the most misunderstood concepts in business because it is often reduced to aesthetics. People hear the word and think about typography, color palettes, industrial design, architecture, or fashion. Those things matter, but they are only symptoms of something deeper.
Taste is the ability to understand how another human being will experience what you have created.
It is the recognition that people do not merely consume functionality. They consume stories, emotions, identity, aspiration, status, trust, culture, and delight. A chair is not simply somewhere to sit. A restaurant is not merely a place to eat. A home is not simply shelter. A product is not just a collection of features. Even a purposefully poort taste for those that are tasteless is, in fact, a taste. The trickle down story line of decisions and focused intent lead to those that have the same test to become interested. Taste is not being fashionable, it is knowing people need clothes and certain groups of people like cheap clothes, some like expensive clothes, and some like expensive clothes that are on sale – but they know which group of tasters they want to have.
Every meaningful creation eventually becomes an experience.
This is why two products with nearly identical functionality can produce radically different outcomes. One becomes beloved while the other is forgotten. One creates a movement while the other creates a user base. One becomes part of a person’s identity while the other remains a tool.
The difference is often explained by taste.
The creators who understand taste recognize that presentation is part of the product. Storytelling is part of the product. Culture is part of the product. The emotional experience surrounding something is not separate from what is being built. It is one of the things being built.
Most people spend their lives asking whether something can be done. A much smaller group proves that it can. The rarest creators understand that neither capability nor execution guarantees significance.
The first stage asks whether something is possible.
Key Strategies for Startups: Control Your Tech, Move Fast, and Value Equity
If you’re a tech company, don’t outsource your core tech to another firm.
Think of your core tech as the heart of your company. It’s what sets you apart and drives your unique value. When you outsource this vital part, you risk losing control and potentially building something unnecessary as you adapt to feedback. No matter how loyal and supportive an outsourcing firm may seem, their primary goal is to grow their own business, not yours. Even if you offer them equity, their interests won’t fully align with yours—they are billing by the hour while you’re focused on trimming down for an MVP.
I’ve seen many bootstrapped firms spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, only to end up with an unfinished product they don’t fully understand. By keeping your core tech in-house, you stay agile, protect your intellectual property, ensure everything aligns perfectly with your vision and goals, and invest in your corporate tech culture.
You’re supposed to be a fast, nimble startup. Being stealthy will more often hold you back than set you up for a “blowout” go-to-market strategy.
You are building your startup because something is missing from the market. This inherently means it has yet to be addressed or addressed successfully. Either you will be the one to succeed where others have failed, or you won’t. Rarely does a large firm, which is not already chasing the market you are attacking, suddenly “steal your idea”. Large firms are slow-moving and full of bureaucracy. They have not innovated because their goal is to preserve their brand and existing income streams. If they did “steal your idea” chances are they would do a horrible job. More importantly, if you can’t do better than what they attempt, what’s your “x-factor”?
More likely, those large companies will become one of your investors or try to acquire your business and novel expertise. Why would they risk building a new department or team internally (and potentially fail – bad for the brand) when they can simply buy it after it has proven successful? If you’re still not convinced and think a few months to a year of stealthiness will prevent another company from copying you, consider this: if it were possible to copy you so easily, would you really have a chance of succeeding in the long term anyway?
As a startup, your biggest strengths are your speed, focus, talent, and flexibility. Large companies aren’t built for these advantages. Staying in stealth mode might seem like a smart strategy to build suspense or keep others in the dark, but it will slow you down and limit your options. Early feedback from customers, investors, and the market is invaluable for refining your product and strategy. By staying too secretive, you miss out on crucial insights and an opportunity to build relationships. Instead, embrace openness—engage with your market, gather feedback, and iterate quickly.
You aren’t bootstrapping well if you are paying others cash to do your core work. Your equity is even more precious and should motivate value, knowledge, and culture.
Bootstrapping is all about making the most of your resources. If you’re spending cash on tasks you could handle internally, you’re not bootstrapping effectively. Instead, consider using options to attract and motivate talent who are passionate about your mission. This not only saves cash but also builds upon your value with equity while creating a committed team culture that’s deeply invested in the company’s success. Equity can be a powerful tool when focused on building long-term value. Remember, your cash is limited. Equity will be the foundational element for future rounds, when used wisely it can drive long-term value and loyalty.
You may not yet be a venture business
It’s exciting to think about raising money, but venture is meant to fuel powerful growth and value. If you already have paying customers lined up, and those sales or design partners could lead to changes in the product you may be giving up equity for the wrong business. If you need money to pay for the time between invoices and payments consider debt financing to cover your float. This isn’t always the most exciting feedback to hear, but if you haven’t considered these tactics then you may be doing a disservice to your business’s ability to evolve properly.
In our rapidly advancing technological age, it’s not uncommon to hear discussions about what jobs and tasks will be taken over by machines. I tend to look at it from an flipped perspective: What if we assume every task you deal with today is meant for machines. Humans are born burdened, unnecessarily, with repetitive and labor-intensive processes of work. Our ancestors could not advance without physical labor. This is a temporary state that we deal with until we figure out the best way to, inevitably, hand these tasks off to machines. From the beginning of human history, we have always been simply the “in-between”.
Reframing our problems and ideas allow us to remove walls that are only set by tradition or cultural perspectives. Once we find ways to break free from those binds, we can more easily identify ways to advance. The goal is to increase our happiness and ease of existence, not savor the burdens we are born with, or that have been passed down.
Many people are familiar with the concept of the “mechanical Turk,” where human labor is used to perform individual tasks instead of relying on a machine. However, isn’t everything a mechanical Turk? Isn’t that definition backwards? Isn’t every task not done by a machine simply an example of us imitating machinery? From making eggs to driving to work, filling out spreadsheets, targeting investments, and delivering a baby, these are all tasks that could be broken down into simpler repetitive tasks. We are not losing tasks to machines, but freeing ourselves from machine-appropriate tasks so we can do and live as freely and unburdened as possible.
By assuming that everything is meant for machines and that humans are merely the in-between, we can more easily identify the tasks that should be handed off to machines to improve our quality of life. This shift in perspective can help us reframe problems and ideate new products and procedures that are more efficient and beneficial for humanity.
Over the years, I’ve tried a number of ways to plow through the never ending suggestions of books that I “need to read”. I’ve kept lists in paper notebooks, Facebook books, Goodreads, my iOS Notepad, and even as a Reminders list. The list keeps getting longer. I buy books I don’t end up liking or reading, or just forget to place one in the barrel next time a get some free time to read.
Recently I discovered a way to automatically manage my list and get the book in my hands in almost any format or device — for free! Here’s how:
Libby is an app by Overdrive that helps make checking out books from the library easy. No, don’t worry, it’s not a way to checkout paper books. Libby is focused on helping you download audiobooks and digital books and allows you to push them to your Kindle, iBooks or whatever works for you.
Now, before you disregard the power of your local library (the institution your tax dollars pay for) let’s flip the script. Libby allows you to grab books you’re interested in.
So, think of how it plays out: You hear about a book that “you need to read.” You search for it on your Libby app, and you place a hold on it. Yes, there is a wait list for your book, and popular ones often have longer wait lists. But, guess what? You don’t care!
This is your reading list!
When books are available, they pop onto you phone or Kindle. If you don’t have time to read it, just put it back into the hold lists for the next go around. If you want to read a few chapters and put it away, that works too. The hold queue isn’t just some arbitrary list you keep that is disconnected from the act of reading — they are one and the same.
I have been doing this for the past year and love the fact that I don’t need to feel bad about falling behind on my reading. I know I’ll just read the next book that becomes available, and not think twice about my queue.
It took a while to get to “reading zen”, so I thought I’d share it. Hope it works for you too!
I quite liked driving through New Zealand and Australia. Like most countries outside the U.S., they use roundabouts to deal with intersection traffic.
The rules of a roundabout are quite simple: you must yield to oncoming cars to your right – otherwise – go. Most of the time there are no cars coming and you can avoid the “come to a complete stop” law all together.
I find the iterative development cycle works in much the same way. In older more classic models, a product manager and their stakeholders work diligently to make sure specs are completed thoroughly before marking them as “ready for development.” In reality, the a majority of what *can* be done dramatically changes as new information is made available (digging into the problem, user feedback, stakeholder feedback, complexity etc.) The “stop” heavy culture of elaborately planned tasks are often thrown away the seconds after development, and issues, start. The real knowledge comes from implementation and iteration once each atomic feature is released. It also requires trust in those that implement to have a good enough understanding of the high level purpose of what your product is trying to achieve.
What if something goes wrong? Well, just like with a round about, development yields when there is” oncoming traffic” (AKA an issue getting flagged.) In scrum, the flag can be raised at standup meetings or planning meetings. If there is no flag then the developer does the best they can to implement the best way they can. In essence, they are entering the intersection and driving on through. This lack of congestion on spec creation can be better spent on feedback, iterations, and issues that come up. (In reality it is where the most critical time has always been.)
So, next time you’re concerned about how a task *should* be completed, and feel the need to surround yourself with stop signs, imagine the steady flow of a roundabout. Give your team the freedom to produce, stay available for issues that *may* come up, and when a change needs to be made revisit the task at hand.
On our trips to locations around the world our family and friends want a way to get an idea for what we are up to. Like most people, we post pictures to Facebook that try and capture the essence of our trip but video is so much better at truly capturing the 3-dimensional realities of what we experience.
Now, with tools like Hyperlapse and iMovie on iOS, you can create a video that summarize an entire site in a timely way for both the creator and viewer.
Here is an example of a video of our trip to Cappadocia I created entirely on my iPhone:
Not only does hyperlapse allow you to capture a sped up versions of your video, but it adds a layer of stabilization so to reduces camera shake.
Hyperlapse’s home page, recording and saving screens
Use Hyperlapse to shoot some video.
Even though there is built-in stabilization, it behooves you to try and keep the camera as steady as possible.
I often save my video at “2x.” Half the size (in time and memory) as a regular video and, as you will see when we edit in iMovie, you get a wider range of fast-forward-play options.
Once you finalize the video it is saved to your photo library for later use.
Follow the instruction to start a new movie or trailer, and select “movie”
Choose a theme (I usually just choose simple) and select “create”
Follow the instruction to add “video, photos, or audio”
Select one of your Hyperlapse videos from your library
Tip: Pressing play will allow you to preview the video before adding it. The arrow pointing down will import it into your project.
Drag and drop your movie clips in the order you want them to play
Tip: Taping a clip once selects it for editing. If there is a yellow border on the clip, you are in edit mode. If you want to move the clip, tap outside the clip so it is no longer highlighted and then tap-and-hold the clip until it is draggable.
Add transitions between the clip by tapping the small square box in between each clip.
Tip: If a clip is too short the transition options will be grayed out. You must have at least enough time in a clip to allow a transition to complete in order to select it.
Tip: Some transition have multiple modes. After choosing a transition by tapping it, tap the transition again to get the different variant. Eg, fade to black or fade to white.
Tip: This is one of the places choosing a theme in the “create project” options will have an outcome. See the “theme” transition. That will change based on the theme you chose. Tap the gear icon in the bottom right of the application to change the theme after a project is created.
Edit the the duration of a clip
Once a clip is selected, and highlighted with the yellow border, you can drag the ends of the clip to shorten or elongate the duration of the clip.
Speed up some “in between” clips
Some clips will still run a bit slow due to things like how long it took you to walk to the end of a block or to pan 360 degrees. You can speed up segments of these clips to move the video along.
Tap the clip to go into edit mode.
choose the meter icon (directly to the right of the scissor icon.) You will then see a meter labeled 1X
Drag the knob on the meter to the right to speed up the clip. You can move it to a max of 2X (which is why saving the clip as 2X allows you a range of 2X to 4X which.) There are ways around it I will go into later.
If you only want to speed up a segment slice the clip into more segments (explained below) and speed them up without transitions at their ends.
The functionality of iMovie is limited. Most of the effects you will create work off of the duration of each clip in your project. Therefor, you can manipulate your effects by slicing your clips to suit your needs.
How to slice a clip
Scrub (meaning, slide the white line A.K.A the video head) over the moment in the clip you would like to split into two.
Select a clip for editing (make sure the scissor tool is highlighted.)
Choose “split”
Now you have two clips for the same scene. As long as there is no transition there will be no visual result on the video due to the “split” you just made. Like I mentioned before, you are merely using the split to tell the effects we are about to add when to start and end. Eg, the titles and captions.
Adding a Caption or Title
Select a clip for editing
Select the large “T” (third icon to the right from the scissor.)
Select a caption type
In order to edit the text for a caption or title you will need to tap the video player, above the film section of the application.
Tip: After choosing a theme, extra options will display above the edit tray such as “Center”, “Opening” etc. These will position some titles, as well as change the format for others. Play around with them all to get a feel for the options you have.
By now you should have a video. To get a smooth video will take practice but now you will have all the tools and tips to do so 🙂
To save the clip as a video you can post to Facebook, go to the movie listing (if you are editing a movie project now you will need to tap the back arrow at the top of the application.) There you will have options to save the film to your library.
Tip: If you want to speed things up or make more advanced transitions you can save the edited video to your library and then create a new project with that saved video. You will than be able to speed segments up by another 2X or add transition to clips that may have been too short in your original movie.
Before we go, here’s a bonus tip …
How to rotate movies
I originally stumbled onto using iMovie when I accidently recorded a video vertically and needed to rotate it. Here’s how to rotate movies:
Open a movie in iMovie (if you do not know how to do so read the tutorial above.)
Pinch the movie preview viewer (the area above the clips and play head line) with two fingers and rotate them (like screwing off the top of a bottle.)
You will then see an circle arrow appear on the video. Once you see that remove your fingers from the screen.
Here is a quick video of some of the features in practice, as described above.
I really loved this book. Peter Theil’s blunt and sometimes abrasively honest concepts are very “Purple Cow” and right up my alley. E.g. make big claims from observations and work out why they are wrong or right. Although there are some things I didn’t agree with they are done so in a way that pushes me to reevaluate my reasoning. For the many things I did agree with, it is always nice to have someone better articulate concepts and back you up with some solid experience. 10X yo self.
Last year we really enjoyed opening our office up to OpenCo and revealing how we think and work as well as how we see technology transforming the world we live in. We ended with a look at “2023” and what all that may mean over the next decade. This year, after we were asked to present again under the new NewCo brand we took a different approach. In our talk today we hosted a thought experiment, taking a philosophical journey into what is content, how we know the difference between good and bad content, and how we can use that information to create the next set of products (or just appreciate the ones that come out a bit more.)
A talk about content in only one form of t would be sadly ironic. So, if you missed it we recorded and are presenting a few forms of the talk for ya.
I used this snazzy little tool that records voice on my iPhone and syncs the slides as a remote while giving a preso. Check out the tool at http://penxy.com/ or the final resulting “talking slides” at http://penxy.com/hyw
Slide Notes
(Min 14:00 in Slides Above)
This year for NewCos new track named Yahoo’s content series we’ll take a different approach and start off by asking a more fundamental (seemingly obvious) question.
What is content?
For the most part we know it when we see it. It’s the substance or material we deal with in a speech, images, tweets, or memes. It can look like this [Essay], or content can look like this [Donald Trump tweet].
As we have access to more and more content in our daily lives the question that becomes more and more important to viewers is whether this content is worse or better than the previous one? Many will say the latter is awful, yet we read content like this in droves everyday. Why?
Let’s upgrade the question a bit and ask:
What is good content?
That’s a pretty tough question to answer but an important one too. As more and more innovative products come out we can get caught up in critiquing or dismissing one from the next. One super popular dismissal is the “I don’t care about you eating waffles on Twitter – I hate twitter it’s just noise”. When we take this point of view we can miss out on some amazing developments in our culture not to mention some amazing opportunities that come from that level of access.
Fair warning this discussion is gonna get philosophical. We’ll keep diving deeper into questions like that around content.
I know – we all love a presentations structure that involves action items, best practices or check lists ready to go by the time we leave.
Sometimes though it’s important to step back before you ask, or answer, a deeper question. After all the concept of “good” and “bad” is one of the oldest philosophical conundrums in existence. Furthermore is it even the right question to ask at all? Let’s see what we discover…
So let’s get dirty and start our philosophical journey by restructuring a very – very old question:
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?
We may be quick to answer: “of course it makes a sound. I’ve heard a tree fall and heard its sound – my presence is not required.”
But the question’s more of a thought experiment than anything else. What makes the question interesting isn’t the science of sound but the philosophy behind observation and reality of what sound is without an observer. Thought experiments like that can uncover new questions that may live beneath the surface that are able to more directly answer more monumental questions.
So let’s use our time together to dive into a thought experiment around content and see where we end up
If information is created but is never shared for others to see it is it still content?
I mean if content can stand on its own without the communication aspect…
Would you say then that all the hundreds or thousands of ideas and thoughts locked in our heads are actually hundreds or thousands of pieces of content then? Maybe. Or maybe content is so inextricably tied to sharing that the two can’t maintain the definition on their own.
Hmmm.. Okay…if that’s the case then what side is more important in determining goodness? How well it’s distributed OR how well it’s formed and presented?
On one hand can we determine how good or bad content is if no one ever sees it? And, on the other hand, how worthwhile is content that everyone sees if it’s not useful or actionable? Content is more than text, sound, or an image in and of itself. In its most basic form it’s a projection of our thoughts that we thrust out into the world. As Maslov would probably put it: it’s a basic human need that makes us social and allows us to self-actualize.
If Descartes was alive today he may devise a whole new Cogito (“I think therefor I am”) to “I Share Therefore I am.”
We always hear there are no good or bad questions. And we are all unique – all our thoughts are important reflections of ourselves (which you may realize after thousands of dollars of therapy.) So why are we so driven to deem content good or bad if it is fundamentally a projection of self? Hmmmm… Interesting but I don’t think we’ve dived deep enough yet to form an answer… Let’s take another dive…
Let’s deconstruct content even further and ask
WHY is content?
(Min 23:00 in Slides Above)
(not a well formed sentence I know but you get the idea.)
Content is a transferring of our minds and being into an everlasting form.
It gives us eternal life and has so for thousands of years. In that regard it is one of the most advanced technologies ever created in the world. Our short finite lives are made infinite!
As the acronym YOLO so eloquently states, “You only live once” – but with the entire world filled with all these projected minds in the form of content we can live many lives vicariously through others.
If those concept are too abstract for your fancy and you’re more of the practical type then let’s frame it this way: Content gets stuff done more quickly. The faster we communicate the faster we can act between us.
I give you information locked in my head – you give your version back to me –
and like DNA all our contributions result in a greater overall result that may have taken ages had we attempted to think through it all on our own.
So with that I present my first thesis: The figuring out how to label content as good or bad comes from entirely the wrong place. The real question should be how do we use THIS content or THAT content? Where can we put each bit of content to allow our thoughts a chance to live in the open so that anyone can get the value from it if they so choose? Content is simply a medium we use at the moments we have thoughts to overcome our inability to be able to be inside one another’s head.
The real endeavor is to cut out the middleman completely and just exchange thoughts. And until we can do that our goal is to shorten the time it takes to transfer our emotions, ideas, and – our lives – as much as possible. Ultimate efficiency, eternal life, and dare I say maybe even peace will be achieved in that final move. It won’t be about us dealing with good and bad content it will be about us accepting all thoughts as a chance to achieve those ultimate goals.
If you appreciate the reality that a single mind is the ultimate goal then it will give way to clues to foresee what product, or content society will embrace next. I’m not saying we will achieve singularity tomorrow,
nor am I here to rally everyone to start making change so we do something – because it is inevitable whether you like it or not. I am here to help add to a map on how and why content exists so we can navigate what comes our way, or create useful products along the way.
The real problem we are attempting to solve in almost all products created today is: how do we decrease the inefficiency impeding us from what can be called a mind meld. Each new product attempts to close that time-gap from one persons mind and emotion to the next.
Still not convinced that is the ultimate direction?– lets take a break from the abstract and look at our known history for validation…
In the beginning it was the lack of the written word, passing down information through story. It got the job done but it could take a lifetime or more for anyone to have a chance to see ones work or hear ones thoughts in order to make use of them. It was also super lossy – changing with each storyteller and generation. The written word helped us set those words in stone so although interpretation was still at play the base from which we worked was identical to those that could read the original. Unfortunately there was only one original so it still took a while to get it circulating and – you break, you buy.
Then, boom, the creation of the printing press! Anyone with an idea could have a shot of distributing their thoughts in ones lifetime – rich or poor, academically educated or not –– well, as long as you could read or had someone that could read to you. An example of how powerful an easily copied text can be is seen in the 1500s when the Christian world’s perception of their religion was altered because of a German Friar named Martin Luther and the content he shared. Powerful yes,
but it still took 2 YEARS for his thoughts to circulate in his community. Could you imagine waiting 2 years for your questions or ideas to be circulated?
How frustrating for us to imagine?! At that time not only did communication work on a schedule like that but the perception was that not everyone needed to read or share content in the first place because the common folk were too dumb to make use of it. What value could they bring to the table?
We look back then and see a travesty around the freedom of information – but does our generation think all that differently? When we created AppMakr the same objections came up – “not everyone needs an app.”
The prediction was we would maybe make 4 apps a month. In our first day we had requests to make thousands. Against all doubt we knew that it has always been true that the power of distributing content should be given to the people “good” or “bad” – it was our guiding principle. … But I’m jumping ahead …
We’ve seen the drive to democratize content and speed its ability to be distributed for hundreds of years since the printing press.
Getting our thoughts out to the world in years
to weeks, to seconds with radio and TV. But then a problem still remained – instant is great but everyone should have a voice and the access to hear it – not just the privileged – we still wanted more.
And so the Internet was born: Instant transfer of anyone’s thoughts to anyone willing to access it. It was given the perfect term: “getting connected.” And our path to do so continued.
From dial up to Wi-Fi, from PC to laptop, from Laptop to phone. We are decreasing the time it takes for each of our thoughts to get out there.
The iPhone was also thought of as a fad by critiques after its release – for years large corporations wondered how they succeeded. Many missed that its main achievement was to further decrease the time and complexity it takes for us to create, share, and ingest content from anyone saying anything more instantly.
Whether it’s a lifetime to years or 3 seconds to 1 second. If you can decrease the time it takes to get ANYONES mind into the open you are on to something.
Of course we all hear the call to arms that everything is so different now, and bad, and chaotic – we are so much worst and impatient than in the past! I offer a different perspective, things are only different in the tools we use but our yearning and desires are exactly the same: “Hear me!”
Or, may I please have access to what is going out there.
Our heads are no more immersed in that desire today.
Than it has been in generations before us. We are just able to achieve those goals more practically.
Data has always been thrust upon us.
We are simply trying to make it ALL more manageable from one person to the next.
What we’re driving towards is a moment where my thoughts are yours in the same moment. Think of the frustration you’ve ever felt when you just wanted someone to understand what you were trying to convey but left only with words and gestures and maybe a white board. How awfully inefficient it is! Just get in my head for a second so we can move on! The channels we’ve seen are just manifestations of that desire we have. It’s still far away but that IS the direction we’re headed and have been headed since the word “I”.
Anything that shortens that gap for ANYONE to get ANYTHING to ANYONE ELSE is following that trajectory and delivering goodness.
Is it asking too much? Are we really so much more impatient than the past?
Why is a month too long to wait but a minute juuuuust short enough?
What is it compared to?
Cutting the time in half is cutting time in half when you move forward – period. And it will always take twice as long as it does now to those looking back. It’s not time thats a problem – time is relative.
All content that is caged is bad content because it doesn’t have the chance to allow someone to try and make their mark, live vicariously through shared story, or help them self-actualize. Sure with this digital tool there’s great power, fear and concern in how we will handle it all but it’s not about getting rid of some of it based on it being good or bad. Content is a tool to convey our thoughts – and we have all kinds of them that seem like garbage or gold from one person to the next.
It’s the difference between this
and this. Same tool different purpose
This is a knife
and so is this. And there are tons others out there. More and more a minute with a better edge or handle or metal or balance. They’re the channels we use to express ourselves with one another more quickly.
We connect in less time by decreasing the physical distance between us and our technology.
We connect with less clicks or gestures.
And yes sometimes that stream of consciousness means we trade breadth of connection about something trivial and seemingly painful to read
for accuracy and depth of critical information that is otherwise caged. Never the less, in both instances we are connecting more effectively. Believe me when we do end up truly “connecting” our thoughts it will be scarier and far noisier than today but innovators will be propelled to figure out how to appreciate and allow for that connection to build from – not work on tearing them down. And each passing generation will have a higher bandwidth they can handle than the last.
So. Maybe it’s not about whether the content is good or bad quality, heck maybe it’s not even about how much it gets shared –
maybe it’s always been purely about how many people are connected and how quickly they can achieve that connection.
Content and sharing are the two fundamental ways we are able to do it today – they are the means to the ends. They are our rocks, and knives, and arrows for lack of any other available means. But they themselves is not the goal. So, maybe good content could be defined as ANY-THING that connects ANY-ONE in less time or complexity then what is currently out there.
From stones
to books
to TV still lacking the option to connect or comment
To the websites and blogs where interaction intertwined itself with the content being shared.
Once communication and distribution became instant we shifted our strategy to decrease the time-gap between exchanges by limiting the amount of content exchanged when conveying a thought in the first place.
Those thoughts, emotions and ideas were created and deployed more quickly and frequently with statuses, and 140 letter max tweets – a real stream of consciousness was born. And that consciousness was further fed with the ability to post even if you weren’t by a computer.
So who are we to judge even shorter content still?
The end goal is about getting a feeling, thought and/or emotion to whom ever you want or as many people as you want with the least amount of friction.
So why is Yo so surprising?
Less characters and a quick intuitive interface has created a quicker connection between people. In first principles we aren’t searching for depth in substance – we are searching for a mind meld.
With 2 clicks I can convey “yo I’m thinking of you”, or
YO “I’m in town” – if the message is received and the minds are linked then it is content and it is valuable and it is good.
Yes, there is beauty in the creation process and that shouldn’t be forgotten, but let’s also recognize that the PROCESS was originally created to convey the idea with the tools available at the time. Losing site of one is as destructive as the other. The art comes from the need and some of our needs are satisfied within the art.
Which could be why memes are so powerful. Quick, efficient, creatively assembled, instantly connecting complex an otherwise tough to describe moment of humor or feelings with others through a shared experience we can relate to.
We can have taken the concept of video and trimmed it to its essence in a 5 second clip.
if you are afraid to share because to many people will see it then
a product removes that barrier so your security can be guaranteed with ephemeral storage.
We want to be closer still and our tools are extensions of that. Now we are cutting out the middleman entirely (pun intended) and letting our body do the communicating for us – instantly.
It’s amazing – in the pursuit of closing the time-gap between us we’ve managed to jumped right over our stream of consciousness and found a way to release what our body is saying even before our consciousness realizes it; a whole new level of getting connected.
So I that I think our thought experiment has yielded a conclusion for the question on what is good content:
GOOD CONTENT IS: ANYTHING THAT CONNECTS ANYONE’S THOUGHTS EFFECTIVELY IN LESS TIME OR WITH LESS COMPLEXITY THATN IS CURRENTLY OUT THERE.
So if nothing else keep that in mind when you see the next best thing and wonder why.
Thank you for keeping an open mind.
=============================================
We used the Google On Air tool (basically Google Hangouts but for public live streams that are also automatically uploaded to Youtube when the broadcast ends.) This is my 3rd attempt to use On Air in some live stream capacity and it finally worked well! The trick was setting up a second computer than from my own with more memory. Long story short, here is the presentation using that product:
Sean Shadmand 
