Zsolt K (@kocsmy) header
Zsolt K (@kocsmy) profile picture

/ʒolt/ — Designer & Founder — https://teapawt.net/t.co/pG2Vbp3QUJ / https://teapawt.net/t.co/p6aeF4jjw6 and a bunch of fun side projects.

Budapest and London
Joined May 2008
Photo by Zsolt K (@kocsmy)Photo by Zsolt K (@kocsmy)Photo by Zsolt K (@kocsmy)Photo by Zsolt K (@kocsmy)Photo by Zsolt K (@kocsmy)Photo by Zsolt K (@kocsmy)Photo by Zsolt K (@kocsmy)Photo by Zsolt K (@kocsmy)Photo by Zsolt K (@kocsmy)Photo by Zsolt K (@kocsmy)
The consistency of corner radius across different Apple products
247
1,056
120
21,778
1,850,681
natural language date picker
108
234
40
4,464
324,897
A few months ago, we changed the way we address bugs @linear. We prioritized bugs over everything else. If you have bugs assigned when you wake up in the morning, you don't do anything else before they are addressed. This approach felt scary and quite radical, but our theory was this: Every software product has defects and the amount of defects being found is somewhat constant. We want to build a product that is of the highest quality, so eventually all bugs will be addressed. This means that the amount of work required to tackle bugs is the same regardless of whether you address the immediately or whether you prioritize feature work and tackle bugs in bulk between feature work. And this made it obvious that the better alternative is to prioritize bugs over everything else. The cost for doing this was that we had to spend a month or so to bring down the backlog of bugs, but once the backlog was eradicated, there was no additional cost to this approach. Now, if we or a customer finds a bugs, it usually gets fixed the very next day. You certainly should consider doing this at your software company.
66
111
65
1,894
252,958
This is super exciting.
"Conversational programming" with built-in execution and rendering will change how we build software. Copilot has been revolutionary, yet incremental: we had text autocompletion before, it made it amazing. On the other hand, talking to an AI peer and collaborating on building (and soon shipping) software feels extraterrestrial to me. It's the promised "AI-native" land, but for IDEs. Can't wait for you to get access to the upcoming @v0 ui:
6
1
281
This is how you solve the marketplace problem. You oversupply the supply side, so the demand side has a great experience. This was my experience with @hellopingpong where we grew the tester pool constantly to be able to serve the demand when the time comes.
Today, Uber is a $140B company with more than 6 million drivers. But in the early days, we had to overcome the same chicken and egg problem many startups face: Without drivers ➡️ riders couldn’t get a car And without riders ➡️drivers couldn’t make $ Here’s how we solved it:
6
180
Today, Uber is a $140B company with more than 6 million drivers. But in the early days, we had to overcome the same chicken and egg problem many startups face: Without drivers ➡️ riders couldn’t get a car And without riders ➡️drivers couldn’t make $ Here’s how we solved it:
334
1,256
184
9,602
4,448,456
A rite of passage in design engineering: implement the safety triangle for hover interactions
30
88
22
2,017
184,145
Have been thinking constantly about Frank Slootman's formula for building a successful company: * Narrow the focus. * Up the quality. * Increase the speed. It seems to apply to so much more than company-building.
29
238
29
2,158
Long story but worth reading why to avoid hiring optics optimizers. VCs also often push these type leadership hires who have scaled X,Y, Z and "have a great track record". Some truly are world class builders but many are just world class at the optics.
Why do companies with major resources & distribution often make mediocre products that don’t reach their potential? There are a handful of reasons, many of which you already know. But there is one under-discussed reason: Operators Optimizing for Optics To understand this, let’s start with a story. START OF STORY Acme Inc has brilliant, visionary founders (Alice & Bob), amazing culture, has built a well-loved product, and thereby created a business much larger than the early people (including the founders) had ever imagined. -- With this growth, they’ve had to hire a bunch of Operators: leaders who are skilled in scaling process, teams, operations, and overall execution. So far so good. As the business & the customer-base grows, it is a no-brainer for Acme to tackle adjacent areas of opportunity. -- So, during 2024 annual planning, Alice, Bob, and the exec team identify & present to the company a couple of key “strategic priorities” in these adjacent areas. One of these is especially vital to get going in H1 2024 because it poses a long-term risk to Acme’s position & growth. -- Thing is that this is a brand new initiative that is targeting the kind of user that Acme thus far has not really been built for. (some examples: normally serves SMBs, new initiative is for midsize corps. Or, company normally serves consumers, new initiative serves businesses) -- Anyway, the basis for investing in this strategic priority is very sound. Sophisticated customers and industry analysts are already asking Acme to do this. It would be playing both offense (big revenue opportunity) & defense (avoids long-term disruption & disintermediation). -- Alice & Bob know that it is critical to hire the right leader for this new initiative. The executive team agrees. So, after considerable thought and exploration, they choose Dan. Dan joined Acme 2 years ago and has absolutely crushed it: he has taken his division from $20M to $100M. -- Dan is ambitious and was starting to get restless anyway. He wanted a new challenge at Acme before he felt ready to start the next chapter of his career (ideally as CEO of a midsized company). The exec team is bought in on this, Alice & Bob are excited, this feels like a win-win. -- Alice & Bob (henceforth, A&B) give Dan ownership of the new initiative. To signal to everyone how important the new initiative is, Dan will report directly to Alice, who mainly looks after the product side of Acme. Everyone, including Dan, really wants this to work out great. -- The first task is to create a codename for the initiative (of course!). They pick “Zeus” (supreme Greek god). Dan begins forming a core team that will work with him on Zeus. Alice, Bob & Dan set up thrice weekly check-ins to brainstorm, review progress/blockers for Zeus. -- A bunch of research had already been done in 2022 & 2023 on the customer problems, the market landscape, competitor positioning, etc., so the team is not starting from scratch - they have some useful hypotheses to work off of. A&B agree that’s a good starting point. -- It is important to Dan that expectations are clearly set w.r.t. 2024 plans for Zeus: milestones, success criteria, core metrics, dependencies, etc. In his early meetings with A&B, Dan is careful to set very realistic expectations. The “Under promise and over deliver” mantra has served him very well in his career. Remember: Dan plays the corporate game at the Olympic level. -- A&B feel a tad uncomfortable discussing milestones, success criteria, quarterly metrics targets, etc. this early on, but they see Dan’s energy, they know his track record at Acme & before, and they recognize that they are first-time founders, so they sincerely support him in setting these expectations. -- Everybody at the company knows Zeus is an important initiative, they’ve heard Dan speak at all-hands (and think he’s great). So some of the most talented designers, PMs, EMs, engineers, etc. want to work on Zeus. So Dan has now put together a small but mighty core team. -- Dan views his main job as understanding A&B’s vision for Zeus (especially Alice’s since she is the product visionary [0]), translating that vision to concrete product milestones, building a great team & process to execute quickly towards these milestones, and moving the KPIs. [0] Dan is also well-aware that Alice will be writing his performance review & he has over the years gotten very good at managing expectations & perception with whoever will be mainly responsible for assessing his performance. It is no accident that Dan’s rise in the corporate world has been meteoric -- As a leader & manager, Dan steadfastly believes in clarity, transparency & alignment. A useful tool for him here is the Executive Product Review: a great way to raise important questions/proposals, get execs’ opinions/surface divergence, and give his team members face-time with the execs. -- So, in addition to his thrice-weekly 2:1s with A&B, Dan sets up a fortnightly Zeus Exec Product Review, which includes the key company execs + A&B. This being Dan, these meetings are clinically run: pre-reads, key updates, metrics, anecdotes, major blockers/asks, decisions, etc. -- The exec team is impressed and feels very happy that their input is being solicited for Zeus. Some of them were concerned that they'd be left out of the loop after Dan started reporting directly to Alice, but now they think Dan has done a splendid job of keeping everyone involved. -- On the other side, a few months in, A&B are starting to get nervous. But they can’t quite find the words to express their nervousness in rational terms. “Something” feels off about the way Zeus is progressing: Dan & team haven’t quite arrived at a core differentiator for Zeus. -- Meanwhile, Jessie, a Designer reporting to Dan, is feeling similarly. While potential Zeus users are saying that they’d be willing to try Zeus when it is launched (they love Acme after all), they are also saying that they are reasonably happy with Zeus’s competitive product. -- It is the first week of March, and Dan has 2 tense conversations on successive days. The 1st one with A&B, where they express their concerns about lack of clear differentiation. The 2nd with Jessie, who shares the tentativeness behind some users’ actual commitment toward Zeus. -- While Dan was caught off-guard by these conversations, he makes sure to keep a cool, calm, composed facade (a skill he developed early on in his career as a consultant). He pushes back a bit on A&B regd differentiation (“We have the distribution! But I will mull this over & get back to you” ) And he pushes back a bit more on Jessie (“We have a plan, let’s not re-litigate things we’ve already decided in our Jan/Feb Zeus Product Reviews. We need to hit Q1 OKRs too!” ) -- In his next 2:1 with A&B, Dan dutifully follows up on the differentiation question: “I've talked to Tim about how Zeus needs to be integrated such & such with our core Acme product. Users have asked about that since day 1. I think this is going to be a big differentiator for us” -- Dan shares supporting user feedback quotes. Alice’s spidey sense tells her that this isn’t enough, but she remembers her executive coach saying that she must learn to trust her most talented people. “I am not close-enough to this user segment, so I could be wrong”, she thinks. -- Fast-forward, in July, Zeus v0.5 launches to a select set of customers. Dan is great at coordinating launches and making sure that they create buzz. Analysts/press/Twitter are largely positive. Dan shares an impressive launch impact update with execs. Lots of charts & numbers! So what if the Y-axis shows tiny numbers. If it is up & to the right, it qualifies. -- In August, Dan subtly brings up the issue of Acme's upcoming company perf cycle. He asks A&B for feedback on what he can do better, but in the process reminds them how he & his team launched 4 days before schedule (unheard of at Acme), the positive press, early quotes, etc. -- During the September promo cycle, Dan gets promoted. This was not an easy promotion, but almost everyone on the exec team (except Dan’s previous manager) agrees that Dan has done a spectacular job with leading Zeus thus far. “We need more projects to run like Dan has run Zeus” -- Fast-forward 6 more months, Jessie has now left Acme, although 2 new Designers have joined. Zeus operations are still excellent: superb monthly status updates, well-run product reviews, pretty dashboards, hitting all quarterly OKRs, high approval rating for Dan as a leader. -- But the actual business is doing just okay, and is well below where A&B had instinctively expected to be in Jan 2025. Meanwhile, Zeus’s competitive product is growing like crazy in the market. It is beating Zeus on almost every metric: number of customers, features, margin, ARR, retention, etc. etc. -- Obviously, A&B have discussed this ad nauseum with Dan over H2 2022. From Dan’s POV, he is doing his best to translate A&B’s vision to a winning product. From A&B’s POV, the product & its positioning is just not compelling enough, lacks creativity & deep user understanding. -- Dan is not stupid. He gets that Zeus is behind. But he has good “reasons” why that’s the case: - There isn’t adequate integration with Acme’s core product - Zeus go-to-market isn’t strong (GTM team doesn’t report to him) - A&B’s vision is still fuzzy, even to them etc. etc. -- Anyway, after 6 more months of trying to steer the ship in the right direction, Dan says enough is enough. He’s already been at Acme for 3.5 years, has worked on both scaling a business & a zero-to-one story (Zeus), and he believes his resumé now has what’s needed for the CEO job. -- Dan finds a CEO role at a company in an adjacent vertical to Acme (whose founders want their company to be more like Acme). At Acme, after 1 more year of trying, A&B make the hard decision to sunset most of Zeus and integrate the remnants of it into their core product & team. -- Lastly, Jessie is now a co-founder of a YC startup that is absolutely crushing it. And to fast-forward a few more years, this startup will take over a large part of Acme’s core business by 2028. END OF STORY -- While the details surely vary, stories of this shape are, at any given time, playing out in most tech companies I know. Mind you, this is not just at “bad companies”. Some of the very best tech companies in the world have their share of Operators like Dan and projects like Zeus. -- And while there is never just one reason for such a failure, I want to call your attention to an insidious, under-discussed root cause of Zeus-like failures: The tendency of many (not all!) ambitious leaders to manage new initiatives for Optics rather than for Impact, and get rewarded for it. -- And frankly Dan isn’t the only culpable party here. Everyone, from Alice & Bob at the top, to Acme’s broader executive team, to perhaps folks on Dan’s team — everyone (except Jessie) played a non-trivial role in the debacle that was Zeus. -- What might have prevented this debacle? Several things actually: 1) Dan should not have been appointed as the leader for Zeus. Operators are great for scaling, at the right time, but they often bring premature optimization to projects, and that can kill its prospects very early on. Even if most folks can’t see that readily, the project is dead before it was ever alive. -- 2) Things could have gone better even with Dan as leader. If Dan were more self-aware, he would have seen his role differently. He could have hired great Craftspeople like Jessie on his team, and then *listened to those Craftspeople* to translate A&B’s vision to a winning product. -- 3) A&B (& the broader exec team) should have understood that a lot of what seemed like “great operations & management” actually hurts early-stage bold initiatives like Zeus. Premature operational optimization can be a very bad thing for early-stage projects in startups & large companies. -- 4) Last, but by no means the least, A&B should have had the leadership maturity to see through (and candidly call out) what Dan was doing: managing for Optics, instead of a) actually understanding users b) iterating towards differentiation c) instilling a drive to win d) optimizing for major business impact -- This post is already quite long, so I will end it with an observation about this last point: Operators are everywhere in tech companies. They are extremely valuable. But, assigning an Operator who is not self-aware to the certain projects can be fatal for that project & your team. -- You see, many Operators, even if they have good intentions, do not understand the role of a leader of an early stage initiative. Through years of experience with at-scale products & teams, and through years of sub-par training, they feel comfortable with “running the process”. -- Operators like Dan legit think that their job is to understand what the CEO wants, orchestrate actions across the org based on that, and set up processes, structures & accountability checks to ensure that those actions are performed efficiently. What is their big miss here? -- For any early stage product initiative, its leader ought to deeply understand the user & business problems to be solved, build a small, energetic team that is inspired to solve them, build product to test informed hypotheses, with the most basic process to support these actions. -- Yes, it does matter what the Founder/CEO thinks. Yes, the Founder’s vision is to be understood & taken seriously. But every Founder worth their salt knows that real product work isn’t just about transcribing his/her vision. New product work is messy, and it requires enormous creativity. -- What should Operators who want to get better at leading early stage products do? Chiefly, it requires unlearning some “truths” and playing with some new truths So let me conclude this post with my prescription of what such Operators should do less of, and start doing more of: That’s it. Congrats on making it this far, and I wish you my very best 🙌🏾👍🏾 --
3
17
1
247
55,788
Frontend developers on a Monday getting ready to change the color of a button
261
1,962
457
22,475
1,952,922
Replying to @jasonfried @Kazanjy
Hey Jason... "Clark from InVision" here... I’ve been somewhat removed from the InVision business since transitioning out ~2 years ago, and this is the first time I’ve reacted to the latest news publicly. I'm choosing to do so here because in many ways your post is a full-circle moment for me. MANY (perhaps most) of the underlying philosophies that drove InVision from the very beginning were inspired by my co-founder @BenNadel and I reading and re-reading Getting Real. It was our early-stage hymnal. Apologies for steam of consciousness rant and admitted inherent bias — I’m a founder after all :) 👇🏽
32
66
73
759
178,065
BREAKING: US Supreme Court effectively outlaws landing pages that look like Linear. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has found that continuing to copy Linear's style is "too trendy" and has deemed the practice unconstitutional. The justices expressed concern that designers are being directly asked to design landing pages to look like Linear — or even worse, shown other SaaS companies that copied Linear, as reference. "It does seem to me to be curious that designers are coming into these projects with great creative ideas, but the output ends up looking exactly like Linear. While it is difficult to prove what went wrong, it is clear that a direct violation of the constitutionally protected creative process is being violated." Chief Justice John Roberts said.
66
126
78
1,875
654,740
Ok, now I understand why Google SERP is so bad and unusable.
We pulled off an SEO heist that stole 3.6M total traffic from a competitor. We got 489,509 traffic in October alone. Here's how we did it:
1
196
If you’re ever feeling lost or lacking in motivation and purpose, watch Season 2 Episode 7 of The Bear Without question one of the best episodes of a show ever made Every Second Counts
169
1,344
253
13,390
1,954,651
Most ppl are missing the key point regarding OpenAI This is not standard startup drama This is literally a fight for the survival of humanity, linked to the original purpose of OpenAI: saving us from the end of the world: 🧵
268
748
366
3,576
1,972,249
"Most people die at 25 and aren't buried until they're 75" - Benjamin Franklin Why? 4 reasons and solutions:
109
1,268
127
9,984
2,359,766
In 2008, Google Maps launched in India. But we quickly ran into a problem: Nobody used street names. And street names were the foundation of Google Maps. The team had to make some big adaptations. 15 years later, the changes have stood the test of time. Here's how the team came up with creative solutions to adapt Google Maps to work in India: ––– When Google Maps launched in India, turn by turn directions were unusable. Because there were no road names, directions looked like this: This was before real time, accurate GPS in phones had become mainstream. In short, directions were pretty much useless in India. ––– We could have left the product as it was. We could have assumed it was good enough, would get better over time, or that eventually people would adapt. But India was a massive potential market and we wanted the product to thrive. The solution wasn’t just a case of acquiring and cataloging street names. Many streets either didn’t have names, had multiple names, or weren’t known by their official names. So we had to find an alternative. We already knew that many communities around the world relied on landmarks (rather than street names) for navigating. e.g. “Turn left at the park, head towards the water” We knew this was also true in India. But we had to confirm landmark based navigation would work. And if it did, how we could make it work. ––– So we dove in. We started to explore how Google Maps could work if it oriented around landmarks. But we needed to understand 2 key questions: 1. How did people use landmarks to navigate in India? 2. What types of landmarks were good for navigating? This is where user research came in. At the time, Google had robust support for user research. There were research labs on campus with eye tracking technology and one-way mirrors. There was a team dedicated to recruiting research participants. But in this case, my friend and researcher extraordinaire, Olga (@okhroust) simply focused on how she could best answer these key questions. She put together a creative and scrappy research plan. And then she and Janet, the designer, hopped on a plane to India. ––– What followed was nimble, on the ground field research to understand, first-hand, the answers to these questions. They creatively explored various approaches including: • Calling businesses and asking them for directions to their stores • Asking people to draw diagrams of routes to familiar places • Following people around as they navigated unfamiliar places • Recruiting people to keep track of directions they gave or received + later interviewing them on their experiences • Sharing early designs of landmark based directions and asking for feedback Rather than relying on sophisticated technologies or being bounded by formal research methods, they creatively tried several different tactics to understand how locals navigated their way through India. Olga and Janet found that people used landmarks to navigate in a few key ways: • Orientation: “Head towards the water” • Description of a turn: “Turn just past the Big Bazaar” • Confirmation of the right path: “You'll see a petrol station on the right” • Error correction: “If you get to the roundabout, you've gone too far” Landmarks that were used for navigating included parks, monuments, shopping centers, notable buildings, stores, petrol stations, roundabouts, etc — basically anything that anyone would notice while on the road. And so the team reworked turn-by-turn street directions to include navigational landmarks to help orient people, signal turns, confirm direction, and error correct. The team worked through several iterations before landing on a final solution that emphasized landmarks, but also subtly included road names (when available): ––– The research drove the product changes that helped transform Google Maps into the dominant navigational product for India. A lot has changed in the last 15 years with the pervasiveness of location-enabled mobile phones, cheap mobile data, and generally how locals navigate in India. But the use of landmarks to help people navigate through India has stood the test of time. ––– What I love about this story and my 2 biggest takeaways are: 1. Research is a critical tool for ensuring you’re building a good product 2. Research can be as simple as just talking to people to answer your questions tl;dr: If you are looking for answers, go talk to people. For more on design + tips for early stage founders, follow @elizlaraki
108
1,013
192
4,449
655,590
Primer on how we design at @linear: The main point is that the design is only a reference, never any kind of deliverable itself, so the way it's constructed doesn't really matter. 1. We screenshot the app and design on top of 2. Simple design system that has mostly colors, type and some basic components (rest you can screenshot/recreate) 3. We have one design file each quarter, each person creates a page in it for their projects (easier to see what others are working on) 4. Naming layers, using auto layout, components is up to the designer if they want to use them or not 5. Use prototypes if needed to show a flow or some other interaction 6. Once the design is good enough, and we start building and the design is now only a reference. The real design is the app again and you start the process over.
80
188
154
2,901
1,172,241