4 ms·

Yeah I can get passed it but damn it's become a mess, I understand they have to make money.

rocqua 7y ago
It seems we have a pretty fucked up cycle here: * Create quality service, prioritizing user experience over money * Grow site to significant user base * Start running out of money, because hosting and running a site does cost money * Try to monetize service * Get out-competed by another service still at step 1 The presence of VC money that's all about capturing market share now, and monetizing later does not help. In the end, we have become accustomed to a world where things that cost money are given to us for free. When there are attempts to charge us so things remain sustainable, we get angry! It's a tough problem, and I don't know the solution.
- klaaz0r 7y ago
  I was just thinking that, fully agree. One of the things I learned from startup school: Get people to pay asap. If you are really are solving a problem they do not care that your website is a bit buggy and it's made with bootstrap. All these platforms rake in millions of VC money to get market share (that is fine btw) but if you do not know how to monetize it, what is the point? And of course always being free and then moving to a paid model doesn't make your users really happy.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  You're missing a step between "Try to monetize" and "Get outcompeted" - the "Service turns to user-abusing, steaming pile of hot garbage". This cycle does happen repeatedly (image sharing being a prime example), and services that die do so because their monetization strategies destroy almost all the good aspects. I believe it's hard, but not impossible, to refrain from abusive monetization and stay afloat longer.
  - rocqua 7y ago
    My point is that there is very little difference between "user abusing" and monetization. This is precisely because of this cycle. Users expect these services to be free, because they are used to services being sold under-cost. The alternatives for 'platforms' that I know of are: 1) accept 10% of paying customers and 90% leaving, bad plan if you rely on the mass of present users 2) go for a tiered system, where certain features are gated by a pay-wall. This is very tricky, and asking for essential features will see free competitors come up. This can work if your sheer user-base is enough of a moat. (Reddit is still trying to make this one work) 3) sell user-data 3 is definitely seen as 'user-abusing' 2 tends to be as-well and 1 is not an option for any platform. I can't think of a single platform that started of as 'free' and got profitable without being widely condemned for 'selling out users' except for YouTube (and I guess PornHub). The moat there is massive infrastructure needed for video and a huge, hard-to-move catalogue of content. That is, it is too expensive for some start-up to grow and capture the market. I'd love to hear of any other success stories. Especially one that could work for a medium / reddit / flicker kind of site.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Thanks for elaborating. I agree, but I wanted to see this point mentioned explicitly. It's not just the free competitors that are causing established business' downfall; the business itself usually engages in plenty of self-destructive action in a desperate attempt to monetize users who are used to free service.
- Data_Junkie 7y ago
  Well the solution is find a market gap, not give people things they don't really need and pull a bait and switch. You can find users of a lot of things if you give them away, don't be surprised if they don't now want to pay for your thing they only used because it was free.

It seems we have a pretty fucked up cycle here: * Create quality service, prioritizing user experience over money * Grow site to significant user base * Start running out of money, because hosting and running a site does cost money * Try to monetize service * Get out-competed by another service still at step 1 The presence of VC money that's all about capturing market share now, and monetizing later does not help. In the end, we have become accustomed to a world where things that cost money are given to us for free. When there are attempts to charge us so things remain sustainable, we get angry! It's a tough problem, and I don't know the solution.

klaaz0r 7y ago
I was just thinking that, fully agree. One of the things I learned from startup school: Get people to pay asap. If you are really are solving a problem they do not care that your website is a bit buggy and it's made with bootstrap. All these platforms rake in millions of VC money to get market share (that is fine btw) but if you do not know how to monetize it, what is the point? And of course always being free and then moving to a paid model doesn't make your users really happy.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
You're missing a step between "Try to monetize" and "Get outcompeted" - the "Service turns to user-abusing, steaming pile of hot garbage". This cycle does happen repeatedly (image sharing being a prime example), and services that die do so because their monetization strategies destroy almost all the good aspects. I believe it's hard, but not impossible, to refrain from abusive monetization and stay afloat longer.
- rocqua 7y ago
  My point is that there is very little difference between "user abusing" and monetization. This is precisely because of this cycle. Users expect these services to be free, because they are used to services being sold under-cost. The alternatives for 'platforms' that I know of are: 1) accept 10% of paying customers and 90% leaving, bad plan if you rely on the mass of present users 2) go for a tiered system, where certain features are gated by a pay-wall. This is very tricky, and asking for essential features will see free competitors come up. This can work if your sheer user-base is enough of a moat. (Reddit is still trying to make this one work) 3) sell user-data 3 is definitely seen as 'user-abusing' 2 tends to be as-well and 1 is not an option for any platform. I can't think of a single platform that started of as 'free' and got profitable without being widely condemned for 'selling out users' except for YouTube (and I guess PornHub). The moat there is massive infrastructure needed for video and a huge, hard-to-move catalogue of content. That is, it is too expensive for some start-up to grow and capture the market. I'd love to hear of any other success stories. Especially one that could work for a medium / reddit / flicker kind of site.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Thanks for elaborating. I agree, but I wanted to see this point mentioned explicitly. It's not just the free competitors that are causing established business' downfall; the business itself usually engages in plenty of self-destructive action in a desperate attempt to monetize users who are used to free service.
Data_Junkie 7y ago
Well the solution is find a market gap, not give people things they don't really need and pull a bait and switch. You can find users of a lot of things if you give them away, don't be surprised if they don't now want to pay for your thing they only used because it was free.