11 ms·

I love this idea, but the only reason I can come up with that you need half a million dollars to do it is that it's a pivot, and not a bootstrapped enterprise.

by state 14y ago

I love this idea, but the only reason I can come up with that you need half a million dollars to do it is that it's a pivot, and not a bootstrapped enterprise. If GitHub is being used as the example in this line of argument, then why not follow their lead and build something people need and raise money later? Wouldn't you then be even more likely to convince hackers — the primary community you're trying to serve?

scribu 14y ago
What exactly do you mean by "follow Github's lead"? Github had a paid tier and was profitable for years (and then raised money to expand), which sounds exactly like the plan for app.net.
- mvzink 14y ago
  Github didn't crowdfund $500,000 before having a paid tier and being profitable.
  - scribu 14y ago
    Fair point; I think I get what the OP was saying now. But, from what I understood, with the current crowdfunding scheme you're basically pre-ordering membership. NB: I'm not really sold on the product idea myself, just trying to understand the objections to the business model.
    - state 14y ago
      I'm not sure what bothers me so much about crowdfunding this. It just doesn't seem quite right, and the use of GitHub as an example stood out as flawed. I would definitely be more convinced by a great-but-buggy prototype than a video of someone looking off in to the distance. I don't mean that as a jab: it's symbolically kind of unsettling. You're talking about how much the community matters, but you're talking to someone else. To me, the proposed project touches on a much bigger issue of how Twitter is a part of the internet infrastructure. Real time messaging has become really important, and there's some anxiety around how that infrastructure can be a part of the web in some trusted way. Simply making Twitter community supported doesn't appear to me to be the best decision. We've learned about some great potential from Twitter, and I'm much more excited about something fully decentralized than I am interested in a community supported Twitter clone.

by state 14y ago

scribu 14y ago

What exactly do you mean by "follow Github's lead"? Github had a paid tier and was profitable for years (and then raised money to expand), which sounds exactly like the plan for app.net.

mvzink 14y ago
Github didn't crowdfund $500,000 before having a paid tier and being profitable.
- scribu 14y ago
  Fair point; I think I get what the OP was saying now. But, from what I understood, with the current crowdfunding scheme you're basically pre-ordering membership. NB: I'm not really sold on the product idea myself, just trying to understand the objections to the business model.
  - state 14y ago
    I'm not sure what bothers me so much about crowdfunding this. It just doesn't seem quite right, and the use of GitHub as an example stood out as flawed. I would definitely be more convinced by a great-but-buggy prototype than a video of someone looking off in to the distance. I don't mean that as a jab: it's symbolically kind of unsettling. You're talking about how much the community matters, but you're talking to someone else. To me, the proposed project touches on a much bigger issue of how Twitter is a part of the internet infrastructure. Real time messaging has become really important, and there's some anxiety around how that infrastructure can be a part of the web in some trusted way. Simply making Twitter community supported doesn't appear to me to be the best decision. We've learned about some great potential from Twitter, and I'm much more excited about something fully decentralized than I am interested in a community supported Twitter clone.