Ignored By Dinosaurs 🦕

business

So I'm back in the writing code game after 4 years off. I started a new position about 2 months ago as “director of data engineering” at Platform.sh. It only took ten years longer than originally planned but I have finally unlocked the “some kind of engineering mgmt at an actual tech company” badge.

I'll get into what I'm doing maybe later, but right now I want to leave a breadcrumb for my past self regarding looping over tasks in Prefect.

I'm just kind of tinkering with pulling info from APIs at this point, so the workflow looks basically like this for a couple different vendors:

  • Pull a list of accounts
  • For each of those accounts, pull a list of services
  • For each of those services, pull service metrics for a range of days

This ends up fanning out to potentially thousands of APIs calls ultimately, so I'm doing a lot of for ... in: looping on Python. Given that I'm using Prefect though, I'm bumbling up the ladder of how to do these things in a more idiomatic way. Prefect has a native concept of mapping that reduces the amount of work you need to do in each of these steps as well as makes each iteration of each of these steps more atomic.

By example – my first, naive approach which was something like this:

  • Pull a list of accounts() returns –> list of accounts, then
  • Pull a list of services for each of those accounts(list of accounts) loops over and then returns –> list of services
  • Pull a list of metrics(list of services) loops over enormous list of services and then returns –> ginormous list of metrics that is the thing we're actually interested in.

Obviously a failure in any one of the loops in the process means the whole thing derails, so I was doing a lot of work trying to handle that. Prefect has a smarter way in their native mapping API. Basically, instead of making the downstream tasks loop over a list of things, you write the downstream task assuming that it will handle 1 of the things in the list. Then instead of calling do_this_over_and_over_in_a_loop(list) you call something like do_one_iteration.map(list). Prefect then handles spawning a “child task” for each of the items in the list. This makes is possible to run the loops in parallel, and even to create entire parallel pipelines out of the original “pull the list of accounts” job. It also handles failures in any of the iterations atomically, and doesn't kill the entire loop.

The whole flow then looks like:

  • Pull a list of accounts() returns –> list of accounts
  • Pull a list of services for 1 account.map(list of accounts) returns –> list of services for 1 account, then you call map again on the task downstream of that
  • Pull a list of metrics for 1 service.map(list of services) returns –> the stuff you're really interested in.

the .map() bit unrolls each of the lists and creates a child task for each element of the list, then calls the task on that 1 element.

I'm struggling right now with getting this all running on Platform.sh with Dask, but I'm pretty excited with the potential given my relative rustiness and that I'm working basically alone so far.

More later, <3 love you!!

#business #databases

I really enjoyed my time as a Solutions Architect, and wouldn't mind at all doing it again someday. The job of a Solutions Architect, or Sales Engineer, or “Presales” is be the technical person in the sales discussion on the part of the vendor who's trying to sell the technical $thing. The sales rep's main responsibility is to manage the sales cycle (a separate post entirely) and depending on how technical the product that your company sells, it's possible that knowing how to answer questions or sell the customer the right solution is entirely outside of the sales rep's capability.

This is where the Solutions Architect (SA) comes in.

The job of the SA is to have a very thorough conversation with the prospect about what they're trying to accomplish and why they decided to contact your company. It is your job to

  • figure out what exactly the prospect needs from your company to solve their business problem and
  • set their expectations for exactly how your solution will solve their problem

The second part is the most fundamental, because 100% of the time the prospect will have an idea of how your product solves their problem, but it will be from their perspective. In order to truly solve their problem they need to understand the mental model of how your company and its product works. This is the SA's real job.

All technologists are human and the products that they produce are therefore imperfect. It is impossible for the human prospect on the other side of the transaction not to view your solution as a magic bullet for their problem (I am doing this myself at this exact moment in my new job negotiating with a vendor). It is your job to bring the prospect down to earth and help them understand exactly what the experience will be when they come on board.

More later.

#business

[This was partially inspired by this excellent article that I read Saturday morning.]

I manage two teams. One of them has been through a lot of changes in the last 12 months, basically taking a rather sharp turn in responsibilities and day to day work. This was always the plan because I believed that there was no better team to take over this particular process than ours, but when it came down to actually implement the changes clearly it was not what some members of the team had signed up for.

One day recently one of our strongest team members told me she wanted to move to another team.


I know for a fact that there are managers in this world who would take this poorly. Best case scenario they wonder how the team member is going to be replaced and how it's going to affect the team members that remain. Certain other managers would worry about how this is going to reflect on them as a manager if one of their team members wants to move to another team.

The absolute worst response you could get from a manager is “no, I like you where you are” because this openly tells the team member that there's nowhere for them to grow in your organization. They would be better off finding a new job if they want something new, because there's nothing for them here but more of the same.

Then there's the manager that says “hell yeah, how can I help?”. I'm very glad and very lucky to be in this camp and to be able to contribute to others growing their careers, even if it's through nothing more than encouragement.

Be a booster. Be a leader, not an anchor.

#business #life #personal

My brother in law is a recruiter. He historically recruits salesfolks for companies “in the BI space”. I tried to help him out many years ago when I was still on the road playing music, but had absolutely no background to do anything other than plow through the spreadsheet of contacts that he had and try and get a response. Like most witless recruiters. I had no idea what BI was.

Years later, after starting a new job at ABM I still had no idea what BI was. It was something we needed, or something we did, I wasn't really sure. We had a big old database, some stuff was in there, reports came out. Somebody read them. No idea. Didn't seem very intelligent, but apparently it helped with our business, yet most of the time people seemed pissed off at it and the person who ran it.

So here's a quicky definition of “Business Intelligence” for me, 5 years ago.


Companies take in a lot of data. Data can be anything. It can be logs from your webserver. It can be daily dumps from Google Analytics about the traffic on your site. It can be daily dumps from Exact Target or Mailchimp about what emails went out yesterday, on what lists, and which ones were opened, which ones bounced. What videos were played on the sites yesterday? On what kind of browser? Basically it's anything and everything that a business can get their hands on.

Ok, you've got your hands on it, now what? Let's figure out how to figure out what is going on with our business on a macro scale so that the C suite can make decisions and we can all keep our jobs.

This is basically what BI is. Take in data. Munge data. Get answers out of data so that you can run your business.

Obviously today (2016), this is big business. “Big data”, you've heard of that? Very closely related to BI, since the amount of data that we are able to take in these days is so vast that there's no way we could get meaningful answers out of all of it using technology from even just 10 years ago.

Wrangling all this data is a wide open field, and that's where I want to be right now.

#business #data

Prologue

I have a lot of friends in successful working bands that all have one thing in common – a fairly useless website. Pretty much every band I know, with a very few exceptions, treats their website as a tour poster. Most of them have some kind of “store”, but frequently they're stocked with leftovers from last year's road merch. You often have to go through PayPal to checkout. I don't know of anyone short of Radiohead that actually lets you download digital goods directly from them.

Railscasts, Peepcode, Lullabot, and every other player in the digital goods space that caters to developers have had their act together on this for years now, but for some reason the real promise of the internet age hasn't paid a visit to the music business yet.

The promise

Perhaps I misunderstood, but the real promise of the internet age as it pertains to musicians was that the old, centralized means of distributing your music were going to be torn down and in it's place would be a democratic, no-barriers system for getting your music out instantly to the whole world. Services that have sprung up in the last 10 years – iTunes, Spotify, Soundcloud, and the like – have almost universally propped up this old, centralized system. Services like Distrokid are well intentioned and barking toward the right tree, but still miss the point.

The problem

The problem is that the music business was so profitable for so many decades, so many people got rich off the old label system that the world in general is clearly having a hard time letting go. Every single service that I've mentioned so far has some sort of “gatekeeper” mechanism in place, be it label affiliation or whatever, and profit motive for the business owners as a central tenet.

“How can I (or my investors) make money off the music business?”

What I haven't seen done

What I haven't seen done yet is for someone to come along and offer a service that has altruism toward the musicians that this whole business revolves around in the first place as a fundamental principle (distrokid partially excepted).

The solution

How about someone build an open source CMS for bands and musicians, ala Wordpress since every band I know is already on that and comfy with it, but built with commerce as the fundamental purpose of the site? Plug in a Stripe API key for credit card processing, an S3 key for storing their digital goods, and tada! – you can sell your own music through your own website and keep 100% of the net for yourself.

Obviously the simple features that every band wants – tour dates, photos, bios, etc – would be there, but instead of having the store be a page on the site, have the tour dates be a page in the store. I know they must be out there, but I literally don't know of a single band that approaches their online presence this way.

But, but, how do I make money off this?

I dunno. How about a hosted service, ala Wordpress.com for bands that don't want to deal with setting it up themselves? How about taking a percentage of fees for ticket sales if they want to activate that module? How about consulting fees for custom implementations? I think there are actually plenty of ways, but only if you start with the libre, open version at the core.

Postscript

There must be someone out there working on this idea – I had it years ago and it just seems too obvious at this point. I've been working on it off and on for most of this year. I've even got a guinea pig client lined up, but I'm that stereotypical musician that has kids, gets off the road, and is now so busy with my 9-5 and my 3 kids and trying to find contract work to fill in the financial gaps that I can't keep the momentum going to get it finished and launched. So...

If this idea is interesting to you and you feel like building it, call me. If you're already building it and want someone to help sell it, call me. The band I quit 4 years ago sold 9000 tickets at Red Rocks this summer. I'm now in a band with two guys from Leftover Salmon and a guy from String Cheese Incident. If you've never heard of these bands then you're not a hippy, but trust me – there is serious money to be made in this grassroots, live-music, no-label-affiliation sector of the music business if for no other reason than nobody is looking at this market at all, and the customer base in this market is extremely loyal. And I've got an iPhone stuffed full of potential clients.

All this product would have to do is show some real revenue increases for a couple of bands. Once that happens, the real promise of the internet as it pertains to the music business can start to be realized.

Postpostscript

I'm a developer now. I'm handy enough with the backend, and what I consider pretty good with the front end of things, especially as far as the technical needs of this project are concerned. Point is, I can contribute a lot – business, development, a laundry list of clients, implementation details (if you want em) – I just can't do it all myself. I've been holding on to this idea for so long, trying to build up the dev chops to execute that it's starting to eat me, especially since I now have the dev chops and no time.

So if you're reading this and it strokes a chord, drop me a line – therealjohnnygrubb@gmail.com

#music #business

I was listening to RadioLab the other evening during the WNYC pledge drive. During the part of the show in which they were actually driving pledges they announced one of those perks for donors of a certain level, I think they called them “lab partners”. It entitles you to some stuff, some interactivity with RadioLab producers, and the obligatory “exclusive content”. The very first thing that popped in my head was -

I'm tired of content

I got to thinking. Commerce and economics. Supply and demand. Scarcity.

Take music – music was once a thing that could only be experienced live. The recording era ended all of that and ushered in a successful business model that had a good run of 80 years or so by not only increasing the supply of music to people, but by exponentially increasing the demand. Previously if you wanted to hear Beethoven's music you needed to go to the symphony to hear it, but now you could put on a record and listen to it. Not only that, but after the performance had ended you could put on some Pink Floyd, and after that whatever else. You weren't confined to listening to music once a day (or once a month), you could basically listen to it all the time.

But, the commerce of the business was still driven by scarcity since after all, you still needed a record and a record player. You still had to go down to the store to buy the record, if it was even available yet. Records could be released on a date, remember that? Now what?

Records are routinely leaked on the internet and unlike a physical resource that leaks out of something, the instant something digital “leaks” onto the internet the supply will forevermore outweigh demand. How do you build a business around that?

I've been pondering this for as long as anyone and I now think that “exclusive content” completely misses the point. I don't give a rip about exclusive content because there's no such thing. Trying to create this impression of scarcity to stoke demand is pointless because there's an endless wealth of other content that's free right now. Don't even demean your customers or fans with it, because it only means that they will have to jump through a hoop to engage with it. Everybody else will be casually engaging with the free stuff at their convenience. If you're lucky.

If you're lucky you will have patrons, not customers. Customers barely exist in the creative world now.

#random #business

It occurred to me over cooking lunch for my boys just a minute ago that, a week before my 33rd birthday, I've been in the music business for half of my life. I'd like to share a couple of things that I've come up with.

First of all, to get anywhere in this business, to get anywhere sustainably that is, takes a really long time. There is no short circuiting this process, short of selling your soul to the devil. Even bands like the Black Eyed Peas who are on top of the world right now in 2011 have been doing this since I was just getting started. Acts like Ke$ha stand out in my mind as pure product, and this post isn't addressed to acts like her. This is addressed to bands like the Dusters or Yarn or any of the other top-notch acts out there busting their asses in a van every day of the year.

There is a sustainable livelihood to be made in this corner of the music business. What it takes more than anything is time and hard work. I've seen and worked with other musicians who acted as if their success were a God given right, that their talent would ensure them a livelihood whenever the proper magic hit-maker type came along and granted them the keys. These musicians are generally bitter, bad drunks and best avoided. You may be able to shave a certain percentage of time off your ascent by being smarter and by putting forethought into your career path, but by and large it's game of patience and being pleasant to work with. “If you sit at the table long enough, you will get fed.”

Second, and this primarily applies to sidemen, it's good to cultivate an aspect of your playing that is considered mainstream. That is to say, if you are a bluegrass bass player with a penchant for Airto-era Return To Forever, it's okay to slip those leading samba-type Stanley grace notes into your 1-5-1-5. Just make sure that you don't do it all the time and if the very well respected banjo player that is sitting in with your band looks at you funny, that's a clue. If you are a classically trained musician turned bluegrass player, by all means slip as much of that style in there as you want, but know how to chop that thing, too. Keeping this in mind as you make your rounds will render you much more hirable for your next gig. You are thinking about your next gig, aren't you?

Fin for now.

#music #bluegrass #business

Well unsurprisingly, even after several minutes of Google searching I'm unable to dig into the real article on this one, only countless verbatim reposts on countless web-scraping sites.

Anyway, here's an example. I don't hate on Jon Bon Jovi, but I do hate on the misrepresentation of facts. Steve Jobs didn't kill the music industry, the music industry killed the music industry. Here's how.


Some time in the early 80s record companies and stereo manufacturers (then known as HiFi) found themselves with a problem. Record sales and HiFi sales were both flat. The somewhat endless parade of new media formats, the same on that continues today with Blueray, had not found a new winner in a while. People were still buying vinyl and cassettes.

It was at an AES convention that the CD was introduced to the world for the sole purpose of reviving back catalog and HiFi sales. “But it sounds like a turd” was the general consensus among the crowd of professional audio engineers at AES. Analog to digital conversion was in it's infancy and most early CDs sounded really brittle and really thin compared to their vinyl counterparts. Sound familiar? Anyway, because marketing is often more powerful than the truth especially when aimed at teenagers, the record companies got to work. “It's a perfect copy”, “It'll never wear out” was the message and it worked like a charm. By the late 80s the CD was the dominant format and back catalog sales were humming along.

Presumably nobody in marketing foresaw an age where digital information would be so easy to transfer, or more likely they figured by then it wouldn't be their problem.

Not going to get all Lefsetz about Napster and the subsequent reaction from the industry, but suffice to say that it was all coming down anyway and Apple was the company that put together a new model for distribution of a medium that was inevitable. They didn't kill the music industry, you idiot. You really think people would still be driving to Tower records to pick up this shit”)?

#music #business

As business models go, there are currently two dominant ones: either people like your product enough to purchase it or they don't care enough to buy it but will overlook its deficiencies if it's “free” in exchange for their personal browsing and purchasing info sold to advertisers. The former model is Apple's, the latter is Google's.

Apple sells emotional experiences. The price is what users pay to be delighted by Apple's stream of innovations and to be free of the lowest common denominator burdens and the pervasive harvesting of their personal info.

Google sells eyeballs. To be more precise, the clickstream attached to those eyeballs. Thus scale, indeed dominance, is absolutely crucial to Google's model.

~ via counternotions

#business

Just a week before the FCC holds a vote on whether to apply fairness rules to some of the nation's internet service providers, two companies that sell their services to the country's largest cellular companies showed off a different vision of the future: one where you'll have to pay extra to watch YouTube or use Facebook.

~From a Wired article earlier this week. READ IT

Now here's why this matters...

It's not about Facebook or YouTube. Those seem on the surface like silly trifles and why shouldn't we have to pay more for silly trifles, right? Because those silly, time-sucking trifles represent present-day American innovation. Our physical manufacturing sector has been almost completely moved offshore. This was done over a period of a couple of decades between Reagan and Bush II and was done for the sole reason of increasing corporate profits. If it's cheaper to manufacture stuff somewhere they don't have a minimum wage, and the prices here stay the same, the company makes more money for it's shareholders. This seems like a good thing, unless you're looking further than one fiscal quarter ahead.

Now we have a situation where large Telecommunications companies have found a giant, largely unregulated loophole in the fastest growing sector of their business. They'd like for their share of the wireless spectrum to remain largely unregulated so that they can carve it up how they want and charge for it what they want. Seems fair, right? But remember this is our fucking AIR they're charging us to access. They rightly realize that they majority of future internet use is going to take place over the airwaves, so best to get that sucker divvied up now and get the “best practices” in place for making as much money as they possibly can going forward. (Makes me think of this article from the Onion.)

Best practices would include making damn sure they charge more money for popular web services once their customers come to depend on them. I depend on Facebook to keep me in touch with most of the people I know on this planet. It's surpassed “social network” status and become a utility.

This utility and others like it have become the center of American innovation, and the brightest hope for the future American economy. Perhaps we won't be able to manufacture our way out of a recession, but maybe we can innovate ourselves out.


But Chile is trying a radical new experiment. ... It is importing entrepreneurs from all over the world, by offering them $40,000 to bootstrap in Chile. They get a visa; free office space; assistance with networking, mentoring, fundraising, and connecting to potential customers and partners. All the entrepreneurs have to do, in return, is commit to working hard and live in one of the most beautiful places on this planet.

~From a Techcrunch article a few days ago.

Here's why you should be worried about Net Neutrality.

If you think for a second that America's place in this world as the center of creative innovation and hard working people making something from nothing is granted by the grace of God, you might be right. But Verizon and the FCC may just make it impossible for even the will of God to overcome the long-term economic effects of giving these TelCom idiots what they want. What they want is to milk as much money out of you and I as they possibly can, and they plan to do this by charging more for “better, faster” access to large internet companies that can supposedly afford it (while totally ignorant to the fact that the oldest and largest of any of these companies is barely 10 years old).

Where does this lead?

  1. If the biggest internet companies pay more for their content to be delivered faster, then smaller companies and startups will have to use the “plain old” internet, which is what the entire internet is today.
  2. If big TelCom gets a pass to charge for faster access over a premium network, they most certainly won't have any incentive whatsoever to improve the “plain old” network.
  3. If countries like Chile are not just begging but paying smart entrepreneurial types to move to their country and start businesses, they most certainly will.
  4. Oh yeah, vastly higher bills for all of us.

Ergo, if technological innovation and brainpower have been this country's advantage over the rest of the world and you deliberately cripple technological innovation in the name of a few years of higher corporate profits, you can rest assured that the brainpower will flee this country to some place where it's more highly valued.


I'll leave you with a few words from Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple.

I was brought up being told that one of the main purposes of our government is to help people who need help. When I was very young, this made me prouder than anything else of my government. [...] We have very few government agencies that the populace views as looking out for them, the people. The FCC is one of these agencies that is still wearing a white hat. Not only is current action on Net Neutrality one of the most important times ever for the FCC, it's probably the most momentous and watched action of any government agency in memorable times in terms of setting our perception of whether the government represents the wealthy powers or the average citizen, of whether the government is good or is bad. This decision is important far beyond the domain of the FCC itself.

#life #business