3 ms·

I'm not denigrating the Olark product, but does the world need another chat service? Of all the problems out there that need to be solved, I personally can't ge

by geuis 17y ago

I'm not denigrating the Olark product, but does the world need another chat service? Of all the problems out there that need to be solved, I personally can't get excited about another site feature as the primary product of a startup. This is something that has been done over and over again through the years.

oldgregg 17y ago
Actually the fact that LivePerson still charges an arm and leg for their product is a sign it matters.
vp 17y ago
yes, the world needs an improved chat service
netsp 17y ago
I think chat (especially applied in small commercial sites) is nowhere near its potential.
JMiao 17y ago
"does the world need another ____?" to me reads: "____ is perfect and needs no further iteration."
catch23 17y ago
That's what they said about search before Google came around! Altavista, Hotbot, Ask Jeeves, do we really need another search engine? Why do you think Google will be better than Altavista?
- diN0bot 17y ago
  true. i think the parent question is more about adding "goodness" to the world, and less about commercial success. my personal opinion is that search, which sates the quest for information, is a problem worth solving. chat, at least as the text-based instant message kind of things, creates problems. or rather, it's an opportunity loss. the fact that i'm talking means i'm not listening. even if this weren't procrastination, even if my main goal in life was to communicate with strangers better, is IM helping me get there? is this the problem olark wants to solve, or do they just want to make yet another IM service? (ps - i think visually. i communicate best with diagrams. discussions with my husband require a whiteboard or paper scrap. i'd love a communication company whose mission was to prevent misunderstandings. make exchanging perspectives faster, help us get along and respect each other while disagreeing, help us make decisions better.)
- zhyder 17y ago
  This example has been beaten to death. Google was at least an order of magnitude better than other search engines, and was the first that actually worked, so it didn't matter how crowded the space was. When evaluating an opportunity, "___ is a competitive/crowded space", "___ has already won this market", or "does the world need another ___" are all valid objections to raise. The rebuttal should be "but ___ is better/different because of ___" rather than a comparison to Google.

by geuis 17y ago

oldgregg 17y ago

Actually the fact that LivePerson still charges an arm and leg for their product is a sign it matters.

vp 17y ago

yes, the world needs an improved chat service

netsp 17y ago

I think chat (especially applied in small commercial sites) is nowhere near its potential.

JMiao 17y ago

"does the world need another ____?" to me reads: "____ is perfect and needs no further iteration."

catch23 17y ago

That's what they said about search before Google came around! Altavista, Hotbot, Ask Jeeves, do we really need another search engine? Why do you think Google will be better than Altavista?

diN0bot 17y ago
true. i think the parent question is more about adding "goodness" to the world, and less about commercial success. my personal opinion is that search, which sates the quest for information, is a problem worth solving. chat, at least as the text-based instant message kind of things, creates problems. or rather, it's an opportunity loss. the fact that i'm talking means i'm not listening. even if this weren't procrastination, even if my main goal in life was to communicate with strangers better, is IM helping me get there? is this the problem olark wants to solve, or do they just want to make yet another IM service? (ps - i think visually. i communicate best with diagrams. discussions with my husband require a whiteboard or paper scrap. i'd love a communication company whose mission was to prevent misunderstandings. make exchanging perspectives faster, help us get along and respect each other while disagreeing, help us make decisions better.)
zhyder 17y ago
This example has been beaten to death. Google was at least an order of magnitude better than other search engines, and was the first that actually worked, so it didn't matter how crowded the space was. When evaluating an opportunity, "___ is a competitive/crowded space", "___ has already won this market", or "does the world need another ___" are all valid objections to raise. The rebuttal should be "but ___ is better/different because of ___" rather than a comparison to Google.