"Honestly I just wrote this for fun to play devil's advocate and see how convincing an argument I could make. It was intended to be more creative writing than a serious market prediction. (The title used to be "How Google Collapsed" -- Startup Grind changed it and added the subtitle when they published it on their blog).
I don't think it's likely that Google is going to collapse any time soon. I just wanted to imagine a world where they had, and try to work backwards from there with current data.
It's my first article, and I'm only 21 so I definitely got a lot of things wrong and oversimplified/combined others. But I do have almost 2 years of work experience in online advertising, so I have /some/ idea of how things work.
I was honestly expecting 12 views and a mean comment about how stupid I was -- I didn't expect the article to pick up traction. The editor in chief of Startup Grind reached out to me and asked if I would like to have it published on their blog, and I said sure."
It's a very good analysis. You miss chromebooks and the play store revenues but those might be dwarfed by ads. the next task is to figure out what's next which might be glass/AR.
This article is placing so much emphasis on voice interfaces as the replacement for screens, but I can't imagine that happening for more than a handful of use cases. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I would never use a voice assistant in public, and you can show a much higher depth of information on a screen. Screens are going to be around for a long time, with AR headsets being the logical next step.
Google will have plenty of time to show me ads on screens in the future (if not directly in search, then via app stores and video ads). And even if their voice assistant just exists to direct me to their screen presence more, in my experience, google as a voice assistant has been 10x more reliable than either Alexa or Siri.
I would be so much more willing to use voice control systems if they ditched the stupid code phrases, and just used a push-to-talk button instead. Something about saying "Okay Google/Siri/Alexa" creeps me out way more than just talking to a computer. I already use voice search and say "timer 10 minutes" rather than navigate the awkward clock app, but I'd love to be able to just squeeze a reliable button on the side of my phone (or even smart watch) to do that instead of fiddly swiping.
And PTT would also reassure me that the mic isn't listening in when I don't want it to, and help to minimise latency (which IME is a major impediment to using voice control) by providing immediate feedback when you're done speaking instead of having to wait for silence.
If you have an Android phone with a Bluetooth headset you can do exactly that. By default you just need to long-press the play button on it. That said, I personally still very rarely use it that way.
Existing throat microphone technology applied to whispering can be lower tech solution. Some tactical throat mics already have whispering capabilities.
I'm tempted to be pithy. I'm tempted to write something like "and that, of course, is why Microsoft as a company completely folded after the death of the desktop PC," but it wouldn't really be worth reading. On the other hand who doesn't like a bit of apophasis, right?
But, you know, maybe they're right. Maybe online advertising is a dying business, and maybe that's why no one solicits for advertising partnerships at the bottom of their articles.
Who knows. Maybe their article is, seriously this time, completely correct, and maybe that flashy graph they've got at the top of the page -- you know, the one asking about whether or not you search for products on Amazon or Google -- isn't because no one really feels the need to google for toilet paper before buying some off whoever is convenient.
You know what will help? Some pullquotes from CEOs saying things like "brand owners are detemined to take the lead". Of course they are. That's why the Internet is now devoid of atrocious ads.
Quick. Put some more graphs in, but make sure you don't put the one in that shows their rising profit margins.
How? This is straightforward survivorship bias. The first examples of big companies that come to your head are always going to be ones that were lucky and survived by pure chance. You are much less likely to remember or hear about the unlucky ones that aren't around anymore.
Because the word "bias" pertains to whether a sample is representative or not. It has to do with probabilities.
GGGP isn't saying that long-term successful outcomes are the probable or most likely result of being large at one point in history, so your criticism is inapposite. What he's saying is that, contrary to the OP's seeming position, a paradigm shift isn't always fatal to established players, i.e., "doom articles are a dime a dozen."
I hope it collapses fast and hard. Advertising is a nearly worthless vampire industry that works to suck some of the life out of other useful services. If Cisco, Qualcomm, or Texas Instruments threw in the towel, their respective industries would change forever; we would be hearing about it in a matter of minutes. The same can't be said for any advertising company other than Google, and that's not because we find Google's advertising particularly endearing. As time wears on and consumer patience for advertising wears thin, Google will need a miracle in a market that the world can't live without.
It has always been something of a mystery to me that billions of dollars of revenues are somehow extracted from the internet in this form.
My reaction to advertising in all forms is visceral and strong. I don't really understand it, but I know that I am willing to go to some lengths to avoid it. Reading HN threads over the years has shown me that I'm not alone.
For this reason, I've come to believe that this era of internet advertising will be a brief flash in the pan of history. I have no idea what the next step will be, but it's hard for me to imagine the future internet being one held up by something that is genuinely despised by so many.
Mass quantities of free, mediocre quality content will give way to something else in this new equilibrium. But what will pay for all the infrastructure? All a subject for science fiction writers at the moment.
> Mass quantities of free, mediocre quality content will give way to something else in this new equilibrium. But what will pay for all the infrastructure?
There are still a lot of people who just rent a (virtual) server, or rent space on someone else's platform, to post whatever they want. They might have tens, hundreds, thousands of viewers. They could easily scale to even more viewers with the help of some off-the-shelf CDN, while keeping the total expense well within the realm of "hobby spending" for most people in the developed world.
Producing and distributing content only costs a lot of money if you want to deliver a lot of content to a lot of people. But I would much prefer a decentralized network where a lot of people each produce and distribute a little bit of content. Each of them would only incur a small expense, if and only if they want to. It will probably cost less than what they're already paying for advertising anyway.
Even in a world like that, large content producers who actually have a concrete revenue stream, such as Hollywood studios and a small number of world-famous and/or publicly funded news outlets, will continue to reach billions of people at a time. We don't need to worry about BBC as we say farewell to thousands of content mills who had no reason to exist in the first place.
This assume Google can't do anything about it. But it can.
It can deny the use of it's services to people using ad-blockers.
It's possible that we see a migration from youtube. Maybe some people will be ok with migrating from gmail (probably not the majority though. I did it and it was HARD). But very few people will stop using the search engine or google map, because it has absolutely zero decent competitor. I tried them all for months, fairly. Their are not even on the same planet.
So apart from a few geeks, people will just disable the ad blocking software if google decide to force their hand.
Besides, wait for the W3C DRM standard + webassembly to be used to hack very hard to block ads...
There's nothing wrong with OSM but you can't pretend it is on the same level as Google Maps. Where is streetview? Business opening times? Reviews? Phone numbers? Directions? Turn-by-turn navigation? Live traffic? Historical traffic?
Google Maps now has a live busynessometer for some businesses. And 3D models of entire cities, even non-London ones.
As a traditional paper map OSM is fine, but Google Maps is now far more than that.
> Where is streetview? Business opening times? Reviews? Phone numbers? Directions? Turn-by-turn navigation? Live traffic? Historical traffic?
Traffic and street view are hard, and expensive, to do because you need to drive around the place to take photos, or to have enough data points for traffic information.
Reviews are hard because they are subjective, and how do you deal with spam, with moderation, with fake reviews, etc.
The other things? They're in OSM (to varing degrees of completness):
Yes OSM is has much less features than Google, but the OSM Foundation only has income of about £97,000 per year. Google has considerible more financial strength.
You are completely missing the point. This is not a critic of the OSM project. Most of the commenters love that it exists. It's just that if you click on your mobile on google map and osm map, you get a vastly different experience. It's objective.
Open street map don't tell you to go to the left ride of the lane so you can take a better right turn in 100m in real time, then inform you that you have to alternatives to your current trip given the current traffic spike if you wish.
By itself, OSM is just a geo database so it's somewhat misleading to state "what it doesn't tells you".
In fact, OSM is perfectly capable of representing lane restrictions (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes) and some of the existing OSM clients (such as OsmAnd) offer 'lane assist' (arguably, it might not be as good as Google's but there's no fundamental problem in achieving feature parity).
And while the GMaps feature of offering you route alternatives based on the current traffic is nice, the "price" you are paying for it is unconditionally sharing your location with google while the GMaps app is running (or even at all times, depending on you settings). I personally don't feel comfortable with that compromise.
> there's no fundamental problem in achieving feature parity
Sure, but if you're going to make that argument, all software is equivalent, because you can just implement the stuff you want and delete the stuff that gets in the way.
If there is a choice between having to watch annoying ads and not having those details, then I go for the more basic system that is ad free. (I do use openstreetmap for 99% for my navigation, mostly because I care about open navigation systems)
No doubt, real time traffic information can be developed for openstreetmap. But if and when it happens depends on where others drop the ball.
For example, current navigation systems built into cars tend to be completely out of date and mostly unsupported long before the car itself is end of life. So this is an area where openstreetmap might take over.
I don't think you can compare the ad tracking that Google does now, and what the OSM website used to do years ago. That wiki page is almost 10 years old, with the website mentioned (mappam.com) no longer working.
Though since OSM predates Google Maps, it makes sense that OSM would have another first :P
After being driven through very convoluted paths a bunch of times in the name of saving time and realtime updates, I'd say I very much prefer the consistent sane paths created by months old openstreet maps on my SD card (using mapfactor Navigator)
The first time I tried OSM there were only a couple of roads in place of nearby towns, tried again a couple of years later and everything was there, even more detailed than google's maps
"It's possible that we see a migration from youtube."
Funny you say that because I don't use any of Google's services save for YouTube. I'm a musician and that's simply where the musicians are. Other than that I don't use any other Google products or services - no search, no maps, no docs - nothing. Only YouTube.
But google search has gotten lot worse to find reputable information. Eg try find that is sugar bad for you. I at least get tons of sensational click bait articles instead actual reputable information.
I'm getting an infobox summarising https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-su... when searching for [sugar health]. Then, the first result is the decidedly non-hypolically titled "Is Sugar Really Bad for You? It Depends" from The New York Times
Meanwhile, Bing gives me "10 reasons why sugar is bad for you" and "Sweet Poison: Why Sugar is Ruining our Health".
And this here is exactly why I don't like Google Search. It will return 100 different results for 100 different people all searching for the same string.
The only thing that seems to have worsened is image search, when search by image was first added it was easy to get other copies of an image, now with AI magic it seems to find results in the same category better but not the exact image you're looking for.
It's true that Google search has some fancy features that DDG doesn't have, but I have found that the core search results are very similar. DDG has become a solid search engine with some of its own more specialised fancy features.
Sometimes DDG feels less convoluted. Not just because of Google's excessive ad overload, but also because Google guesses too much for my taste. They think they know me better than I do and that turns out to be incorrect often enough to be annoying.
Where Google does have an unassailable lead is in maps. Their "explore" feature is extremely useful for finding places to eat & drink. Directions are great. Google maps is simply excellent.
"In fact, DuckDuckGo gets its results from over four hundred sources. These include hundreds of vertical sources delivering niche Instant Answers, DuckDuckBot (our crawler) and crowd-sourced sites (like Wikipedia, stored in our answer indexes). We also of course have more traditional links in the search results, which we source from Bing, Yahoo, and Yandex."[1]
One way to look at it: consumers don't spend any money on Google products. So they can continue to use youtube, gmail, search, maps, etc. Maybe just less if ads get too annoying. At the same time, Google's real customers (advertisers) are not tied to any of Google's products. They can place ads where it has most effect.
most ads on youtube really annoying,sometime extra loud to get your attention. There are some creative ads i do enjoy watching. All this means that you can't pepper people wish shit visuals and expect respect. google text adverts - good thing, everything else tries to goad me into acting - feels cheap dirty. I gather they have to tone down their ads and respect their audience? After all and they vying for our attention
>most ads on youtube really annoying,sometime extra loud to get your attention.
True. The insane loudness of youtube ads got my girlfriend to install an ad-blocker for the very first time even though she is not opposed to relevant ads at all.
>>It can deny the use of it's services to people using ad-blockers.
Many news websites in India did this recently. Of which many have rolled back. Why? There is always a competitor to which your customers can go. And when they do, you lose users to them, may be even permanently.
Sooner or later you realize its better they come to you, instead of going to competition.
Isn't this the whole point behind Android? You want your OS to run on most of the worlds mobile devices, even if you give it away for free, you still get traffic in return.
I don't know how clearly they are on top. I switched to DuckDuckGo more than a year ago and I rarely use Google these days, mostly for the occasional programming-related search that DDG doesn't get right.
For a mum from Spain, the difference would be even smaller. She probably wouldn't even notice she was using a different search engine, the results would be pretty similar to Google's.
I've been using Apple Maps in the UK for the past year after buying a car with CarPlay. I also used it in hire cars in a couple of other European countries. It's pretty good.
Traffic is accurate, although it is be a little slower to update than Google Maps (it seems to be ~5 mins behind). Directions are spot on and the UI (at least in CarPlay) is clear and detailed. The only thing that's poor compared to Google Maps is the search but it's certainly a decent alternative and it's come a long way since it was first released.
The only thing I dislike about Apple Maps is its screwed up hierarchy of importance. Local trains stations, leisure centres, schools etc seem to be afforded the same level of importance as the local nail bar. It's horribly cluttered.
I'm in the UK I use both Apple maps, Google maps, OpenStreetMap and Bing maps regularly (in addition to the built in nav system in my car) and for me the only noticeable strength that Google has is streetview. The "satellite" view in Google Maps where I live is actually so old (12+ years) that it's actually becoming useful for researching historical stuff...
Apple Maps in Singapore is perfect since they added support for public transportation (bus system is a little confusing in Singapore). Now it's so easy to take a bus home when you got lost.
The battle for the future success of Google isn't going to be over advertising. Google already knows they need to be more diverse than that. And they already are, even if we look no farther than their cloud platforms.
When the article said that Search is the only product that Google was a winner on, it seems to have forgotten about gmail. And how a large number of enterprise customers are moving their internal email to gmail, and thereby their Office Suite to Docs. If Google fills in the gaps that custom software development fills in the enterprise (small department level workflow apps, content management, industry-specific forms, processes, and data flows, etc)... THAT is what will make a whole new Google over the next 10 years.
Again, their cloud accounts for 3% of the market. Right now, they have the $ to stay competitive. But when Amazon controls 54% of the cloud market, they simply won't be able to compete, at least not without taking resources from other places -- but those other places are drying up, and Google can't afford not to compete with Amazon.
And if Google's future is dependent on Gmail and Docs, I'm afraid their future is bleak. They certainly face very serious competition from Microsoft in these areas, and Microsoft has a lot of advantages.
But, Google's revenue is ~ $90 billion. They certainly can afford to make smart investments to avoid the fate of the dinosaur.
> Right now, they have the $ to stay competitive. But when Amazon controls 54% of the cloud market, they simply won't be able to compete, at least not without taking resources from other places -- but those other places are drying up
Another way to look at it is: if Google no longer needs all that computing power & bandwidth for search (which has hypothetically failed/not as profitable), how much can they discount it for 3rd parties and undercut Amazon?
Microsoft has a serious problem to deal with in their offerings - history. They have decades of bloat, backwards compatibility with old data, and a bad reputation to deal with. Google doesn't have to deal with that.
As far as today's market share of the cloud... I just don't see the relevance. We're talking about what Google will become, not what the cloud market will become. We are at the early stage of an industry. Today's players may or may not be relevant in 10 years. So whether Google becomes a top player or a niche, the bigger point is that the future Google, big or small, won't be about Search ads.
Do enterprise customers really move to GSuite? I don't believe so. Startups may start on it, but I would never put my business on there. You can't even back up your documents! They only exist as links. And you can't move them.
Google announced that both Roche and BBVA have switched, so apparently some do.
In any case, between startups and enterprise there's "SMB", which is a huge market, and often with nary an IT professional in sight. Getting Google to do backups for them is an improvement over not doing any, which is the reality on many of these companies.
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think the value of personal data in advertising is inflated right now.
P&G spent $7 billion on online ads in 2016, and has been making a lot of noise about moving away from them. Many of those consumer products can be sold to almost anyone, and hyper-targeting users by keyword may not help much.
For the sake of the Internet, it'd be stellar if the value of personal data corrected to a level that stopped the war on user privacy. If it turns out that the value is propped up by hype/FOMO-driven ad purchases by larger companies, it could very well happen.
Using voice interfaces (at least in a public setting) is going to end up like the Segway. Looks kinda cool on the brochure, but feels a bit daft actually doing it when out and about.
This ^^^. My Dad is always talking into his phone to send text messages. I really want to tell him, "Dad, you're doing it wrong. Nobody wants to hear you narrate your text messages."
Aah, but your dad doesn't care. It's just so much easier to use the VR software than to fiddle with the keyboard, especially as you hand-eye coordination fades with age. Spend a minute fiddling with a tiny on-screen keyboard, or a few seconds and a minor social gaffe?
People have been speaking to their phones for decades now; the only difference is there isn't someone listening directly.
Most people, I think, don't feel comfortable speaking to their phone when nobody is at the other side. Even if I, as an observer am not aware of that. I know I don't feel comfortable. Because I know nobody is there and i'm talking to a machine. Besides, can you imagine the background noise in the world if everybody started talking to their machines? Its enough their eyes are stuck on the screen all the time. If they equated that time to talking - it would mean constant chatter noise. nobody wants that...
Yeah, even though I agree that the article depicts one possible future, I would expect Google to find a new core business model sooner or later when this trend continues.
I know that size alone does not make you immune to failure but come on, the amount of money and brainpower they command is obscene!
It is somehow unimaginable for me that they can not find a way to get out off this, given their resources.
While ads definitely aren't going anywhere, the extreme majority of Google's $99 billion in sales (last four quarters), is earned directly from search ads, not from ads having anything to do with free stuff (gmail, youtube etc).
Amazon hides a lot of its profits as R&D expenses. I'm not an accountant, but I think it's sort of a tax dodging scheme. Refrain from paying dividends, pump all of your would-be-profits into R&D, and essentially 'break even' on paper every quarter.
> Amazon hides a lot of its profits as R&D expenses. I'm not an accountant, but I think it's sort of a tax dodging scheme.
That you're not an accountant must be the reason you don't understand spending on R&D isn't hiding profit. If you spend the money, it's not available as profit.
Now, you use the term "hide" in relation to profit - which blatantly implies illegal activity. If that's the case, please provide the financial statements that you used to derive that immense legal claim. Amazon is a half a trillion dollar corporation with a vast number of very wealthy shareholders that would love to see all of this stolen profit that is being kept from them.
Clever article, blending history and future conjecture. Sure, Google has potential long term problems with its ad revenue stream but the have sufficient cash reserves to succeed in different lines of business. And they probably will. I use fastmail and mostly duck duck go, so in a sense Google doesn't make money from me in the traditional advertising sense, but I like GCP, pay for YouTube red and music, and buy movies and tv shows on Play TV.
In practice, Google have very few different revenue streams. They do a lot of different things, but advertising makes up the biggest portion of revenue and search market share is what locks up that market.
Two of the largest customers of adwords are Expedia and Priceline. Why?
Because almost every travel customer starts by typing their destination into google, and whoever has the top ad gets the booking.
It's a fierce bidding war on keywords, and the only winner is Google.
This article grossly understates the number of companies and industries that begrudgingly play this game to acquire expensive traffic with hopes that it converts to cheap organic repeat traffic in the future.
> This article grossly understates the number of companies and industries that begrudgingly play this game to acquire expensive traffic with hopes that it converts to cheap organic repeat traffic in the future.
I wonder what AdBlocker you are using. I use both of these platforms daily, and see absolutely no ad. Apart from product placements directly in the video by the content creator, but not as banners/pre-rolls or any other form.
Amazon has been experimenting with ads for their own products integrated into twitch streams lately. I'm not sure if ad blockers have caught up yet, or if they will at all.
Oh, yes I understand. Totally with you. And proxy adblockers are not really user-friendly yet, so as long as advertisers go native they still have a rosy future indeed.
My feeling is that the thing that would really rock Google to its core would be a major scandal about ad spend.
Like one where they were unambiguously exposed - say - channelling all the good leads to people at the start of campaigns and then once the spend was established starting to feed them the shit leads, until they convinced them to spend more money. In short like a Casino that would let people win to give them a taste and then reef them.
But of course that's purely speculative and probably that type of thing couldn't be unambiguously proved even if it were true - which it isn't.
Google needs to fix the issue with search optimization gaming. Searching for products on Google is useless! The SEO manipulation puts marketing heaving companies first, while companies with product focus rather than marketing focus loose out. This creates a world of empty products with the majority of the product's investment going towards the advertising of the empty thing.
If I had to pick a point of fragility for Google it is that the founders have set up the company such that they exercise dictatorial control. This can be good, but it's a question mark what will happen once that control is passed to other hands. Further, Google makes most of its money from advertising and it's search engine. They're one competitor away from being in serious trouble. So far Google has beaten them all off but there are a lot of very smart people out there who want to cut into that very profitable business. In the plus column for longevity is a very large cash hoard. However, history proves that companies can vaporise their cash overnight in ill-advised acquisitions.
It is true that, for all the cool stuff Google does, it is still fundamentally an advertising company where the future in those revenue streams looks bleak.
That said, Microsoft didn't die off in the "post PC" era even after spectacular failures in things like trying to make inroads in mobile phones. So with Google yes there are dark clouds on the horizon, but they could pull off a change in revenue streams and still do quite well.
The clock is ticking though... they're spending tons on these other pet projects that have yet to pay off so the pressure is really on to prove that they can actually create a viable business with revenue outside advertising.
The zinger with the "post PC era" bullshit was that it was a ridiculous marketing/buzz campaign that attempted to completely eschew the reality that most people need something more than a compact touch screen device to effectively complete their work. You cannot genuinely ask an electrical engineer, Excel jockey, photographer, or any other professional or power user to use something other than a laptop or desktop to make their living.
I think you can can see the difference between Microsoft's model (which never did go out of style and won't any time soon) and Google's model (which was doomed from the start).
It's still a net reduction in the size of the market. Early 2000s your office had a PC and you had one at home. The office computer may remain but the home one is gone for the vast majority of people.
There's a net reduction, but that loss in the market didn't translate directly into tablet/mobile usage. Anecdotally, I would say that the home PC isn't gone, just less focused on entertainment. I've noticed a significant shift towards occasionally used laptops that are used for work and study while mobile devices make up for the entertainment/simple browsing/bullshitting that would have been done on a desktop ten years ago.
Regardless, the relevance to my point is still there; PCs are a product that will have worthwhile demand for the foreseeable future while internet advertising could disappear with little fanfare. That isn't a good fit for Google.
ASM.js or similar like Webassembly. Use it, create a polymorphic VM in the browser that forces a user to compute the ads in order to get content.
Now, trap the content in each VM (and no, not as a downloaded plaintext). This will be an encoded bytestream, that the easiest way to decode will be through the browser VM, and displaying ads along the way.
I still don't think facebook is safe long term. I've been on facebook off and on for 12 years, and honestly is was only really cool back in college. I suppose there is some value in the whole 'real identity' thing. But the problem I see with facebook is the whole 'friending' thing. Do you really want to have to maintain digital relationships with everyone you've ever known? A digital phone book would be so much nicer. Want to reach out to an old friend from college you haven't seen in years? Look them up in the digital phone book. Wouldn't that be nice? But with how facebook works now, you have to stay 'friends' with everyone you've ever known (because its awkward deleting and then re-friending people). But then you ended up with this news feed full of a bunch of crap from everyone you've ever known. It's just not good. People aren't going to want to keep using facebook for 20+ years. After 12 years I'm burned out as hell on facebook and only have like 7 friends. And I have a feeling, other people are going to get burned out at the 12 year mark as well.
Anyway... I think facebook is still the most vulnerable of all the big tech companies. And I think Mark Zuckerberg feels the same way deep down inside. Why else did he pay $1,000,000,000 for Instagram? And feels he has to copy SnapChat? Because he's scared his empire is going to be the next MySpace. And you know what, it probably will go the way of MySpace eventually.
I'm not too sure about the conclusion of the article. While it's true that ad blockers have been adopted by users, advertising revenue from Google is about to get a 15% growth this year compared to last year.
Regarding Cloud computing, although I have no numbers to back this up, I'm pretty sure Google Cloud will also grow nicely in the next decade.
From an AI perspective, they're clearly leading that field over amazon, without a doubt.
Author's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14223780
"Honestly I just wrote this for fun to play devil's advocate and see how convincing an argument I could make. It was intended to be more creative writing than a serious market prediction. (The title used to be "How Google Collapsed" -- Startup Grind changed it and added the subtitle when they published it on their blog).
I don't think it's likely that Google is going to collapse any time soon. I just wanted to imagine a world where they had, and try to work backwards from there with current data.
It's my first article, and I'm only 21 so I definitely got a lot of things wrong and oversimplified/combined others. But I do have almost 2 years of work experience in online advertising, so I have /some/ idea of how things work.
I was honestly expecting 12 views and a mean comment about how stupid I was -- I didn't expect the article to pick up traction. The editor in chief of Startup Grind reached out to me and asked if I would like to have it published on their blog, and I said sure."