5 ms·

I'm not convinced either, but I'm not going to try it. My immediate thought was DOA.

by devindotcom 12y ago

alttab 12y ago
Same here. Its like sharing, but you have to share to let people share. Seems fucking stupid. Sending a picture is essentially asking for a picture. I can't imagine enough use cases where I think "I'll definitely want to send them this picture if they send me one first" to make this app stick, outside of sending naked pictures of myself in exchange for another one - which I never do. Outside of using the "must-share-to-care" rule as some sort of teasing or game mechanic, why would they literally create work to share? I simply don't get it. I'm also more than likely not their target market.
- encoderer 12y ago
  Yes, you are clearly not their target market. > why would they literally create work to share? I simply don't get it. I don't think they did? You can send a pic as easy as ever. But there is "work" to receive it. If I want to see what a friend just sent me, I snap a pic of something and send it back. I think this will easily have DAU numbers that most startups would kill for. Whether it'll be big enough to justify at Facebook, though, remains to be seen.
  - alttab 12y ago
    The only way I could see it working is if you could easily send an integrated experience to a user who does not have the app. This would need to be from the web, have access to the camera, or ultimately download and install the app in the background. If the early adopters of Slingshot do not need to care about who uses slingshot, and its rather seamless for the receiver, I could see the install base spreading quickly. That will make things easier. Then again, its a trick. I think what remains to be seen is what sort of interation this enables, which prudently I suppose I'd say its too early to tell. Conservatively I'd say the numbers are against it.

5 ms·

I'm not convinced either, but I'm not going to try it. My immediate thought was DOA.

by devindotcom 12y ago

I'm not convinced either, but I'm not going to try it. My immediate thought was DOA.

alttab 12y ago
Same here. Its like sharing, but you have to share to let people share. Seems fucking stupid. Sending a picture is essentially asking for a picture. I can't imagine enough use cases where I think "I'll definitely want to send them this picture if they send me one first" to make this app stick, outside of sending naked pictures of myself in exchange for another one - which I never do. Outside of using the "must-share-to-care" rule as some sort of teasing or game mechanic, why would they literally create work to share? I simply don't get it. I'm also more than likely not their target market.
- encoderer 12y ago
  Yes, you are clearly not their target market. > why would they literally create work to share? I simply don't get it. I don't think they did? You can send a pic as easy as ever. But there is "work" to receive it. If I want to see what a friend just sent me, I snap a pic of something and send it back. I think this will easily have DAU numbers that most startups would kill for. Whether it'll be big enough to justify at Facebook, though, remains to be seen.
  - alttab 12y ago
    The only way I could see it working is if you could easily send an integrated experience to a user who does not have the app. This would need to be from the web, have access to the camera, or ultimately download and install the app in the background. If the early adopters of Slingshot do not need to care about who uses slingshot, and its rather seamless for the receiver, I could see the install base spreading quickly. That will make things easier. Then again, its a trick. I think what remains to be seen is what sort of interation this enables, which prudently I suppose I'd say its too early to tell. Conservatively I'd say the numbers are against it.