The Inherent Problem with Anonymous Apps | Hacker News Reader

The Inherent Problem with Anonymous Apps

medium.com

34 pointsjorgecastillo13 comments

It's entirely relevant that the author's app, secret, didn't likely fail because it was an anonymous, but rather the opposite -- there was a drop off in usage when it became public that messages posted on secret weren't really secret http://www.wired.com/2014/08/secret/.

I think this also illustrates a huge issue with venture capital; it can be incredibly reactive, with funding reflecting short-term trends rather than long-term value.

Everything appears obvious in hindsight, but I wonder how Yik Yak could be valued at even close to $400 million. I can't imagine the intrinsic value being that high. What's the path to monetization? A solid userbase? Anybody I know that used it, used it for maybe a week…

A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

I think he meant _reactive_ , as in:

showing a response to a stimulus. "pupils are reactive to light"

acting in response to a situation rather than creating or controlling it. "a proactive rather than a reactive approach"

Thank you both :) Corrected.

The author's choice of video games to compare is extremely disingenuous. He says:

"When a quality game releases it sees a spike in usage and attention but is then shelved as players move on to the next thing. Such as Portal, Braid, and Dragon Age. However, some games break this cycle and go on to become highly valuable and lasting franchises; games like Counter-Strike, Minecraft, and League of Legends."

Portal, Braid, and Dragon Age are all single-player games. Counter-Strike, Minecraft, and League of Legends are all multiplayer games, and the latter two continue to receive significant updates from their developers.

There are very few single player games that manage to have staying power, to be replayed again and again. Halo and Half Life both managed it for a while, but no more.

On the other hand, multiplayer games tend to last for a pretty long time, unless their players are cannibalized by another game in the series (Call of Duty, Battlefield).

That said, there are definitely fads in gaming. Look at something like DayZ or Left 4 Dead 2. The "zombie shooter" game seems to have gone out of style, and these games haven't held up as well as something like LoL, CSS, or TF2.

Oh, and of course the ultimate game with a community is Starcraft. People still play Brood Wars today.

I agree, that analogy is way off base. Disregarding the fact that the way it's set up makes Portal, Braid, and Dragon Age sound like failures, which is the complete opposite of the truth, it totally ignores the different business models. Those first three games all charged "full price" up front for a full experience. On the other hand, League of Legends is free to play but charges for other stuff and CS:GO does have a purchase cost but has tons of other microtransactions. Minecraft is the outlier here. It has a strong community, but it's also a very fragmented one. There are thousands (millions?) of individual Minecraft servers and no central location which forces you to maintain a single identity.

EDIT: The analogy breaks down even more when you try to compare any of those games to a free app which attempts to monetize through advertisement.

It seems to me that there is a yet deeper underlying problem - the expectation that any success should translate into long-term continued relevance. That isn't how things work. Trends wax and wane. And yes, some companies build something that becomes pervasive enough that it doesn't go away when trends shift... but that is the exception. If you build something and get a rapid spike of success, grab on and monetize what you can while you can, and be glad for it. if you can make it last longer, great... but a short-term minor success is nothing to be ashamed of.

Yes. This is especially problematic with hits-oriented industries like games. Studios time and again have had a big hit and taken it for granted, assumed that it was a blessing on everything they did from that point forward. It doesn't work like that. While your reputation can add some hype, you still have to check off the elements on the hit formula or your next project will flop, no matter how great your first project was.

Film studios understand this well and it's why 95% of the films they output are formulaic and by-the-numbers.

4chan is one of if not the oldest large successful (regarding usage/traffic not necessarily monetization) social media site in the US. Many non-anonymous social sites have come and gone since it was founded.

Secret didn't fail for lack of community. It failed because once people had their fill of playing out one of their demigod roles (shaming people, being shamed, or inciting others to shame) behind a cloak of anonymity the initial thrill to tell the "world" (really just your facebook friends) your "secrets" was gone.

The lack of names and personal information hasn't stopped imageboards and forums like 4chan and 8ch having thriving communities, nor 2channel (the extremely large Japanese forum they're based on).

Obviously people on these sites have formed lasting relationships with the community. Sometimes literally, there was a case on 2ch where two people met in real life, didn't know each other, found each other again on the site and ended up getting married.

But maybe the format works best on forums and sites accessed on desktop rather than mobile apps.

Isn't this the guy who used investor's money to buy a Ferrari?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com