4 ms·

This sounds pretty interesting. I'm a bit confused by your business model though. It sounds like you aren't selling to schools but instead you are charging de

This sounds pretty interesting. I'm a bit confused by your business model though. It sounds like you aren't selling to schools but instead you are charging developers of education applications. Who pays the the developers? Is the school expected to pay the developers?

swalsh 13y ago
I was thinking a similar thing... what kind of apps would I develop? Sick day trackers, maybe some kind of grade statistics apps... there's a lot of value in these kinds of apps, but i'm not sure there's enough to support the infrastructure needed to sell things to thousands of different schools.
- ryanhuff 13y ago
  I built a student tracker/analytics app for use by parents (and students) which integrates with school systems, but I tend to agree that you could not charge parents enough to pay for the Clever integration costs. The only way I think this will pan out for Clever is if they can somehow become the gatekeeper into the schools, whereby enterprise'ish edtech software companies are required to pay-to-play, such as an AppStore model. What I don't understand is why the existing back-office edtech software companies are allowing them to do so. They should be charging Clever significant integration/certification fees. Its done in other markets.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ryanhuff 13y ago
I may be entirely off the mark, but reading about this gives me pause as I think of all of the 3rd parties that invested in other platforms (Twitter), only to be cut-off later. Why would I hitch my ride to this wagon?
templaedhel 13y ago
Schools have been buying applications since long before Clever. These are usually (but not always) gaint contracts across multiple schools or districts. after they are signed it can take months or sometimes full schoolyears to get the app provisioned and set up. This has to happen every time data changes as well. With clever it takes minutes.
numbsafari 13y ago
And this then becomes the problem. Clever act like they are doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They aren't. They act like this is "free" for schools. It isn't. Because the costs of Clever and LearnSprout get sent right back to the school in the form of higher fees for the other apps they buy. Oh, and instead of paying one price for Clever, they are going to pay that price over and over and over. Clever is just another "Vertically Integrated Network" right out of 1999. Their customers are largely going to be VC-funded startups who want to show that they have "solved" this issue by paying the Clever tax. Since most of those VC-funded startups are going to be offering free-services themselves, Clever is really just a giant hoover vacuum for VC funds. It's a 1999 business model and it will likely lead to the same resolution in the end.
- 2arrs2ells 13y ago
  (Clever cofounder here) Interesting comparison, but I think you might be missing a couple things: 1. Data integration is incredibly costly for edtech vendors - it's a massive engineering & support distraction, and it slows down sales and customer onboarding. Vendors tell us paying for Clever is worth it - just for the internal cost savings. 2. While seed-level edtech companies without revenue may get more attention on hackernews, there's a significant number of companies in various niches of education earning great revenues selling to schools and districts. Those are the folks adopting Clever & driving our growth (not "free to teacher" apps).
  - 7Figures2Commas 13y ago
    > ...there's a significant number of companies in various niches of education earning great revenues selling to schools and districts. The spending trends in the K-12 space are not positive[1], and while I'm sure there are companies in "various niches of education" with respectable revenue, the bankruptcies of companies like Cengage Learning[2] and School Specialty[3] are hard to ignore. There's a strong argument to be made that education as a market, particularly K-12 education, is in secular decline. [1] http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/09/12/report-most-states-spending-less-on-k-12-education.aspx http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/09/12/report-most-states... [2] http://thefutureofpublishing.com/2013/07/inside-the-cengage-bankruptcy/ http://thefutureofpublishing.com/2013/07/inside-the-cengage-... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-28/school-specialty-delta-education-file-for-bankruptcy.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-28/school-specialty-de...
bradgessler 13y ago
They charge companies like ours (Poll Everywhere) to push/pull instructor/student data into our app. Schools pay us for our product. Its super valuable because our developers can focus on building high-value features specific to our app and not boring LMS integration details.

swalsh 13y ago

I was thinking a similar thing... what kind of apps would I develop? Sick day trackers, maybe some kind of grade statistics apps... there's a lot of value in these kinds of apps, but i'm not sure there's enough to support the infrastructure needed to sell things to thousands of different schools.

ryanhuff 13y ago
I built a student tracker/analytics app for use by parents (and students) which integrates with school systems, but I tend to agree that you could not charge parents enough to pay for the Clever integration costs. The only way I think this will pan out for Clever is if they can somehow become the gatekeeper into the schools, whereby enterprise'ish edtech software companies are required to pay-to-play, such as an AppStore model. What I don't understand is why the existing back-office edtech software companies are allowing them to do so. They should be charging Clever significant integration/certification fees. Its done in other markets.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ryanhuff 13y ago

I may be entirely off the mark, but reading about this gives me pause as I think of all of the 3rd parties that invested in other platforms (Twitter), only to be cut-off later. Why would I hitch my ride to this wagon?

templaedhel 13y ago

Schools have been buying applications since long before Clever. These are usually (but not always) gaint contracts across multiple schools or districts. after they are signed it can take months or sometimes full schoolyears to get the app provisioned and set up. This has to happen every time data changes as well. With clever it takes minutes.

numbsafari 13y ago

And this then becomes the problem. Clever act like they are doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They aren't. They act like this is "free" for schools. It isn't. Because the costs of Clever and LearnSprout get sent right back to the school in the form of higher fees for the other apps they buy. Oh, and instead of paying one price for Clever, they are going to pay that price over and over and over. Clever is just another "Vertically Integrated Network" right out of 1999. Their customers are largely going to be VC-funded startups who want to show that they have "solved" this issue by paying the Clever tax. Since most of those VC-funded startups are going to be offering free-services themselves, Clever is really just a giant hoover vacuum for VC funds. It's a 1999 business model and it will likely lead to the same resolution in the end.

2arrs2ells 13y ago
(Clever cofounder here) Interesting comparison, but I think you might be missing a couple things: 1. Data integration is incredibly costly for edtech vendors - it's a massive engineering & support distraction, and it slows down sales and customer onboarding. Vendors tell us paying for Clever is worth it - just for the internal cost savings. 2. While seed-level edtech companies without revenue may get more attention on hackernews, there's a significant number of companies in various niches of education earning great revenues selling to schools and districts. Those are the folks adopting Clever & driving our growth (not "free to teacher" apps).
- 7Figures2Commas 13y ago
  > ...there's a significant number of companies in various niches of education earning great revenues selling to schools and districts. The spending trends in the K-12 space are not positive[1], and while I'm sure there are companies in "various niches of education" with respectable revenue, the bankruptcies of companies like Cengage Learning[2] and School Specialty[3] are hard to ignore. There's a strong argument to be made that education as a market, particularly K-12 education, is in secular decline. [1] http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/09/12/report-most-states-spending-less-on-k-12-education.aspx http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/09/12/report-most-states... [2] http://thefutureofpublishing.com/2013/07/inside-the-cengage-bankruptcy/ http://thefutureofpublishing.com/2013/07/inside-the-cengage-... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-28/school-specialty-delta-education-file-for-bankruptcy.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-28/school-specialty-de...

bradgessler 13y ago

They charge companies like ours (Poll Everywhere) to push/pull instructor/student data into our app. Schools pay us for our product. Its super valuable because our developers can focus on building high-value features specific to our app and not boring LMS integration details.