Recently, while updating my Mac to Big Sur, I found myself exploring Apple's enhanced Maps application. The new features—discovering restaurants and planning cycling routes—reminded me of a fascinating piece of Silicon Valley history: when Steve Jobs told Drew Houston that Dropbox was "just a feature."^[1]

Jobs wasn't entirely wrong at the time, but history proved him ultimately incorrect. This raises an intriguing question: how did Dropbox transform from a simple file-syncing feature into a thriving business ecosystem?

The Feature vs. Product Dilemma

Many entrepreneurs face this challenge today. I regularly meet founders building what appear to be features rather than complete product ecosystems. While most of these ventures ultimately fail, Dropbox's journey offers valuable insights into how a "mere feature" can evolve into a successful platform.

Why Dropbox Succeeded Where Others Failed

1. Perfect Execution: Dropbox didn't just sync files; it did it flawlessly. The service worked so seamlessly that users forgot it was there—exactly what you want in a sync service.

2. Platform Independence: Unlike Apple's iCloud, Dropbox worked everywhere: Windows, Mac, Linux, mobile devices. This universal accessibility became a crucial differentiator.

3. Focus on User Experience: Instead of trying to be everything to everyone, Dropbox maintained its core promise: making file sync "just work." This laser focus on user experience built trust and loyalty.

4. Ecosystem Building: Over time, Dropbox evolved beyond simple file sync. They built collaboration tools, integrated with countless apps, and created a platform that became essential to both individual and business workflows.

The Lesson for Entrepreneurs

The distinction between a feature and a product often lies not in the initial concept but in the execution and evolution. When evaluating your startup idea, ask yourself:

• Does your "feature" solve a fundamental problem exceptionally well?
• Can you execute it better than the existing players?
• Is there a path to evolve from a single feature into a broader ecosystem?

Conclusion

Dropbox's success story teaches us that being labeled "just a feature" doesn't determine your fate. What matters is execution, user experience, and the ability to evolve into something greater. For entrepreneurs building feature-like products today, the question isn't whether you're building a feature—it's whether you can build it into something more.

After you and your partner sign up for the service, the app sends you daily personalized questions to spark meaningful conversations. You can only see your partner’s response after you answer the question. Their CEO, Khadesha, described Daily Agapé as something you use post-Bumble: you find your partner on Bumble but keep your relationship healthy on Daily Agapé.

Daily Agapé is not the only startup hoping to improve your relationship. Paired, founded in the fall of 2019, is working on something similar. Given how large the dating market is, it seems logical that the post-dating app market could support multiple services.

You can learn more about Daily Agapé at getdailyagape.com.

Agapé - The #1 Relationship Wellness App for Couples

Spark meaningful conversation, in 1 minute or less, with a personalized question from Daily Agapé.

John & Michelle Bryant30 years in loveThe #1 Relationship Wellness App for Couples

Today Tesla disclosed that it made a $1.5 billion investment in Bitcoin. It also announced that it plans to begin accepting the cryptocurrency as payment. This news sent bitcoin prices soaring.

Accord to Tesla, their “mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”^[1] No one questions that building electric cars is part of creating a sustainable world. Currently, the company is not profitable by only selling cars. The company would have negative cash flow if it could not sell carbon offset credits to other car manufacturers. Tesla’s current position is reminiscent of how Amazon’s on-demand cloud computing platform, AWS, enabled Amazon.com to sustain large losses while becoming the e-commerce juggernaut that it is in 2021.

Given Tesla’s mission and how it is currently sustaining the company, it is hypocritical for the company to embrace bitcoin. Bitcoin has a heavy carbon footprint and even if you aren’t mining bitcoin, a significant amount of energy is used when updating transactions on its blockchain ledger. Because of the way bitcoin was created, there is no way to improve power consumption. If quantum computers ever become practical, they could significantly reduce the processing and energy consumption of updating the ledger; however, they would also undermine the security of the cryptography used in bitcoins.

Because of the carbon footprint, bitcoin may struggle with long-term staying power. Other companies are working on making eco-friendly cryptocurrencies. Cardano is one such company with an intriguing take on the blockchain.

As large corporations decide which cryptocurrencies to accept, they need to focus not only on popularity but also sustainability. It is disappointing that Tesla, a company relying on carbon offset sales, is adopting a currency that hurts the environment.

While the concept isn’t a new idea, I like that Omnibee focuses on making the gig economy more intimate. It is a very different dynamic when you are only one or two degrees separated from the person picking up your Starbucks Pistachio Latte.

I can envision a service like this expanding to other smaller communities, like your local neighborhood. Imagine that you are running low on milk and eggs, so you post a non-urgent request to Omnibee; one of your neighbors could pick up the items when they are already planning to head to the store. Omnibee could help cut down on wasteful trips for non-urgent items and create more ties between neighbors.

One of the downsides to the current gig economy is the dehumanization of the worker. The gig economy is here to stay, but perhaps we can bring back some humanity to it by making it more local.

You can learn more at their website omnibee.io.

Hubs looks significantly better than V-chat as technology has improved since 1995. However, the parallels between the two services are evident. There is an old cliche that nothing is new and every idea or company you create will have a semblance to something already created. Hubs demonstrates this perfectly.

People struggle with coming up with startup ideas. To overcome this, the advice is generally to look at real pains customers have and solve them. However, it can be hard to see problems without inspiration. If you are struggling, then I suggest you start reading tech history.

There are numerous great ideas from the 80s and 90s that failed because the tech or infrastructure wasn’t capable yet. For example, a company called General Magic, founded in 1990, tried to create what is essentially an iPhone: a product released in 2007. General Magic had a great vision, but the tech was still 27 years away.

Here are a few past technologies that could help inspire ideas:

• Usenet: a distributed discussion and content system established in 1980 that is not centrally controlled.
• Micropayments: to sell content on the Internet as an alternative to advertising.
• Flooz.com: a frequent flyer program for e-commerce stores.

So start looking to the past because it could help you figure out the future.

Here’s how it works:

1. You sign up, answer a few questions about yourself, upload one photo, and set your availability for blind dates.
2. Blink then sets you up on a “Blink Date,” which is an audio-only 10-minute conversation with a person they select for you.
3. After the audio-only date, Blink will show you a “glance” (a single image) of your date.
4. If you and your potential mate swipe right on the date and the glance, Blink will unlock a traditional text-based chat.

Blink feels like a paradigm flip on the tired mobile dating app, and it ties into the mini-audio revolution going on right now with Clubhouse.

The largest challenge Blink has to overcome is the value they offer if only a few users are on the service. We can roughly use Metcalfe's law to calculate their network effect value as the number of users squared (n²). Currently, Blink has a low value compared to competitors like Tinder. It would be to their advantage to not restrict Blink Dates based on geography. That way, the service could become popular without relying on building a critical mass in a single city.

It will be interesting to see if audio-only blind dates can disrupt the established dating app industry.

You can signup for their waitlist at theblinkdate.com.

The Blink Date

Blink - virtual, audio-only blind speed dates. Stop making superficial snap judgments & wasting time with small talk. Stop swiping, start dating.

The Blink Date

One of the lasting impacts of COVID might not be new technologies but an acceleration in the adoption of technology that already existed. The pandemic forced us to depend on technology for everything, from securing basic necessities to maintaining our emotional connections. Yet, many of us remain as unprepared in our digital lives as a driver who understands nothing about the rules of the road. Imagine operating a powerful car without knowing what a stop sign means, how to control the brakes, or why the accelerator is so critical—it's a recipe for disaster. Just as responsible drivers need to grasp road signs and core vehicle functions to navigate safely, today's technology users must familiarize themselves with digital "signposts" and the fundamental workings behind the devices they rely on. Without this basic literacy, even everyday interactions with technology can lead to uninformed decisions and unexpected risks.

The answer to this problem isn't to encourage all kids to study Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in college. I firmly believe we are doing a disservice to students by encouraging them to enter STEM at the expense of other endeavors that would make them more satisfied in life. We will always have a need for human computer scientists, doctors, engineers, etc., but the combination of AI and the acceptance of remote work will mean that the easier STEM jobs will be automated or outsourced to cheaper countries. If you aren't the individual who is inclined to read "The Art of Computer Programming"^[1] for fun, then you may not always be guaranteed a programming job. In other words, do not go to college for STEM unless you love STEM.

Instead of pushing students toward STEM careers, we should focus on making technology accessible and engaging for everyone. This means helping students discover the beauty in coding and the joy of solving problems through technology. Take Rivers Cuomo, the Weezer frontman, who wrote a simple app to manage his tour schedule. While not commercially viable, his project exemplifies how coding can solve personal problems and demystify technology. This kind of practical, personal approach to coding makes technology more accessible and less intimidating.

The goal isn't to turn everyone into professional programmers, but rather to create a technology-literate population that understands the tools they use daily. Just as we teach basic physics and chemistry to all students - not to create scientists, but to help them understand their world - we should teach basic programming concepts to help students understand their digital world.

Consider social media algorithms: while roughly 90% of the teenagers who use TikTok access it daily^[2], the majority do not understand how its recommendation system works or why it's so effective at capturing their attention. This knowledge gap between using technology and understanding it creates vulnerable users who can't make informed decisions about their digital lives.

When we introduce coding to kids, we should:

1. Focus on problem-solving and logical thinking over memorizing code syntax
2. Encourage personal projects that solve real problems
3. Teach basic concepts of how common technologies work

The future needs both technology creators and informed technology users. While not everyone should pursue a STEM career, everyone should understand the basic principles of the technology that shapes their lives. By focusing on practical understanding rather than professional preparation, we can create a more technologically literate society without pushing students into career paths that may not suit them.

According to the Financial Times:

In the frenzied GameStop trading, Redditors had a clear goal in addition to simply jacking up their favoured bet: they wanted to flush out two hedge funds that were running negative bets on the stock

What is occurring with GameStop's stock is a bubble and possibly illegal due to coordinated purchasing (though the legality is gray at best). What we are witnessing with day trading is a symptom of a bigger problem.

Romeen Sheth made a great point in his Twitter thread:

8/ Being a retail investor is mostly being a sucker.

Want to buy into the Airbnb IPO? Cool, you can AFTER all the rich people have taken their cut at a much lower price (cue: IPO pop)

Want to invest in startups, hedge funds or PE? Sorry! You have to be rich to do so.

— Romeen Sheth (@RomeenSheth) January 27, 2021

The chaos with GameStop’s stock reviled a sentiment to capitalize on: people are tired of being shutout by elites.

One of the best ways to create massive wealth is through investing in startups. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg’s father, Edward. The question we need to be asking right now is how do we level the playing field. One idea is to make investing in startups more transparent and create access for retail investors. In other words, we need to democratize access to startup opportunities.

Democratizing access to startup investments was helped significantly in 2012 with the JOBS Act. In 2016, the JOBS Act requirement for the crowdfunding exemption went into effect. For the first time since 1933, non-accredited investors can participate in startup investing (with some stipulations). With this change, companies like Netcapital could become brokers for raising startup funds outside of the traditional angels and VC networks. However, I am not aware of any notable successes on these newer crowdfunding platforms. Perhaps crowdfunding is not creating the next Airbnb because angels and VCs bring more to the table than money; they also offer valuable advice, introductions to potential hires, and experience navigating the pitfalls that affect every startup.

If retail investors are to ever be part of an Airbnb-type IPO, we need something better than current crowdfunding options. We need a platform that allows any retail investor to participate in startup funding rounds but still provides the experiential component that angels and VCs bring.

There are numerous smart people from academia and previous startups who can guide a budding company with great advice but do not necessarily have the resources to write 100k checks. If we can combine a platform that connects retail investors, great advisors, and promising startups, we could create a more level playing field with these opportunities.

To create a platform like this, we would need three components:

1. Enable startups to list themselves and share information in a consistent, understandable, and transparent way so investors will feel comfortable investing.
2. Enable advisors to reach out to promising companies and offer their services, publicly disclose that they are advisors to a particular startup, and list their commitment (e.g., I advise 5 hours a week on B2B strategy).
3. Enable retail investors to invest in startups while still abiding by SEC guidelines.

This would not be an easy multi-sided platform to start; however, it could be a game-changer for raising capital and making investment opportunities more equitable.

Clubhouse is currently in an invite-only closed beta. Closed betas are a common tactic for a lot of startups while they work out the bugs. In Clubhouse’s case, the bug they need to work out is how do you moderate a real-time audio-only social network. The magic that makes Clubhouse work is the quality of the conversations, and if that diminishes, the network could die quickly.

Many startups have used waitlists to create exclusivity and build up a list of prospective users once the product is ready for a broad launch. An example of this is the email client Superhuman. What makes Clubhouse unique is that it has taken the waitlist to the next level.

Instead of letting you sign up for a waitlist, Clubhouse allows interested users to reserve their user handle. It is a smart tactic because not only does Clubhouse get to benefit from the usual waitlist exclusivity hype, but they are also creating scarcity that pressures people to join a waitlist that they might not have otherwise. Clubhouse is taking advantage of the economic principle of loss aversion - people more often go out of their way to prevent losses (not having my preferred username) versus generating gains (knowledge of when the product launches).

Clubhouse isn’t the first startup to ever use this tactic. About.me did something similar back in 2010. However, I believe Clubhouse is the first to require you to download the app and validate your mobile number before letting you reserve a username. This hack could help to sustain growth if interest starts to wane.

If you have not already joined Clubhouse, I suggest you download their app and reserve your name while the options are still plentiful.

I shared with him a presentation by Sarah Leary, the co-founder of the social network Nextdoor. The presentation is about the validation process they took to pivot from their original concept, Fanbase, to Nextdoor. It is a fascinating story that a lot of first-time founders can learn from.

One of the hardest parts of a startup is having to manage yourself. Founders want to get things done and get it done fast, but if we don't start by validating ideas, we may discover what we spent time building isn't what actual customers want.

Validation takes time; it took Nextdoor an entire year to fully validate product-market fit. So have patience and remember: as long as you are learning and growing, you are heading in the right direction.

Late last year I read an article in TechCrunch about how Rivers Cuomo from the band Weezer finds meaning in coding. Cuomo, a budding coder, was taking an online course offered by Harvard and created a web app to help coordinate tour schedules. It’s symbolic that a professional artist, like Cuomo, is converging on something that is not typically the domain of artists.

The CS50x course, the one Cuomo is taking, is described as an:

Introduction to…computer science and the art of programming. This course teaches students how to think algorithmically and solve problems efficiently… [with] problem sets inspired by the arts, humanities, social sciences, and sciences.^[1]

When Professor Malan, the CS50x instructor, uses the term “the art of programming” it is unlikely that he is referring to the beauty in programming but instead, using “art” to reference the learning of the craft. The phrase could also be a veiled reference to the seminal monograph “The Art of Computer Programing” by famed Stanford computer scientist Donald Knuth. It is an amazing work that adores a special place in my personal library, but it is not introductory reading material.

Throughout my life, programming has meant a plethora of things to me: development, community, and money. At one point, code was a thing that I sold by the hour to employers. Sometimes those employers valued beautiful algorithmic solutions and other times they only cared “if it worked.” No matter what I was programming I always strived to make what I wrote “beautiful.”

All of this has me thinking about what is art in relation to programming. Many programmers feel simplicity and cleverness in your code, as if you are writing poetic haikus, is the ultimate expression of art in programming. This view has been so prolific over the decades that the Clean Code Movement gained traction to fight back against the clever, and often indecipherable, code those programmers wrote. But perhaps the “art” in code is simpler and more direct.

The creation of [art] is the bringing about a new combination of elements in the medium (tones in music, words in literature, paints on canvas, and so on). The elements existed beforehand but not in the same combination; creation is the re-formation of these pre-existing materials.^[2]

So perhaps just coding is a form of art. We take existing elements, the programming language, and create something new with the combination. There are novice artists, like Cuomo, and master artists, like Knuth.

Today, I view programming as an expressive outlet for my desires and feelings. Programing is a tool I use when starting companies and something I turn to when I want to relax. I find it calming being in the zone and refactoring/improving something I wrote in the past to make it better, more expressive, and a little simpler.

I hope more musicians, painters, photographers, sculptors, potters, etc. follow in Cuomo’s footsteps and embrace programming. They may never get to the level of mastery where they are reading “The Art of Computer Programing” but they will nonetheless add a new perspective to the community. And perhaps, more traditional software developers will start to view what they create as art and not just a means to an end.