8 ms·

http://charlescosta.net/2014/04/how-the-seven-deadly-sins-drive-innovaiton/ http://charlescosta.net/2014/04/how-the-seven-deadly-sins-dr... tl;dr — Every succe

http://charlescosta.net/2014/04/how-the-seven-deadly-sins-drive-innovaiton/ http://charlescosta.net/2014/04/how-the-seven-deadly-sins-dr... tl;dr — Every successful social startup should bend, but not completely violate, one or more social taboos, e.g. one of the 7 deadly sins. Edit: When designing www.fwdeveryone.com, we purposely incorporated Pav's theory by building the platform around the taboo of getting involved in other people's relationships, in this case by letting people read (and reply to) other people's email conversations.

jedberg 8y ago
> Spotify allows consumers to binge on music for a flat fee, however it is crucial to note that the musicians in this case significantly lose out on revenue. As a side note, it amuses me to see this repeated so often, given that it's not true. If you do the math, Spotify pays about the same as a radio play. You just have to remember that each radio play goes out to a few hundred thousand to a few million people each time. The reason artists don't like Spotify is not because they pay poorly, it's because they pay fairly. When you get a radio play, it's assumed that all the people the station reaches listened to the song. Spotify knows exactly how many people listened to a song, and pay accordingly. Unpopular artists don't like this because they get accurate counts.
- ghaff 8y ago
  One important difference is that, at least historically, radio play could actually stimulate the purchase of music so that you could listen to it at a time of your choosing (and without ads). Whereas, streaming on-demand music is increasingly a substitute for owning the tracks for a lot of people.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    Again, this is something that is more fair to the consumer at the expense of the artist. The only reason you owned an album was because you couldn't listen when you wanted to, and were forced to buy it. Now it's better for the consumer, but not the artist.
    - wkndbdvs 8y ago
      Sadly, it’s worse for both parties in the long run when creative labour is devalued beyond recoupable investment.
      - jedberg 8y ago
        Then we shall return to the times before the 19th century, when people created art because they loved art, not to get rich. I suspect it will lead to higher quality art, even if the quantity is lower.
        weeksie 8y ago
        I believe all that would do is make wealth or extreme tolerance for poverty a requirement to become an artist.
        throwbacktictac 8y ago
        I think artist will have to focus more on cultivating a strong fanbase globally and leverage it for merchandise and live performances. There is lots of money to be made being an idol.
        voltagex_ 8y ago
        Go read about YouTube or Twitch burnout to see what happens when artists are forced to go that route.
        bad_user 8y ago
        You mean artists should do ads? I find it ironic seeing this suggested here. How do you feel about ad-blockers then?
        Jweb_Guru 8y ago
        What nonsense. I don't think there are many musicians today who don't love art. The problem isn't just being unable to get rich, it's being unable to afford to be a musician at all, and that was certainly not the case before the 19th century (there were plenty of paid positions for musicians).
- majormajor 8y ago
  Spotify doesn't only replace the radio for me, it replaces CDs. I think on-demand plays should be worth more - and pay more - than ad-filled, ad-hoc, unpredictable radio plays. I was similarly never willing to pay for HBO before on-demand streaming, but am willing to pay now.
- dperfect 8y ago
  > Spotify knows exactly how many people listened to a song, and pay accordingly. From what I understand, they actually pay based on how many times a song is played, which is not the same as how many people listened to it. If I only listen to an unpopular artist, but I don't listen as often as other people listen to popular artists (lower play count, even though it's still my favorite artist), nearly all of my subscription fee goes to the popular artists. In the old days of purchasing music, it didn't matter how many times a person played the disc/track - it cost the same. You might argue that each play represents the marginal utility to the listener (and should thus be the basis for compensation), but I'm not sure that's entirely true.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    > From what I understand, they actually pay based on how many times a song is played, Yes, I should have been more precise. Just like with a radio play, the second play in theory goes to the same mass of people, but is counted again. So I should have said "they know exactly how many people and how many times it was played, and pay accordingly". I believe they discount multiple plays from the same person, to prevent abuse. > In the old days of purchasing music, it didn't matter how many times a person played the disc/track - it cost the same. You might argue that each play represents the marginal utility to the listener (and should thus be the basis for compensation), but I'm not sure that's entirely true. You might argue that, but you might also argue that when you bought a CD, you bought 10-15 tracks, even if you only wanted one or two. So again, for a consumer, Spotify is more fair, because you only pay for what you consume, and artists liked the old model where you paid for 15 tracks even if you only wanted two.
    - dperfect 8y ago
      > You might argue that, but you might also argue that when you bought a CD, you bought 10-15 tracks, even if you only wanted one or two. My same argument applies to a single track purchased via iTunes - it doesn't matter how many times you play it; it costs the same. The bundling of tracks on an album is something all artists did/do, so it doesn't affect the fairness question in my opinion (at least, not fairness between artists).
- montalbano 8y ago
  > The reason artists don't like Spotify is not because they pay poorly, it's because they pay fairly. This is not true IMHO. You need approximately 4 million plays per month to get the equivalent of Californian minimum wage! [1] [1] https://mashable.com/2018/01/31/copyright-court-rules-streaming-companies-have-to-pay-artists-more/?europe=true https://mashable.com/2018/01/31/copyright-court-rules-stream... Edit: You might get might more if you own all the rights yourself but not many artists do.
  - beberlei 8y ago
    If you look at the numbers of how many people listen to radio I think this is a fair number. Each song on the radio is pushed to thousands and more of listeners at once on a station. The daily listener reach of big stations is essily in the millions. Spotify is a drop in the ocean compared to radio
- tomc1985 8y ago
  You are completely glossing over the fact that Spotify's, radio's, and all of streaming's rates are utter crap: less than a tenth of a penny per play.
amclennon 8y ago
> Gluttony: Netflix – binge watching all your favorite TV shows and movies Interesting concept, but that one is a bit of a stretch...
css 8y ago
While I think I agree with the premise of this article, these examples seriously undermine the argument. WhatApp because of greed? Spotify because of gluttony? Spell check because of sloth? This seems like an awfully long stretch.
- Alex3917 8y ago
  The list in the middle of the article (Applications of the formula) is the original list from John Pavley's talk, the ones at the end are just the author of the blog post trying to give his own examples. But yeah I agree about WhatsApp, that's not a very good example. And MS Word isn't really social software.
- agumonkey 8y ago
  you could stretch spotify into musical pleasure greed .. although .. that would be stretching it
  - fullshark 8y ago
    I guess people pirating music is about greed, then being content with spotify instead because it's easier is about sloth.
    - sdf43543t345 8y ago
      re Piracy, its Pride -- for the technical challenge of getting something gratis. the fact it cost money ('greed') doesn't factor into it. Proud of the ability to acquire at no cost to the individual.
      - fullshark 8y ago
        A lot of people were/are just cheap
      - eric_h 8y ago
        For me that's what it was - I gathered quite a collection of shit I never even used or played (apps, media), just because I could (before Napster). For the friends of mine with no technical chops who I taught how to pirate, there was no pride, it was pure greed.
LeifCarrotson 8y ago
Ha, that's a good one! Let other people read your email. LOL. Hypothetically, you would 'reduce friction' by not sending email to the service, instead just give it the keys to your IMAP server! And users wouldn't need to inform people who email them that their email is public, because once it's on their screen they could post a screenshot to the web anyways. ...oh wait, that's a real thing that you did. You just didn't put the http:// http:// in your comment to avoid self-promotion. After reading your examples (which are a really helpful way of showing what your service does, BTW - thanks for not burying that in a video or forcing me to sign up), I can see the appeal for your service. It's Instagram for email: In exactly the way I keep every photo my phone takes backed up and organized on Google Photos, but selectively post to Instagram, I could selectively send mail on a "social email" account and keep normal transactions private. Fascinating! I suppose I have a small portfolio of emails helping some people solve problems (running/cycling tips, local routes, etc and some tech support) that I have meant to post to a blog but just never got around to it. Making that blogging automatic would be neat! Nice idea and implementation, I apologize for mocking it! I'll definitely keep the principle in mind.
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > Hypothetically, you would 'reduce friction' by not sending email to the service, instead just give it the keys to your IMAP server! We currently use read-only OAuth, so basically the same in terms of friction but easier to secure. > And users wouldn't need to inform people who email them that their email is public We actually currently require double opt-in permission for each message contributor in a thread to share stuff publicly. That might change in the future, we're still playing around with the model. The new best practice with social apps is basically to launch while erring on the side of having too much friction for the app to be successful, and then keep successively reducing the friction for people contributing positively to the community. Otherwise you risk gaining a bunch of immediate traction but going into the death spiral of negativity, which is the main way that social startups die if they already have initial traction. This wouldn't have worked ten years ago, but it makes more sense in a world where things take off more slowly anyway due to increased network saturation.
ccc111 8y ago
nice plug goofball
Mirioron 8y ago
I seem to only fall into the "wrath" category. I can't even relate to any of the other "social taboos."

jedberg 8y ago

> Spotify allows consumers to binge on music for a flat fee, however it is crucial to note that the musicians in this case significantly lose out on revenue. As a side note, it amuses me to see this repeated so often, given that it's not true. If you do the math, Spotify pays about the same as a radio play. You just have to remember that each radio play goes out to a few hundred thousand to a few million people each time. The reason artists don't like Spotify is not because they pay poorly, it's because they pay fairly. When you get a radio play, it's assumed that all the people the station reaches listened to the song. Spotify knows exactly how many people listened to a song, and pay accordingly. Unpopular artists don't like this because they get accurate counts.

ghaff 8y ago
One important difference is that, at least historically, radio play could actually stimulate the purchase of music so that you could listen to it at a time of your choosing (and without ads). Whereas, streaming on-demand music is increasingly a substitute for owning the tracks for a lot of people.
- jedberg 8y ago
  Again, this is something that is more fair to the consumer at the expense of the artist. The only reason you owned an album was because you couldn't listen when you wanted to, and were forced to buy it. Now it's better for the consumer, but not the artist.
  - wkndbdvs 8y ago
    Sadly, it’s worse for both parties in the long run when creative labour is devalued beyond recoupable investment.
    - jedberg 8y ago
      Then we shall return to the times before the 19th century, when people created art because they loved art, not to get rich. I suspect it will lead to higher quality art, even if the quantity is lower.
      - weeksie 8y ago
        I believe all that would do is make wealth or extreme tolerance for poverty a requirement to become an artist.
        throwbacktictac 8y ago
        I think artist will have to focus more on cultivating a strong fanbase globally and leverage it for merchandise and live performances. There is lots of money to be made being an idol.
        voltagex_ 8y ago
        Go read about YouTube or Twitch burnout to see what happens when artists are forced to go that route.
        bad_user 8y ago
        You mean artists should do ads? I find it ironic seeing this suggested here. How do you feel about ad-blockers then?
      - Jweb_Guru 8y ago
        What nonsense. I don't think there are many musicians today who don't love art. The problem isn't just being unable to get rich, it's being unable to afford to be a musician at all, and that was certainly not the case before the 19th century (there were plenty of paid positions for musicians).
majormajor 8y ago
Spotify doesn't only replace the radio for me, it replaces CDs. I think on-demand plays should be worth more - and pay more - than ad-filled, ad-hoc, unpredictable radio plays. I was similarly never willing to pay for HBO before on-demand streaming, but am willing to pay now.
dperfect 8y ago
> Spotify knows exactly how many people listened to a song, and pay accordingly. From what I understand, they actually pay based on how many times a song is played, which is not the same as how many people listened to it. If I only listen to an unpopular artist, but I don't listen as often as other people listen to popular artists (lower play count, even though it's still my favorite artist), nearly all of my subscription fee goes to the popular artists. In the old days of purchasing music, it didn't matter how many times a person played the disc/track - it cost the same. You might argue that each play represents the marginal utility to the listener (and should thus be the basis for compensation), but I'm not sure that's entirely true.
- jedberg 8y ago
  > From what I understand, they actually pay based on how many times a song is played, Yes, I should have been more precise. Just like with a radio play, the second play in theory goes to the same mass of people, but is counted again. So I should have said "they know exactly how many people and how many times it was played, and pay accordingly". I believe they discount multiple plays from the same person, to prevent abuse. > In the old days of purchasing music, it didn't matter how many times a person played the disc/track - it cost the same. You might argue that each play represents the marginal utility to the listener (and should thus be the basis for compensation), but I'm not sure that's entirely true. You might argue that, but you might also argue that when you bought a CD, you bought 10-15 tracks, even if you only wanted one or two. So again, for a consumer, Spotify is more fair, because you only pay for what you consume, and artists liked the old model where you paid for 15 tracks even if you only wanted two.
  - dperfect 8y ago
    > You might argue that, but you might also argue that when you bought a CD, you bought 10-15 tracks, even if you only wanted one or two. My same argument applies to a single track purchased via iTunes - it doesn't matter how many times you play it; it costs the same. The bundling of tracks on an album is something all artists did/do, so it doesn't affect the fairness question in my opinion (at least, not fairness between artists).
montalbano 8y ago
> The reason artists don't like Spotify is not because they pay poorly, it's because they pay fairly. This is not true IMHO. You need approximately 4 million plays per month to get the equivalent of Californian minimum wage! [1] [1] https://mashable.com/2018/01/31/copyright-court-rules-streaming-companies-have-to-pay-artists-more/?europe=true https://mashable.com/2018/01/31/copyright-court-rules-stream... Edit: You might get might more if you own all the rights yourself but not many artists do.
- beberlei 8y ago
  If you look at the numbers of how many people listen to radio I think this is a fair number. Each song on the radio is pushed to thousands and more of listeners at once on a station. The daily listener reach of big stations is essily in the millions. Spotify is a drop in the ocean compared to radio
tomc1985 8y ago
You are completely glossing over the fact that Spotify's, radio's, and all of streaming's rates are utter crap: less than a tenth of a penny per play.

amclennon 8y ago

> Gluttony: Netflix – binge watching all your favorite TV shows and movies Interesting concept, but that one is a bit of a stretch...

css 8y ago

While I think I agree with the premise of this article, these examples seriously undermine the argument. WhatApp because of greed? Spotify because of gluttony? Spell check because of sloth? This seems like an awfully long stretch.

Alex3917 8y ago
The list in the middle of the article (Applications of the formula) is the original list from John Pavley's talk, the ones at the end are just the author of the blog post trying to give his own examples. But yeah I agree about WhatsApp, that's not a very good example. And MS Word isn't really social software.
agumonkey 8y ago
you could stretch spotify into musical pleasure greed .. although .. that would be stretching it
- fullshark 8y ago
  I guess people pirating music is about greed, then being content with spotify instead because it's easier is about sloth.
  - sdf43543t345 8y ago
    re Piracy, its Pride -- for the technical challenge of getting something gratis. the fact it cost money ('greed') doesn't factor into it. Proud of the ability to acquire at no cost to the individual.
    - fullshark 8y ago
      A lot of people were/are just cheap
    - eric_h 8y ago
      For me that's what it was - I gathered quite a collection of shit I never even used or played (apps, media), just because I could (before Napster). For the friends of mine with no technical chops who I taught how to pirate, there was no pride, it was pure greed.

LeifCarrotson 8y ago

Ha, that's a good one! Let other people read your email. LOL. Hypothetically, you would 'reduce friction' by not sending email to the service, instead just give it the keys to your IMAP server! And users wouldn't need to inform people who email them that their email is public, because once it's on their screen they could post a screenshot to the web anyways. ...oh wait, that's a real thing that you did. You just didn't put the http:// http:// in your comment to avoid self-promotion. After reading your examples (which are a really helpful way of showing what your service does, BTW - thanks for not burying that in a video or forcing me to sign up), I can see the appeal for your service. It's Instagram for email: In exactly the way I keep every photo my phone takes backed up and organized on Google Photos, but selectively post to Instagram, I could selectively send mail on a "social email" account and keep normal transactions private. Fascinating! I suppose I have a small portfolio of emails helping some people solve problems (running/cycling tips, local routes, etc and some tech support) that I have meant to post to a blog but just never got around to it. Making that blogging automatic would be neat! Nice idea and implementation, I apologize for mocking it! I'll definitely keep the principle in mind.

Alex3917 8y ago
> Hypothetically, you would 'reduce friction' by not sending email to the service, instead just give it the keys to your IMAP server! We currently use read-only OAuth, so basically the same in terms of friction but easier to secure. > And users wouldn't need to inform people who email them that their email is public We actually currently require double opt-in permission for each message contributor in a thread to share stuff publicly. That might change in the future, we're still playing around with the model. The new best practice with social apps is basically to launch while erring on the side of having too much friction for the app to be successful, and then keep successively reducing the friction for people contributing positively to the community. Otherwise you risk gaining a bunch of immediate traction but going into the death spiral of negativity, which is the main way that social startups die if they already have initial traction. This wouldn't have worked ten years ago, but it makes more sense in a world where things take off more slowly anyway due to increased network saturation.

ccc111 8y ago

nice plug goofball

Mirioron 8y ago

I seem to only fall into the "wrath" category. I can't even relate to any of the other "social taboos."