3 ms·

How about Tinder that shows content instead of pictures of your date, and then sets up dates with people who like similar content.

JoBrad 1y ago
A lot of guys would be matched…and maybe find some new friends.
- Buttons840 1y ago
  Actually, such an app could match people for non-romantic dates.
9rx 1y ago
Then people would form meaningful relationships and have no reason to keep returning to your app after the first few minutes of engagement. That is not going to keep the VCs happy.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  Then don't make it VC-funded: make it a charitable foundation or worker-owned cooperative or something.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    All joking aside, if you were to make a charitable foundation or worker-owned co-op, how would you overcome the same challenge software itself has? — Letting the world know it exists. Anyone can code up an application over a weekend. That isn't the problem. VC money is for use in letting everyone else know that you created it. Long, long gone is the age where you could throw something up on the App Store and see the masses flock to it. It takes serious resources to get the word out nowadays. Of course, there is nothing wrong with building software just for yourself. Not everything has to be shouted on every rooftop. But this specific type of software doesn't work so well if you are the only one using it.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      Word-of-mouth. Say to your users: "if you want this to be useful, ask your friends to use it, talk about it online…". (You'll get low conversion rates from this, but it's free, and it doesn't promulgate an attention economy the way that billboards and banner ads do.) Advertising is effort, but it's not that hard, really: most advertising firms are extremely inefficient at their jobs, but they get paid because the alternative is nobody advertises the thing. It also helps if your service is still somewhat useful to individuals, in the absence of network effects. So, once the core service (organise meetups between users) is implemented, get to work on aggregating and categorising social events that already exist. (Use standard protocols, to leave the ladder around for others to climb, but keep track of your API consumers: some of them might be hostile anti-social entities like Facebook, whose existences need to be nipped in the bud.) Once you have something genuinely useful, pick a small-ish city, and guerilla advertise in it. If you've done things right, that should be enough. Now, leave a skeleton crew on it, and move on to the Next Big Thing. You should be able to maintain three or four pieces of infrastructure in this way, some of which you might even be able to charge money for! (But resist the temptation to monetise and enshittify, or even just excessively-tweak, what you've built.)
      - 9rx 1y ago
        > Word-of-mouth. If that worked, why would anyone give up their business to VCs ever? Having VCs is not a fun place to be. It is a horrible situation to find yourself in (unless you are the VC, I suppose). There was a time where you could rely on word-of-mouth, but those days are behind us. Everyone and their brother is vying for word-of-mouth attention nowadays. The noise is too great. It takes vast resources to emit a usable signal.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Two reasons: 1. Some businesses can't just be built from nothing-but-software-and-server. You need warehouses, logistics, and all sorts of other fixed costs that exist before you can start recouping your investment. Not everyone has the money to start such a business, despite otherwise having the ability. 2. People aren't entirely stupid. If something's a scam, con, or otherwise a detriment to human flourishing, they're not going to use it unless they have reason to doubt their assessment. Advertising is good at getting people to associate thing with sentiment, which can override their bullshit detectors. Something that's genuinely-useful, and genuinely-better, can spread without any advertising spending, once it's past the threshold where noise no longer dominates. (For example, Plausible Analytics: I poked around their demo, concluded that it was strictly better than Google Analytics, and (after a couple of chats with one of the founders) started telling everyone with a website about it. I was clearly not the only one.) I have no idea why anyone would give up their business to VCs if they don't need investment to kick it off, and aren't running a long con.
- Buttons840 1y ago
  If the app could be used to find non-romantic dates, people could keep using it even after finding a romantic partner.
dragonwriter 1y ago
Its not the worst idea, but it seems less of a business and more of a feature for an existing social networking site, which already has the contents and the likes and just needs to add a few pieces for the dating bit.

JoBrad 1y ago

A lot of guys would be matched…and maybe find some new friends.

Buttons840 1y ago
Actually, such an app could match people for non-romantic dates.

9rx 1y ago

Then people would form meaningful relationships and have no reason to keep returning to your app after the first few minutes of engagement. That is not going to keep the VCs happy.

wizzwizz4 1y ago
Then don't make it VC-funded: make it a charitable foundation or worker-owned cooperative or something.
- 9rx 1y ago
  All joking aside, if you were to make a charitable foundation or worker-owned co-op, how would you overcome the same challenge software itself has? — Letting the world know it exists. Anyone can code up an application over a weekend. That isn't the problem. VC money is for use in letting everyone else know that you created it. Long, long gone is the age where you could throw something up on the App Store and see the masses flock to it. It takes serious resources to get the word out nowadays. Of course, there is nothing wrong with building software just for yourself. Not everything has to be shouted on every rooftop. But this specific type of software doesn't work so well if you are the only one using it.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    Word-of-mouth. Say to your users: "if you want this to be useful, ask your friends to use it, talk about it online…". (You'll get low conversion rates from this, but it's free, and it doesn't promulgate an attention economy the way that billboards and banner ads do.) Advertising is effort, but it's not that hard, really: most advertising firms are extremely inefficient at their jobs, but they get paid because the alternative is nobody advertises the thing. It also helps if your service is still somewhat useful to individuals, in the absence of network effects. So, once the core service (organise meetups between users) is implemented, get to work on aggregating and categorising social events that already exist. (Use standard protocols, to leave the ladder around for others to climb, but keep track of your API consumers: some of them might be hostile anti-social entities like Facebook, whose existences need to be nipped in the bud.) Once you have something genuinely useful, pick a small-ish city, and guerilla advertise in it. If you've done things right, that should be enough. Now, leave a skeleton crew on it, and move on to the Next Big Thing. You should be able to maintain three or four pieces of infrastructure in this way, some of which you might even be able to charge money for! (But resist the temptation to monetise and enshittify, or even just excessively-tweak, what you've built.)
    - 9rx 1y ago
      > Word-of-mouth. If that worked, why would anyone give up their business to VCs ever? Having VCs is not a fun place to be. It is a horrible situation to find yourself in (unless you are the VC, I suppose). There was a time where you could rely on word-of-mouth, but those days are behind us. Everyone and their brother is vying for word-of-mouth attention nowadays. The noise is too great. It takes vast resources to emit a usable signal.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Two reasons: 1. Some businesses can't just be built from nothing-but-software-and-server. You need warehouses, logistics, and all sorts of other fixed costs that exist before you can start recouping your investment. Not everyone has the money to start such a business, despite otherwise having the ability. 2. People aren't entirely stupid. If something's a scam, con, or otherwise a detriment to human flourishing, they're not going to use it unless they have reason to doubt their assessment. Advertising is good at getting people to associate thing with sentiment, which can override their bullshit detectors. Something that's genuinely-useful, and genuinely-better, can spread without any advertising spending, once it's past the threshold where noise no longer dominates. (For example, Plausible Analytics: I poked around their demo, concluded that it was strictly better than Google Analytics, and (after a couple of chats with one of the founders) started telling everyone with a website about it. I was clearly not the only one.) I have no idea why anyone would give up their business to VCs if they don't need investment to kick it off, and aren't running a long con.
Buttons840 1y ago
If the app could be used to find non-romantic dates, people could keep using it even after finding a romantic partner.

dragonwriter 1y ago

Its not the worst idea, but it seems less of a business and more of a feature for an existing social networking site, which already has the contents and the likes and just needs to add a few pieces for the dating bit.