5 ms·

There have been apps in the past that limit friends. I've thought a bout a 2 person network for you and your partner as well as one with maybe 20 friends. As

There have been apps in the past that limit friends. I've thought a bout a 2 person network for you and your partner as well as one with maybe 20 friends. As well as one where you only see updates from friends who include you in their 20 as well. But it breaks the financial model of running targeted ads so it wont work.

aggie 9y ago
Seems like targeting small groups could be a way to overcome the network effect of Facebook. Just convince a handful of friends to join. Maybe a free trial or freemium model would work?
ReverseCold 9y ago
> 2 person network for you and your partner Chat apps?
- goatherders 9y ago
  Yeah but would be cool to have an area to share "stories," text messages, video calls, grocery lists, etc. Maybe there is money in integration wherein if my partner likes a Chanel purse on FB or Pinterest the partner app let's me know so I can buy it dir her.
  - amvalo 9y ago
    Or... you could just have a conversation like normal people.
    - Aditya_Garg 9y ago
      He's saying more along the lines of having a social media profile (like Facebook) that represents 2 people.
      - WatermelonApe 9y ago
        Or... you could just have a conversation like normal people.
      - amvalo 9y ago
        That actually doesn't seem to be what he's saying. "Share grocery lists." That's what a couple would share with each other, not to their other friends. > my partner likes a Chanel purse on FB or Pinterest the partner app let's me know And seriously, it sounds awful. This is how you expect technology to benefit humanity?
        goatherders 9y ago
        Yes. And what's wrong with that? Until the brightest minds apply themselves to solving real problems the least they can do is solve small problems instead of making solutions for problems that dont exist.
    - goatherders 9y ago
      Or you could kiss my ass and stop being snippy. Online interaction is not exclusive to conversation and intimacy. I dont have time or inclination (nor does she) to sit on the couch and say "look at this photo I took at lunch" or "what does next weeks evening calendar look like.." An app could solve that. Well.
      - amvalo 9y ago
        You don't have time to sit on a couch and talk about your day together?
        goatherders 9y ago
        Of course we do. And that's for the important stuff. Social media is largely garbage so sharing the small stuff would be useful.
        collyw 9y ago
        Have you never been to a restaurant and see a couple together more interested in their phones than each other. (A casual observation of mine is that it is usually better looking couples that do this, but not exclusively. Maybe the constant need to be on social media forces them to pay more attention to their appearance and less on their conversation).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - fwn 9y ago
    But all of that already exists. A million chat apps that also do video calls, todo apps, etc. Even Google photos casually asked me to add my SO so they can view my photos. I think that most people could do all of that adfree without installing another app. The innovation would just be centralization. Which only benefits the company centralizing.
textmode 9y ago
"But it breaks the financial model of running targeted ads so it won't work." By "it", do you mean the software won't work? What if someone wrote the software to do this, it worked and he distributed it for free? To the entrepreneur, this perhaps is not interesting. Is it interesting to the user?
- goatherders 9y ago
  I mean that targeting ads comes from harvesting lots of info. If the only thing the data shows is a single relationship then it is an order of magnitude lesser than if you are pulling data from hundreds of relationships.
  - textmode 9y ago
    Could this property be of interest to the user that wants communications free from advertising, e.g., if she understands that the "social network" architecture created by the users of the software is such that there is no incentive for ads. For example, if the software allows users to create many small groups all communicating separately, peer-to-peer, not aggregated into the same "network" via an enormous third party website.
- collyw 9y ago
  The beauty of capitalism. You only get the stuff built that makes someone money, not the stuff that is genuinely useful. (Obviously there will be some overlap, but "most useful to the consumer" isn't always going to line up with "makes most money for the company").
  - textmode 9y ago
    What if the "stuff" already exists? What if economics had no bearing on its creation?
firasd 9y ago
I've thought a WhatsApp equivalent for just families or even for specific events (like a wedding) would be cool. In addition to the regular chat window, there would be shared photos and so on. But I think the challenge is not the financial model, the problem is product/market fit. Path (founded by a former FB exec) tried for a few years to create an intimate social network but couldn't retain enough users to make the biz work.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dindumuffin 9y ago
  Path, Peach, Vero, Ello, I don't think we need another one to remind everybody that "intimate social networks" are a failed experiment. If someone wants to communicate within a small group, they are inclined to use group chat. Forget monetizing, first it's difficult to get users to stay on these platforms because: 1. Even if you get amazing press and hype, the churn rate can exceed your growth rate due to how limited the network effect is e.g. Peach and Vero. 2. People can already choose to unfollow celebrities and limit their friend groups on any existing social platform. It's simply a matter of willpower or creating an alternate account ala how "Finstagrams". 3. Celebrities and influencers are what drives growth to a platform. Donald brought Twitter tens of millions of new users. Hundreds of millions of guys use Instagram just to follow bikini models etc
  - qznc 9y ago
    There is no need to start as a social app. You could start as a to-do app. For example, if Todoist would add a persistent group chat to shared lists, it might replace the WhatsApp conversations with my wife. There are apps that are used in intimate settings. They can be made "social".
    - fwn 9y ago
blowski 9y ago
There was one for couples: https://www.fastcodesign.com/1669435/pair-a-social-networking-app-just-for-couples https://www.fastcodesign.com/1669435/pair-a-social-networkin...
- giancarlostoro 9y ago
  There's a bunch. Even Avocado IO but some suffer from laggy chat. Once you got enough messages the app takes forever as it tries to download every single message. Skype has the same damn problem... Just sync the last 10 then slowly poll for the rest and poll the rest fully if I scroll up... Never understood why they did that.

aggie 9y ago

Seems like targeting small groups could be a way to overcome the network effect of Facebook. Just convince a handful of friends to join. Maybe a free trial or freemium model would work?

ReverseCold 9y ago

> 2 person network for you and your partner Chat apps?

goatherders 9y ago
Yeah but would be cool to have an area to share "stories," text messages, video calls, grocery lists, etc. Maybe there is money in integration wherein if my partner likes a Chanel purse on FB or Pinterest the partner app let's me know so I can buy it dir her.
- amvalo 9y ago
  Or... you could just have a conversation like normal people.
  - Aditya_Garg 9y ago
    He's saying more along the lines of having a social media profile (like Facebook) that represents 2 people.
    - WatermelonApe 9y ago
      Or... you could just have a conversation like normal people.
    - amvalo 9y ago
      That actually doesn't seem to be what he's saying. "Share grocery lists." That's what a couple would share with each other, not to their other friends. > my partner likes a Chanel purse on FB or Pinterest the partner app let's me know And seriously, it sounds awful. This is how you expect technology to benefit humanity?
      - goatherders 9y ago
        Yes. And what's wrong with that? Until the brightest minds apply themselves to solving real problems the least they can do is solve small problems instead of making solutions for problems that dont exist.
  - goatherders 9y ago
    Or you could kiss my ass and stop being snippy. Online interaction is not exclusive to conversation and intimacy. I dont have time or inclination (nor does she) to sit on the couch and say "look at this photo I took at lunch" or "what does next weeks evening calendar look like.." An app could solve that. Well.
    - amvalo 9y ago
      You don't have time to sit on a couch and talk about your day together?
      - goatherders 9y ago
        Of course we do. And that's for the important stuff. Social media is largely garbage so sharing the small stuff would be useful.
      - collyw 9y ago
        Have you never been to a restaurant and see a couple together more interested in their phones than each other. (A casual observation of mine is that it is usually better looking couples that do this, but not exclusively. Maybe the constant need to be on social media forces them to pay more attention to their appearance and less on their conversation).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fwn 9y ago
  But all of that already exists. A million chat apps that also do video calls, todo apps, etc. Even Google photos casually asked me to add my SO so they can view my photos. I think that most people could do all of that adfree without installing another app. The innovation would just be centralization. Which only benefits the company centralizing.

textmode 9y ago

"But it breaks the financial model of running targeted ads so it won't work." By "it", do you mean the software won't work? What if someone wrote the software to do this, it worked and he distributed it for free? To the entrepreneur, this perhaps is not interesting. Is it interesting to the user?

goatherders 9y ago
I mean that targeting ads comes from harvesting lots of info. If the only thing the data shows is a single relationship then it is an order of magnitude lesser than if you are pulling data from hundreds of relationships.
- textmode 9y ago
  Could this property be of interest to the user that wants communications free from advertising, e.g., if she understands that the "social network" architecture created by the users of the software is such that there is no incentive for ads. For example, if the software allows users to create many small groups all communicating separately, peer-to-peer, not aggregated into the same "network" via an enormous third party website.
collyw 9y ago
The beauty of capitalism. You only get the stuff built that makes someone money, not the stuff that is genuinely useful. (Obviously there will be some overlap, but "most useful to the consumer" isn't always going to line up with "makes most money for the company").
- textmode 9y ago
  What if the "stuff" already exists? What if economics had no bearing on its creation?

firasd 9y ago

I've thought a WhatsApp equivalent for just families or even for specific events (like a wedding) would be cool. In addition to the regular chat window, there would be shared photos and so on. But I think the challenge is not the financial model, the problem is product/market fit. Path (founded by a former FB exec) tried for a few years to create an intimate social network but couldn't retain enough users to make the biz work.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dindumuffin 9y ago
Path, Peach, Vero, Ello, I don't think we need another one to remind everybody that "intimate social networks" are a failed experiment. If someone wants to communicate within a small group, they are inclined to use group chat. Forget monetizing, first it's difficult to get users to stay on these platforms because: 1. Even if you get amazing press and hype, the churn rate can exceed your growth rate due to how limited the network effect is e.g. Peach and Vero. 2. People can already choose to unfollow celebrities and limit their friend groups on any existing social platform. It's simply a matter of willpower or creating an alternate account ala how "Finstagrams". 3. Celebrities and influencers are what drives growth to a platform. Donald brought Twitter tens of millions of new users. Hundreds of millions of guys use Instagram just to follow bikini models etc
- qznc 9y ago
  There is no need to start as a social app. You could start as a to-do app. For example, if Todoist would add a persistent group chat to shared lists, it might replace the WhatsApp conversations with my wife. There are apps that are used in intimate settings. They can be made "social".
  - fwn 9y ago

blowski 9y ago

There was one for couples: https://www.fastcodesign.com/1669435/pair-a-social-networking-app-just-for-couples https://www.fastcodesign.com/1669435/pair-a-social-networkin...

giancarlostoro 9y ago
There's a bunch. Even Avocado IO but some suffer from laggy chat. Once you got enough messages the app takes forever as it tries to download every single message. Skype has the same damn problem... Just sync the last 10 then slowly poll for the rest and poll the rest fully if I scroll up... Never understood why they did that.