3 ms·

1. Utility - it must be high utility, even if nobody else is in the system. Doesn't this simply exclude some domains. email, facebook, dating sites. Are you su

by netsp 17y ago

1. Utility - it must be high utility, even if nobody else is in the system. Doesn't this simply exclude some domains. email, facebook, dating sites. Are you suggesting that these domains need to be approached by inserting some basic (slightly unrelated) utility that is useful without other people?

joshu 17y ago
In an age where those things already exist, it's very, very difficult to bootstrap.
- netsp 17y ago
  Sorry. I think I was unclear. I was just trying to demonstrate pieces that live in the "social software" space which would be difficult to build while conforming to the rule. I suppose it would be possible, but it would be a squeeze of some sort. I could imagine Skype starting as a phone book or email starting as a way of organising your faxes for the day, but it seems hard. Say you've made skype. It's really good at being a phone, but it needs more people signed up to become Skype. Now you decide that in order to make more people sign up, you should make it into a great phone book. A lot of people might want to use a desktop phonebook already. If you made a really good one people would use it & once some of their friends used it, they could skype call each other too. The problem I see with this idea is that you need your Skype to be a good phone & a good phonebook. If we're talking 0 cost, it probably needs to be the best at both. Being the best at anything is hard, two things is really hard. BTW, I'm not really against the idea of utility. It's a way of cracking the chicken-egg problem. But would you discount the other ways?
  - joshu 17y ago
    I never really said it's a rule. It's the way I think it generally needs to be done. Obviously, there are exceptions. Skype did not evolve in a vacuum. It piggybacked off the phone system. "Make calls for cheap" - which is a direct call to utility. Remember that any system that gets its users laid or makes them money can have the users jump through hoops to use it. Anything less than that has to have increasingly more finesse.
    - netsp 17y ago
      I'm going to paraphrase, so I apologise in advance. Remember that any system that gets its users laid or makes them money can have the users jump through hoops to use it. Anything less than that has to have increasingly more finesse. Could I distil this to: "Skype got away with not having this because.."? BTW, I'm not saying that creating something that is useful without a network is bad. It's good. I'm just saying that in many cases it's very hard. Say skype had gone down this path. They may have failed to find some way (eg phone book) of making it useful to just one person. Forcing the approach seems like unnecessarily inserting a another binary hurdle. On the other hand, the slightly less elegant approach of getting your small number of users that want to save on phone bills to nag their friends seems more suitable. The existing users have in-built incentive to do this. It's pretty much guaranteed to produce some results.
      - swombat 17y ago
        Iirc, Skype offered cheap international phone calls (to POTS phone numbers) at the same time as skype-to-skype calls... so they were indeed useful even in isolation. Taking this screenshot as evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skype_1.4.0.58_alpha_for_Linux.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skype_1.4.0.58_alpha_for_L... Skype 1.4 already offered this. I'm pretty sure SkypeOut was available even before that, too.
        netsp 17y ago
        I think that's besides the point. Skype-out was not the method of solving the chicken-egg problem. Incentive to spread was the solution. We don't have to stick with Skype either. Facebook solved their (enormous) chicken-egg problem by targeting specific Universities.

by netsp 17y ago

joshu 17y ago

In an age where those things already exist, it's very, very difficult to bootstrap.

netsp 17y ago
Sorry. I think I was unclear. I was just trying to demonstrate pieces that live in the "social software" space which would be difficult to build while conforming to the rule. I suppose it would be possible, but it would be a squeeze of some sort. I could imagine Skype starting as a phone book or email starting as a way of organising your faxes for the day, but it seems hard. Say you've made skype. It's really good at being a phone, but it needs more people signed up to become Skype. Now you decide that in order to make more people sign up, you should make it into a great phone book. A lot of people might want to use a desktop phonebook already. If you made a really good one people would use it & once some of their friends used it, they could skype call each other too. The problem I see with this idea is that you need your Skype to be a good phone & a good phonebook. If we're talking 0 cost, it probably needs to be the best at both. Being the best at anything is hard, two things is really hard. BTW, I'm not really against the idea of utility. It's a way of cracking the chicken-egg problem. But would you discount the other ways?
- joshu 17y ago
  I never really said it's a rule. It's the way I think it generally needs to be done. Obviously, there are exceptions. Skype did not evolve in a vacuum. It piggybacked off the phone system. "Make calls for cheap" - which is a direct call to utility. Remember that any system that gets its users laid or makes them money can have the users jump through hoops to use it. Anything less than that has to have increasingly more finesse.
  - netsp 17y ago
    I'm going to paraphrase, so I apologise in advance. Remember that any system that gets its users laid or makes them money can have the users jump through hoops to use it. Anything less than that has to have increasingly more finesse. Could I distil this to: "Skype got away with not having this because.."? BTW, I'm not saying that creating something that is useful without a network is bad. It's good. I'm just saying that in many cases it's very hard. Say skype had gone down this path. They may have failed to find some way (eg phone book) of making it useful to just one person. Forcing the approach seems like unnecessarily inserting a another binary hurdle. On the other hand, the slightly less elegant approach of getting your small number of users that want to save on phone bills to nag their friends seems more suitable. The existing users have in-built incentive to do this. It's pretty much guaranteed to produce some results.
    - swombat 17y ago
      Iirc, Skype offered cheap international phone calls (to POTS phone numbers) at the same time as skype-to-skype calls... so they were indeed useful even in isolation. Taking this screenshot as evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skype_1.4.0.58_alpha_for_Linux.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skype_1.4.0.58_alpha_for_L... Skype 1.4 already offered this. I'm pretty sure SkypeOut was available even before that, too.
      - netsp 17y ago
        I think that's besides the point. Skype-out was not the method of solving the chicken-egg problem. Incentive to spread was the solution. We don't have to stick with Skype either. Facebook solved their (enormous) chicken-egg problem by targeting specific Universities.