4 ms·

And yet nobody sees a problem in creating stupid crap for stupid users and expecting to ~break even~ get rich selling ads. This reminds me of a recent article

by simi_ 11y ago

And yet nobody sees a problem in creating stupid crap for stupid users and expecting to ~break even~ get rich selling ads. This reminds me of a recent article [0], where this line stood out: > “We just introduced an emoji feature and comments are there so you can have conversations, and there’s more stuff in collaborative streaming that we’re going to introduce,” he added. "We found a new niche and Twitter is trying to bully us out of it, but look, we'll have emoji soon. Comments too, and more social stuff. It's going to be great!" Sorry to cherry-pick Meerkat, they're actually an OK bunch, but that quote just stuck with me. Add to this silliness how much money/interest is garnered by apps like Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp (actually, arguably solving a real problem), and it's hard to argue we're not in a similarly idiotic bubble to the previous one. Of course, this also creates valuable stuff (my favourite recently being Slack), but I'd be willing to bet that this huge BS-to-usefulness ratio isn't sustainable in the long term. 0: http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/06/meerkat-founder-on-getting-the-kill-call-from-twitter/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/06/meerkat-founder-on-getting-... edit: instant downvote - if you don't just disagree with my tone, please explain why you think I'm wrong edit 2: I'm not saying I have an answer, but at least I tried to pick something that seemed worth doing (I work at Lavaboom, we're trying to make encrypted email easy to use - with extra privacy sprinkled on top)

PavleMiha 11y ago
I think the issue people have with your comment is that you seem to label things you don't use as stupid crap for stupid users. Snapchat, Instagram and WhatsApp solve a very real problem and are very useful for the hundreds of millions of people that use these services multiple times a day. It seems that you only label stuff as valuable if it solves problems you have (Slack and Lavaboom). I'm not a daily Instagram user, but some of my friends love it. They're not dumb, they just get more enjoyment out looking at and sharing pictures of cool shit and their friends.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  It seems that you only label stuff as valuable if it solves problems you have The idea that things that are popular are "solving a problem" is a really bad trend in my opinion. "A problem" is something that has generally identifiable boundaries and detrimental implications if not solved - for example not being able to send someone money is a problem, and one big enough that it warranted the creation of paypal and the like. I doubt highly that the millions of snapchat users at some point said "If only there were a service that deleted my pictures 10 seconds after I took them." The major differentiation in my mind between a service that "solves a problem" and another "bullshit service" is whether people are willing to pay for it. That's not to say you can't get rich off of bullshit, the E! network among others is proof of that, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking these things actually make the world better.
  - detaro 11y ago
    "How do I quickly share pictures without having to worry to much about them sticking around" is the problem snapchat claimed to solve (and does a reasonable job of solving, despite obvious limitations). People might have actually been willing to pay for that, but if you charge money from the beginning for this kind of thing, someone else just offers it for free and tries to monetize it after they got all "your" customers.
    - encoderer 11y ago
      And "How can I take better looking photos with my iPhone" is the problem Instagram has gotten famous solving.
    - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
      "How do I quickly share pictures without having to worry to much about them sticking around" See, to me that falls into the "problems I didn't know I had" - like for example a lack of a terra cotta animal that I can grow sprouts on.
  - comex 11y ago
    WhatsApp is not that different from a hundred other messaging services, but people pay for it. I have no reason to believe it's worse than the other messaging services, but it doesn't solve some fundamental problem fundamentally better, either; it mainly just had good luck with network effects. People also pay for Candy Crush...
adventured 11y ago
The problem with your analysis, eg of Instagram, is that history contradicts you across the board. Photos Inc. has been a serious business, and generally extremely valuable for a century. There's a reason every smart phone has a camera built into it, and in the near future 2/3 of all humanity will own a digital camera. Facebook generated $12.4 billion in sales and $3 billion in profit last year. Facebook regards photos as a linchpin to their success. Why? Because photos (sharing, saving, viewing) are one of the most important social activities people do. The value of photos has remained true through countless technology shifts, and will remain true for the next century, because it's based on a simple principle: people want to save visual memories, and share them with others. It's not the interest in Instagram that's wrong, it's your incorrect appraisal of what other people value.
- smil 11y ago
  Instagram deserves the Unicorn title. It is very useful for both personal and professional ends, and has changed photography fundamentally. The problem is with its business model - that it will monetize people's attention via ads - and that Instagram is "media." In my view, both Instagram and Twitter are communication networks and should be monetized as such. Advertising is adversarial to the user (privacy) and will kill the networks.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
seanp2k2 11y ago
I agree; it seems like Scooby Doo sometimes, where the gang all hop into the Mystery Machine to go track down a guy in a mask hoping to scare off the owners and buy it cheap. In the case of tech, they're going to build an amazing world-changing experience and a huge user-base before smacking everyone with ads just before selling to Goohoocrosoftr and live the rest of their filthy rich lives out on their own private cruise ships.
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  >Goohoocrosoftr Zoinks! That just about says it all. I love how you implied that "Goohoocrosofter" was taken so they had to drop the final "e" to register Goohoocrosoftr.com.
encoderer 11y ago
> it's hard to argue we're not in a similarly idiotic bubble to the previous one No, it's not hard at all. It's nothing like the late 90s. > I'd be willing to bet that this huge BS-to-usefulness ratio isn't sustainable in the long term I dispute the premise here. Humans are social creatures who enjoy each other. And as we mature economically, we have more leisure time than ever before. And say what you want, but to me you seem blinded by your own personal tastes and temperament. You don't get 100,000,000 people using an app every month without tapping into something bigger than "BS". Building software that connects people, that people enjoy using, and that speaks to millions is IMO rewarding and worthwhile and no less noble than what you're doing with encrypted email.

by simi_ 11y ago

PavleMiha 11y ago

I think the issue people have with your comment is that you seem to label things you don't use as stupid crap for stupid users. Snapchat, Instagram and WhatsApp solve a very real problem and are very useful for the hundreds of millions of people that use these services multiple times a day. It seems that you only label stuff as valuable if it solves problems you have (Slack and Lavaboom). I'm not a daily Instagram user, but some of my friends love it. They're not dumb, they just get more enjoyment out looking at and sharing pictures of cool shit and their friends.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
AndrewKemendo 11y ago
It seems that you only label stuff as valuable if it solves problems you have The idea that things that are popular are "solving a problem" is a really bad trend in my opinion. "A problem" is something that has generally identifiable boundaries and detrimental implications if not solved - for example not being able to send someone money is a problem, and one big enough that it warranted the creation of paypal and the like. I doubt highly that the millions of snapchat users at some point said "If only there were a service that deleted my pictures 10 seconds after I took them." The major differentiation in my mind between a service that "solves a problem" and another "bullshit service" is whether people are willing to pay for it. That's not to say you can't get rich off of bullshit, the E! network among others is proof of that, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking these things actually make the world better.
- detaro 11y ago
  "How do I quickly share pictures without having to worry to much about them sticking around" is the problem snapchat claimed to solve (and does a reasonable job of solving, despite obvious limitations). People might have actually been willing to pay for that, but if you charge money from the beginning for this kind of thing, someone else just offers it for free and tries to monetize it after they got all "your" customers.
  - encoderer 11y ago
    And "How can I take better looking photos with my iPhone" is the problem Instagram has gotten famous solving.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    "How do I quickly share pictures without having to worry to much about them sticking around" See, to me that falls into the "problems I didn't know I had" - like for example a lack of a terra cotta animal that I can grow sprouts on.
- comex 11y ago
  WhatsApp is not that different from a hundred other messaging services, but people pay for it. I have no reason to believe it's worse than the other messaging services, but it doesn't solve some fundamental problem fundamentally better, either; it mainly just had good luck with network effects. People also pay for Candy Crush...

adventured 11y ago

The problem with your analysis, eg of Instagram, is that history contradicts you across the board. Photos Inc. has been a serious business, and generally extremely valuable for a century. There's a reason every smart phone has a camera built into it, and in the near future 2/3 of all humanity will own a digital camera. Facebook generated $12.4 billion in sales and $3 billion in profit last year. Facebook regards photos as a linchpin to their success. Why? Because photos (sharing, saving, viewing) are one of the most important social activities people do. The value of photos has remained true through countless technology shifts, and will remain true for the next century, because it's based on a simple principle: people want to save visual memories, and share them with others. It's not the interest in Instagram that's wrong, it's your incorrect appraisal of what other people value.

smil 11y ago
Instagram deserves the Unicorn title. It is very useful for both personal and professional ends, and has changed photography fundamentally. The problem is with its business model - that it will monetize people's attention via ads - and that Instagram is "media." In my view, both Instagram and Twitter are communication networks and should be monetized as such. Advertising is adversarial to the user (privacy) and will kill the networks.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

seanp2k2 11y ago

I agree; it seems like Scooby Doo sometimes, where the gang all hop into the Mystery Machine to go track down a guy in a mask hoping to scare off the owners and buy it cheap. In the case of tech, they're going to build an amazing world-changing experience and a huge user-base before smacking everyone with ads just before selling to Goohoocrosoftr and live the rest of their filthy rich lives out on their own private cruise ships.

DonHopkins 11y ago
>Goohoocrosoftr Zoinks! That just about says it all. I love how you implied that "Goohoocrosofter" was taken so they had to drop the final "e" to register Goohoocrosoftr.com.

encoderer 11y ago

> it's hard to argue we're not in a similarly idiotic bubble to the previous one No, it's not hard at all. It's nothing like the late 90s. > I'd be willing to bet that this huge BS-to-usefulness ratio isn't sustainable in the long term I dispute the premise here. Humans are social creatures who enjoy each other. And as we mature economically, we have more leisure time than ever before. And say what you want, but to me you seem blinded by your own personal tastes and temperament. You don't get 100,000,000 people using an app every month without tapping into something bigger than "BS". Building software that connects people, that people enjoy using, and that speaks to millions is IMO rewarding and worthwhile and no less noble than what you're doing with encrypted email.