3 ms·

That example of Maybe.co and their pivot was illustrative of form over function. However, I can’t see how their new approach will be successful either: https:/

That example of Maybe.co and their pivot was illustrative of form over function. However, I can’t see how their new approach will be successful either: https://twitter.com/Shpigford/status/1645422615279050758 https://twitter.com/Shpigford/status/1645422615279050758 Why won’t existing companies that already have the users and existing connections fast follow anything the startup does? They are competing head on with billion dollar companies and adding a chat interface and video conferencing as the differentiation. They have to do all the hard parts to onboard users, convince them to connect with their financial institutions, establish trust with financial recommendations, build a two sided marketplace with financial advisors, yet Mint or wealth front or many other companies could spend six months and have a better product out in the market with an established user base and way of making money. Why are investors excited by this pivot?

balderdash 3y ago
I’d go a step further and say that none of these types of products actually do the hard work that people would be willing to pay for. E.g. most of these statistics are wrong (net worth increased x% because I rolled over my IRA, dividend reinvestments treated improperly, basis accounted for the wrong way, etc)
indymike 3y ago
> Why won’t existing companies that already have the users and existing connections fast follow anything the startup does? In this case, I think the founders realized that by focusing on UI and data engineering, they were not focused on the right things: what kind of digital financial assistant is worth paying for? Finally, the question, "why won't big existing player come eat your lunch?" directs conversation away from opportunity. Products like maybe.co often end up being acquired by big, existing players because huge companies often struggle with invention and ideation, and it's often easier to deploy money to buy the kernel of a great product than what happens in most large, risk-adverse companies when innovation requires internal failure after internal failure before success. > Why are investors excited by this pivot? I'm not an investor in maybe.co, but I'm much more interested in what they are doing now that they aren't focused on pretty UI. They have a long way to go before they have something, but as they say, keep a good team on the field long enough... and good things happen.
yawnr 3y ago
The reality is more likely that because they had almost zero traction, they saw all the AI hype and decided to rework the whole product to call ChatGPT APIs to try to capitalize on the wave. I wouldn’t be surprised if it worked in getting more money from investors because they can call themselves an AI company now!
calderwoodra 3y ago
Personal finance apps are tarpit ideas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMIawSAygO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMIawSAygO4
paulddraper 3y ago
Innovators dilemma
- ec109685 3y ago
  What's the dilemma? This is literally what Mint and Wealthfront have without the AI chat interface. There's no dilemma to implement that if it this feature resonates with users.

balderdash 3y ago

I’d go a step further and say that none of these types of products actually do the hard work that people would be willing to pay for. E.g. most of these statistics are wrong (net worth increased x% because I rolled over my IRA, dividend reinvestments treated improperly, basis accounted for the wrong way, etc)

indymike 3y ago

> Why won’t existing companies that already have the users and existing connections fast follow anything the startup does? In this case, I think the founders realized that by focusing on UI and data engineering, they were not focused on the right things: what kind of digital financial assistant is worth paying for? Finally, the question, "why won't big existing player come eat your lunch?" directs conversation away from opportunity. Products like maybe.co often end up being acquired by big, existing players because huge companies often struggle with invention and ideation, and it's often easier to deploy money to buy the kernel of a great product than what happens in most large, risk-adverse companies when innovation requires internal failure after internal failure before success. > Why are investors excited by this pivot? I'm not an investor in maybe.co, but I'm much more interested in what they are doing now that they aren't focused on pretty UI. They have a long way to go before they have something, but as they say, keep a good team on the field long enough... and good things happen.

yawnr 3y ago

The reality is more likely that because they had almost zero traction, they saw all the AI hype and decided to rework the whole product to call ChatGPT APIs to try to capitalize on the wave. I wouldn’t be surprised if it worked in getting more money from investors because they can call themselves an AI company now!

calderwoodra 3y ago

Personal finance apps are tarpit ideas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMIawSAygO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMIawSAygO4

paulddraper 3y ago

Innovators dilemma

ec109685 3y ago
What's the dilemma? This is literally what Mint and Wealthfront have without the AI chat interface. There's no dilemma to implement that if it this feature resonates with users.