4 ms·

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 w

by 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
    I think it's very dangerous to add social to a non-social service. Evernote tried adding a chat functionality they, for some reason, named "work chat". No other Evernote user I know wasn't hostile towards this feature.
    - qznc 9y ago
      It is not intuitive to me why that would be bad. Care to elaborate?
adventured 9y ago
Path may have been a case of timing. They arrived right during peak Facebook buzzsaw growth, where Facebook was taking over. They stepped in front of that. It would be interesting to see how it - or something equivalent - would fair were it starting out today. I'm increasingly of the opinion that there is no future market for an all-encompassing social network. That Facebook will stick around perpetually, like a moss. It's primary purpose will be to act as that one giant connection point with three billion users. The future growth markets are in the specialized segments that splinter off, of which there will be hundreds. They'll be targeted social networks, that do specific things dramatically better than Facebook ever can (and things that FB will never bother with). The early examples are well known: LinkedIn, Reddit, HN, Instagram, Twitter, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Stack Exchange, Genius, Yelp. Over time there will be one for everything imaginable that has at least a modest audience.

by firasd 9y ago

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
  I think it's very dangerous to add social to a non-social service. Evernote tried adding a chat functionality they, for some reason, named "work chat". No other Evernote user I know wasn't hostile towards this feature.
  - qznc 9y ago
    It is not intuitive to me why that would be bad. Care to elaborate?

adventured 9y ago

Path may have been a case of timing. They arrived right during peak Facebook buzzsaw growth, where Facebook was taking over. They stepped in front of that. It would be interesting to see how it - or something equivalent - would fair were it starting out today. I'm increasingly of the opinion that there is no future market for an all-encompassing social network. That Facebook will stick around perpetually, like a moss. It's primary purpose will be to act as that one giant connection point with three billion users. The future growth markets are in the specialized segments that splinter off, of which there will be hundreds. They'll be targeted social networks, that do specific things dramatically better than Facebook ever can (and things that FB will never bother with). The early examples are well known: LinkedIn, Reddit, HN, Instagram, Twitter, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Stack Exchange, Genius, Yelp. Over time there will be one for everything imaginable that has at least a modest audience.