5 ms·

Their USP, which Facebook and Twitter can never compete with, is self-hosting. Multiple companies could set up, some with ad-free paid options, others funded by

by blowski 10y ago

Their USP, which Facebook and Twitter can never compete with, is self-hosting. Multiple companies could set up, some with ad-free paid options, others funded by advertising. And if you don't like those options, you can host it yourself for you and your family. I think that's a worthy goal, though I'm not convinced it we'll achieve it because of the amount of money the vested interests can throw at preventing it. But it remains a good idea, even if it never becomes mainstream.

smacktoward 10y ago
> They're USP, which Facebook and Twitter can never compete with, is self-hosting. USPs work best when they address an acute problem the person you're pitching it to has to struggle with every day. Nobody in the general public is looking at Facebook or Twitter and thinking "this would be so much better if it made me pay money and deal with installing software."
eropple 10y ago
> Multiple companies could set up, some with ad-free paid options, others funded by advertising. OK. But why would they? What is the raison d'etre for such a company to exist? What is the competitive advantage here for those companies to actually do that? How does this not turn into a hilarious race-to-the-bottom that zeroes out any reason for anybody to do it in the first place? I am profoundly unconvinced that you're going to ever beat a Twitter or a Facebook and it's not because of "vested interests preventing it", it's because the current options meet the needs and desires of the userbase. The size of the group that cares about self-hosting something like this is within epsilon of zero percent. Because nobody cares, there is no network effect to pull other people.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  It turns into a utility, like Wikipedia, or OpenStreetMap. Not all that provides value generates profit, hence the need for a different model. Mind you, Telegram is funded by one wealthy benefactor, and I'd argue its a reasonably large service not attempting to compete for profit against other incumbents.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    > It turns into a utility, like Wikipedia, or OpenStreetMap. Not all that provides value generates profit, hence the need for a different model. The only conceivable reason it would is if individual providers found value data mining it.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      OpenStreetMap infrastructure only costs $200K/year to run. A microblogging platform can't come up with $200K/year?
      - coldtea 10y ago
        You make it sound trivial. Where would it come up with $200/K year?
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        I'd propose crowdfunding the first $200k to gauge interest before committing resources, and then move to a subscription model ($1-5/user/year). WhatsApp had success at that price point, which leads me to believe $1/year would not be a hard sell for those interested in an ongoing microblogging platform. Note: Twitter has ~313 million active monthly users. Only 0.0006 percent of those users would need to find interest in this sort of new platform for it to be viable (at the price point I mention above).
        coldtea 10y ago
        >which leads me to believe $1/year would not be a hard sell for those interested in an ongoing microblogging platform. That's the hard part. Why would they be interested? There are tons of microblogging platforms available.
        KirinDave 10y ago
        But twitter has a global timeline, spends lots of money on user acquisition and partnerships with major corporations to broadcast and manage events. Even if we assume that $200m/yr from OSM (which has a much easier job than Twitter, scaling) is reasonable, this new system people are proposing lacks a lot of fundamental discovery features that make Twitter valuable. And yet again, even if they are addressed then this means many more people would need to pitch in for the initial customer acquisition and community building. I know many people at Twitter who labor to do exactly that sort of thing to this very day. People buidling these networks think their technology is what's valuable, and there is a threshold of scale you have to meet (which btw, I do not think the projects involved here have demonstrated), but after that it's the community that has the real value. My experience with Mastodon is a blank screen with a single message from me, "I wonder how I meet people here?" Even the word "microblogging" captures fundamentally the wrong idea about what drives the core of twitter's community and engagement.
- erikb 10y ago
  Life is not just about making money. And even making money becomes easier if you have done something cool and recognizable in the past. At the very least you can use it on your resume, or when coordinating the team at your start-up, or as a foundation to start a conference career.
optimuspaul 10y ago
What is USP?
- def- 10y ago
  Unique selling proposition
  - optimuspaul 10y ago
    and they are that? I don't understand, but english is my native language so maybe I'm not grasping the meaning of words maybe?
    - m3ta 10y ago
      I think OP used "they're" instead of "their". Read the sentence again with that in mind and it makes sense.
      - blowski 10y ago
        Sorry, fixed. Blooming autocorrect.
    - narrowrail 10y ago
      Just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_selling_proposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_selling_proposition It is very common business lingo, but you couldn't be blamed for ignoring such things.

by blowski 10y ago

smacktoward 10y ago

> They're USP, which Facebook and Twitter can never compete with, is self-hosting. USPs work best when they address an acute problem the person you're pitching it to has to struggle with every day. Nobody in the general public is looking at Facebook or Twitter and thinking "this would be so much better if it made me pay money and deal with installing software."

eropple 10y ago

> Multiple companies could set up, some with ad-free paid options, others funded by advertising. OK. But why would they? What is the raison d'etre for such a company to exist? What is the competitive advantage here for those companies to actually do that? How does this not turn into a hilarious race-to-the-bottom that zeroes out any reason for anybody to do it in the first place? I am profoundly unconvinced that you're going to ever beat a Twitter or a Facebook and it's not because of "vested interests preventing it", it's because the current options meet the needs and desires of the userbase. The size of the group that cares about self-hosting something like this is within epsilon of zero percent. Because nobody cares, there is no network effect to pull other people.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
It turns into a utility, like Wikipedia, or OpenStreetMap. Not all that provides value generates profit, hence the need for a different model. Mind you, Telegram is funded by one wealthy benefactor, and I'd argue its a reasonably large service not attempting to compete for profit against other incumbents.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  > It turns into a utility, like Wikipedia, or OpenStreetMap. Not all that provides value generates profit, hence the need for a different model. The only conceivable reason it would is if individual providers found value data mining it.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    OpenStreetMap infrastructure only costs $200K/year to run. A microblogging platform can't come up with $200K/year?
    - coldtea 10y ago
      You make it sound trivial. Where would it come up with $200/K year?
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        I'd propose crowdfunding the first $200k to gauge interest before committing resources, and then move to a subscription model ($1-5/user/year). WhatsApp had success at that price point, which leads me to believe $1/year would not be a hard sell for those interested in an ongoing microblogging platform. Note: Twitter has ~313 million active monthly users. Only 0.0006 percent of those users would need to find interest in this sort of new platform for it to be viable (at the price point I mention above).
        coldtea 10y ago
        >which leads me to believe $1/year would not be a hard sell for those interested in an ongoing microblogging platform. That's the hard part. Why would they be interested? There are tons of microblogging platforms available.
        KirinDave 10y ago
        But twitter has a global timeline, spends lots of money on user acquisition and partnerships with major corporations to broadcast and manage events. Even if we assume that $200m/yr from OSM (which has a much easier job than Twitter, scaling) is reasonable, this new system people are proposing lacks a lot of fundamental discovery features that make Twitter valuable. And yet again, even if they are addressed then this means many more people would need to pitch in for the initial customer acquisition and community building. I know many people at Twitter who labor to do exactly that sort of thing to this very day. People buidling these networks think their technology is what's valuable, and there is a threshold of scale you have to meet (which btw, I do not think the projects involved here have demonstrated), but after that it's the community that has the real value. My experience with Mastodon is a blank screen with a single message from me, "I wonder how I meet people here?" Even the word "microblogging" captures fundamentally the wrong idea about what drives the core of twitter's community and engagement.
erikb 10y ago
Life is not just about making money. And even making money becomes easier if you have done something cool and recognizable in the past. At the very least you can use it on your resume, or when coordinating the team at your start-up, or as a foundation to start a conference career.

optimuspaul 10y ago

What is USP?

def- 10y ago
Unique selling proposition
- optimuspaul 10y ago
  and they are that? I don't understand, but english is my native language so maybe I'm not grasping the meaning of words maybe?
  - m3ta 10y ago
    I think OP used "they're" instead of "their". Read the sentence again with that in mind and it makes sense.
    - blowski 10y ago
      Sorry, fixed. Blooming autocorrect.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    Just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_selling_proposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_selling_proposition It is very common business lingo, but you couldn't be blamed for ignoring such things.