4 ms·

I didn't see your refutal of why is he wrong. He argues that when scale and network effects matter, free services supported by ad's win. How's is he wrong abou

I didn't see your refutal of why is he wrong. He argues that when scale and network effects matter, free services supported by ad's win. How's is he wrong about that? Your article seems to focus on service quality (specifically to developers). You keep saying that you could provide a "better" service if you are not ad supported. Perhaps you can and I assume Spotify/Pandora paid service is better than their free service, but they don't have the network effect problem. What I have not yet seen you explain is: How do you plan to get millions of users putting a big paywall between the user's and the service?

dalton 14y ago
Me: "Free Platform services are bad for a bunch of widely-understood reasons. I am going to try something crazy to propose a solution. There are a few examples of healthy platforms and I think we can learn from them. This approach may not work but I want to try." Fred: "Non-free services, both platform and non-platform don't work. Nothing to see here, please move along." Me: "Um ok, this may not work, but you didn't address my points about why ad-supported platforms are a fundamental risk to developers and bad for innovation. This is my core argument and you seem to be glossing over it. Are you saying we are stuck with things the way they are?" Fred: "Good post. I agree with a lot of this, but not all"
- inkaudio 14y ago
  Your paraphrasing is wrong, because he did not say Non-free services both platform and non-platform do not work. Fred was specifically referring to potential paid competitors to twitter, facebook and similar services. to illustrate: Fred: "Free TV does not commoditize paid TV. They co-exist nicely. But we had free TV well before we had paid TV. Free is the foundation that creates a paid tier. " followed by, Fred: "I would encourage folks to compete with them to keep the web, the mobile web, and the Internet free and open. But I would not encourage those same folks to build paid services." So Fred was not speaking against all non free services. Developing for any platform that is not your own presents risks. Just because a developer is paying for app.net does not mean anything goes on app.net. Moreover I would not assume it's bad for innovation. Both Twitter and Facebook know they cannot alienate the majority of their users, they will innovate on their platform as needed. They also know they need to strike a balance when providing services for both their advertisers and users.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Network effect is snake oil. You sell the service to users by promising that their friends are (or shortly will be) using it. Once you plateau to the point where you're not adding users hand-over-fist any more the users satisfaction stops being a priority (you've essentially locked them in), and you start to make decisions that are directly against their interests.
- saraid216 14y ago
  I have no problem with any sentence except your first. What you're describing is not what's referred to by snake oil. Snake oil is when you sell a useless product to someone; network effects are not useless. You might argue that advertisers are selling snake oil and network effects are facilitating that, but the issue is not network effects.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    Snake oil is a product that pretends to be something that it is not. I think that's an apt comparison to "network effect" social services that pretend to be one thing, and then flip the script when they reach their plateau.
- robryan 14y ago
  Have a look at Google+, I think unless people have a decent set of their friends on the service as soon as they join they are going to quickly lose interest. Facebook has set a high bar as for lots of people they can find everyone they know. Any competing service will need to match this as well as possible with crazy early growth.

dalton 14y ago

Me: "Free Platform services are bad for a bunch of widely-understood reasons. I am going to try something crazy to propose a solution. There are a few examples of healthy platforms and I think we can learn from them. This approach may not work but I want to try." Fred: "Non-free services, both platform and non-platform don't work. Nothing to see here, please move along." Me: "Um ok, this may not work, but you didn't address my points about why ad-supported platforms are a fundamental risk to developers and bad for innovation. This is my core argument and you seem to be glossing over it. Are you saying we are stuck with things the way they are?" Fred: "Good post. I agree with a lot of this, but not all"

inkaudio 14y ago
Your paraphrasing is wrong, because he did not say Non-free services both platform and non-platform do not work. Fred was specifically referring to potential paid competitors to twitter, facebook and similar services. to illustrate: Fred: "Free TV does not commoditize paid TV. They co-exist nicely. But we had free TV well before we had paid TV. Free is the foundation that creates a paid tier. " followed by, Fred: "I would encourage folks to compete with them to keep the web, the mobile web, and the Internet free and open. But I would not encourage those same folks to build paid services." So Fred was not speaking against all non free services. Developing for any platform that is not your own presents risks. Just because a developer is paying for app.net does not mean anything goes on app.net. Moreover I would not assume it's bad for innovation. Both Twitter and Facebook know they cannot alienate the majority of their users, they will innovate on their platform as needed. They also know they need to strike a balance when providing services for both their advertisers and users.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

Network effect is snake oil. You sell the service to users by promising that their friends are (or shortly will be) using it. Once you plateau to the point where you're not adding users hand-over-fist any more the users satisfaction stops being a priority (you've essentially locked them in), and you start to make decisions that are directly against their interests.

saraid216 14y ago
I have no problem with any sentence except your first. What you're describing is not what's referred to by snake oil. Snake oil is when you sell a useless product to someone; network effects are not useless. You might argue that advertisers are selling snake oil and network effects are facilitating that, but the issue is not network effects.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  Snake oil is a product that pretends to be something that it is not. I think that's an apt comparison to "network effect" social services that pretend to be one thing, and then flip the script when they reach their plateau.
robryan 14y ago
Have a look at Google+, I think unless people have a decent set of their friends on the service as soon as they join they are going to quickly lose interest. Facebook has set a high bar as for lots of people they can find everyone they know. Any competing service will need to match this as well as possible with crazy early growth.