5 ms·

>it's a brand new team, which should tell you something What does that tell you? I'm not sure if it's good or bad. Having seen a few attempts at crowdsourced

>it's a brand new team, which should tell you something What does that tell you? I'm not sure if it's good or bad. Having seen a few attempts at crowdsourced newsrooms (infobitt, Inside.com, the earlier version of Grasswire) I don't see how they compete with Twitter. At best they filter Twitter and are in competition with Google News. That said, I'm also in that space with Newslines a crowdsourced news archive (http://newslines.org http://newslines.org) so the idea of a hot news acquisition market is all to the good.

austenallred 12y ago
It tells you he space is heating up, and companies are finding breaking news data valuable. And to be clear: We don't compete with Twitter - we're a layer of data on top of the raw twitter/youtube/etc data that makes them more valuable. Infobitt and Inside.com are vaguely in the breaking news space, but that's about as far as the similarities go.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  It tells you he space is heating up, and companies are finding breaking news data valuable. I don't understand how that conclusion follows. There were many teams created to deliver pet food at one point, along with many other types of activities that are no longer relevant. Popularity doesn't seem to be a good proxy for long-term relevance. If it were, an investor's job would be easy. The reason I'm skeptical breaking news is valuable is because the value of information itself is declining over time. The more accessible information becomes, the less one can charge for it. Newspapers were valuable because they controlled a channel, not (only) because they delivered information. The current models will have to follow suit, otherwise they won't be profitable. And an information channel controlled by one or two entities is a pretty grim prospect.
  - austenallred 12y ago
    The fact there's a Google News Labs team is only one of the many points I have to conclude that the space is heating up, so maybe that's not fair. But it's definitely (almost tangibly) different than it was even a six months ago. The level of interest in the space compared to last year is seriously something along the lines of 10x. Two years ago nobody cared. As far as newspapers go, you're right - the important thing is controlling the channel. Google, FB, and Twitter all want to control that channel, but they need the data in order to do so. Reliable, verified breaking news data is much harder to come by than one would think, especially at scale.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      That's very interesting. What are some of the problems with getting reliable news data at scale? And what's the value of getting it? Specifically, how will you make money? Sorry for the prying questions. I'm not dismissing. Just the opposite: I'm quite interested to see whether it could work.
      - austenallred 12y ago
        Knowing (or rather finding) content that is important/reliable (signal:noise ratio), and knowing what content is accurate.
        sillysaurus3 12y ago
        What's the value? I understand companies might pay for access to that, but why? When most people get their news from Reddit, and when techies get their news from HN, what's left? It seems hard to beat a community of upvotes. To phrase it more precisely, why is access to news within 60 seconds more valuable than access within 20 minutes? Are stock traders going to be the customer, or who? There doesn't seem to be a way to deploy advertising with this, so it's hard to understand why it will make money. Is the goal to sell this to TV stations who then show ads after they tell people about breaking news?
        austenallred 12y ago
        > When most people get their news from Reddit, and when techies get their news from HN "Most people" have never heard of Reddit or HN. The difference isn't 60 seconds vs. 20 minutes; it's <=20 minutes vs 6 hours. Do a Google News search for a breaking news event and for a few hours you only find yesterday's articles.
        sillysaurus3 12y ago
        I wonder who would pay for that and why? Since advertisements can't be deployed through such a service, the service will need customers. Are those customers companies, or individuals? Are you going to sell to people involved in the stock market, like day traders? Or what type of customers would find this valuable?
- sparkzilla 12y ago
  I'm surprised you would discount Infobitt and Inside.com as being "vaguely in the news space" -- they compete almost directly with what you are doing. In its previous form Grasswire seemed to attempt the same thing as Infobitt. Both products have the same idea (repeated on your splash page): filter and fact check breaking news. But perhaps I have missed something?
  - austenallred 12y ago
    I've tried using Infobitt a dozen times, and I'm still not sure what its goal is. I think I get it, but I'm trying to understand how it would be useful. No offense to Larry, he's a great guy, I just don't get it yet.. Inside sums up reports from other news sites. It's a content portal, but I don't consider it news per se. That being said, I consider every news site ever a competitor (as is technically every website and app). I just don't preoccupy myself with what they're doing, because (as I hope you'll see in a couple weeks), we're doing something completely different. It's apples and oranges at the end of the day. We're either decidedly different and better or we're dead. The waters are much too muddy for yet-another-news-app.

austenallred 12y ago

It tells you he space is heating up, and companies are finding breaking news data valuable. And to be clear: We don't compete with Twitter - we're a layer of data on top of the raw twitter/youtube/etc data that makes them more valuable. Infobitt and Inside.com are vaguely in the breaking news space, but that's about as far as the similarities go.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
It tells you he space is heating up, and companies are finding breaking news data valuable. I don't understand how that conclusion follows. There were many teams created to deliver pet food at one point, along with many other types of activities that are no longer relevant. Popularity doesn't seem to be a good proxy for long-term relevance. If it were, an investor's job would be easy. The reason I'm skeptical breaking news is valuable is because the value of information itself is declining over time. The more accessible information becomes, the less one can charge for it. Newspapers were valuable because they controlled a channel, not (only) because they delivered information. The current models will have to follow suit, otherwise they won't be profitable. And an information channel controlled by one or two entities is a pretty grim prospect.
- austenallred 12y ago
  The fact there's a Google News Labs team is only one of the many points I have to conclude that the space is heating up, so maybe that's not fair. But it's definitely (almost tangibly) different than it was even a six months ago. The level of interest in the space compared to last year is seriously something along the lines of 10x. Two years ago nobody cared. As far as newspapers go, you're right - the important thing is controlling the channel. Google, FB, and Twitter all want to control that channel, but they need the data in order to do so. Reliable, verified breaking news data is much harder to come by than one would think, especially at scale.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    That's very interesting. What are some of the problems with getting reliable news data at scale? And what's the value of getting it? Specifically, how will you make money? Sorry for the prying questions. I'm not dismissing. Just the opposite: I'm quite interested to see whether it could work.
    - austenallred 12y ago
      Knowing (or rather finding) content that is important/reliable (signal:noise ratio), and knowing what content is accurate.
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        What's the value? I understand companies might pay for access to that, but why? When most people get their news from Reddit, and when techies get their news from HN, what's left? It seems hard to beat a community of upvotes. To phrase it more precisely, why is access to news within 60 seconds more valuable than access within 20 minutes? Are stock traders going to be the customer, or who? There doesn't seem to be a way to deploy advertising with this, so it's hard to understand why it will make money. Is the goal to sell this to TV stations who then show ads after they tell people about breaking news?
        austenallred 12y ago
        > When most people get their news from Reddit, and when techies get their news from HN "Most people" have never heard of Reddit or HN. The difference isn't 60 seconds vs. 20 minutes; it's <=20 minutes vs 6 hours. Do a Google News search for a breaking news event and for a few hours you only find yesterday's articles.
        sillysaurus3 12y ago
        I wonder who would pay for that and why? Since advertisements can't be deployed through such a service, the service will need customers. Are those customers companies, or individuals? Are you going to sell to people involved in the stock market, like day traders? Or what type of customers would find this valuable?
sparkzilla 12y ago
I'm surprised you would discount Infobitt and Inside.com as being "vaguely in the news space" -- they compete almost directly with what you are doing. In its previous form Grasswire seemed to attempt the same thing as Infobitt. Both products have the same idea (repeated on your splash page): filter and fact check breaking news. But perhaps I have missed something?
- austenallred 12y ago
  I've tried using Infobitt a dozen times, and I'm still not sure what its goal is. I think I get it, but I'm trying to understand how it would be useful. No offense to Larry, he's a great guy, I just don't get it yet.. Inside sums up reports from other news sites. It's a content portal, but I don't consider it news per se. That being said, I consider every news site ever a competitor (as is technically every website and app). I just don't preoccupy myself with what they're doing, because (as I hope you'll see in a couple weeks), we're doing something completely different. It's apples and oranges at the end of the day. We're either decidedly different and better or we're dead. The waters are much too muddy for yet-another-news-app.