4 ms·

> Or because they really don't see any new value. Value is a misnomer. There's no inherent value in 90% of the stuff that blows up. What's the "value" in Faceb

• shafyy 9y ago
  Solving a problem and providing a new, better way of doing something are really two different sides of the same coin. Put differently, you don't have to solve an explicit problem. You can also solve a latent problem. Who are you to judge "wantapreneurs"? Of course, there is something such as "value"!
  • dvt 9y ago
    > Solving a problem and providing a new, better way of doing something are really two different sides of the same coin. I'm going to contend that they are two fundamentally different things. Inventing the internal combustion engine and working at Honda on their 2019 model are two very different things.
    • brucephillips 9y ago
      This seems like a strawman. No one is arguing that the 20th iteration of a major auto model is providing a new way of doing things.
      • dvt 9y ago
        I am admittedly stretching the argument thin, but I still hope you see my point.
        • brucephillips 9y ago
          I don't. What's the difference between solving a problem and finding a better way of doing things?
        • sooheon 9y ago
          Whenever you can make a point by stretching an analogy to an extreme, I think it's possible to imagine stretching the analogy the other direction. In this case, the distinction seems to be a matter of degrees, rather than a fundamental difference.
        • chrismcb 9y ago
          I'm not really sure what your point was. But you seem to think that doing something better is not solving a problem. Sure it is, just a slightly doesn't problem. Your car analogy... The original problem was a carriage needed house to be pulled, the solution was the combustible engine. The next problem was the engine want fast enough. Then the engine used too much gas. Then the problem was it cost too much. Perhaps working on the 20th iteration of the engine isn't as hard as inventing the engine in the first place, but there are still problems to be solved, and value to be added. Sure, the winner isn't always better, sometimes they just have better marketers. But most of your original examples the succeeder did something better. Yahoo want a search engine and it was noisy. Google was simple and it find stuff. MySpace had a spam problem. Sometimes the new thing is just easier to use, or looks nicer, or it does one small thing the other doesn't.
  • Vinnl 9y ago
    The original comment could then still hold, though. Yes, it might be like Slack/IRC/whatever, but better.
• ygaf 9y ago
  The way I remember it, Facebook removed customisation, giving users one good page design. In Myspace people had to think about what tiled wallpaper and brutally large sound file to include in their page. Seconding everything shafyy said.
• brucephillips 9y ago
  It seems like you're going out of your way to avoid describing the value these products provided. Especially in your characterization of Google. Pinterest provides entertainment, product discovery, and community. Snapchat enabled a new type of communication by removing self consciousness. Airbnb provides quality lodging at low prices. Facebook provided authenticity, exclusivity, and increased information density through timeline. Google provided far better search results.
  • dvt 9y ago
    > Pinterest provides entertainment, product discovery, and community. This is kind of a non-statement. You could say that just about any internet based social network startup provides "community" and "entertainment" -- and yet many completely fail. This is quintessential grasping at straws and a posteriori reasoning. > Snapchat enabled a new type of communication by removing self consciousness. So did Yik Yak, so does IRC, so do anonymous forums, so does Kik. Again, this is kind of a ultra-general non-value value proposition. Why Snapchat got funded has nothing to do with the idea -- and everything to do with traction. > Airbnb provides quality lodging at low prices. So does hotels.com or (if you haggle a little) Craigslist. > Facebook provided authenticity, exclusivity, and increased information density through timeline. The timeline wasn't around when FB launched (back then we had the wall). I'm not even sure what "information density" means (or if it's even a good thing), it seems like 20-20 rear-view justification for FB's success. MySpace probably provided more authenticity, anyway (I could customize my page way more).
    • brucephillips 9y ago
      Just to hone in on one example, do you really not see any benefit to using Airbnb over Craigslist for short term rentals? Even in the beginning? I can argue the other side, I think quite clearly, but I first want to make sure that's actually what you're claiming because it seems so demonstrably untrue.
    • Hasz 9y ago
      Maybe more specifically, the value of all these networks lies in the network part. The tricky part is convincing the people that will use it to become part of the product.