Diaspora - Moving Forward
blog.joindiaspora.com
blog.joindiaspora.com
They are building a product whose success requires overcoming network effects. 90% of what they need to work hard on is not being quiet.
From a pure engineering standpoint I think that products such as http://onesocialweb.org/ are a much better solution.
I'd argue they shot their load well before they even wrote a line of code.
Its driving me crazy that I can't even start using their service all the while Facebook over takes all social networks.
Problem is, once you're on there, none of your friends are, and even if you manage to convince even a fraction of your facebook friends to come across, it still totally lacks functionality. At the moment all you can do is post pictures and status updates, thats it.
I would love to see regular updates of exactly what they're working on without having to monitor their git repo. Just assuring us they're working on it every couple of months while asking for more money and more time is very very dodgy.
Edit: I expected some insight into where it's going, given the headline.
- They talked about technical stuff that they were doing (which is fine if you are a HN-type) but for ordinary people who use Facebook there is no reason to care or even figure out who Diaspora are. Network effects are really strong as others have noted. Facebook offered exclusivity to Ivy League colleges when they launched, Diaspora need to really figure out their angle. Perhaps appeal to the Quora/HN/TED Conference/SXSW type crowd first, and create the illusion of scarcity and exclusivity that way?
- They seem to have no compelling reason to switch to Diaspora that users really care about. If they offered, I don't know, an integrated Skype interface (unlikely perhaps now), proper privacy, and a way to migrate your Facebook data to their service (highly unlikely), perhaps people would sit up and take notice. (Just throwing random silly ideas out there.)
- I think they need to become really aggressive and 'pick a fight' with Facebook. Meekly churning out features on a project on Github isn't going to get you several hundred million users. They need to get serious media coverage, and one would think that they will need to have a significant marketing budget for this.
EDIT: Their approach seems to be the opposite of the 'release early and pump out features' approach that allows YC companies to take off quickly. Not good.
Also, being a startup and free software project isn't mutually exclusive.
Your business model when your base package is free and decentralized is very different than when it is proprietary. Diaspora cannot operate like a closed startup challenging Facebook would.
In fact, and this is from my experience with building Appleseed, the main difference is in who you are trying to convince to use your software. With startups, it's users. With free software, it's administrators. Like I've written before, it's administrators choosing to set up a decentralized social networking node that will make or break Diaspora (or Appleseed or OneSocialWeb, etc).
And when your target market is administrators, any related business venture will use a B2B model, something very different than the kind of B2C startup framework we're used to putting things in.
1. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-the-p... 2. http://www.kickstarter.com/start (bottom)
Edit: I forgot to mention, there was a fraudulent $10k donation included in the 200k, that's why I'm starting that much lower.
Maybe they should make more public-facing updates about individual features and changes in their software, but (as is hinted to in their post) it seems like they are limited in their resources.
The Diaspora guys have the really-actually-unique challenge of developing an open-source project entirely in the open coupled with attention and radically differing expectations from thousands of people. It's kind of nuts, really. Would you want to be in their position?
They started digging a hole for fun in their backyard. Then the Army Corps of Engineers showed up, gave them some cash, and told them to divert the Mississippi.
FB has more than 500M users, if privacy and data is what drives Diaspora, for most web users that's almost useless since FB already "owns it". Maybe geeks use it, but I don't see it gaining anything relevant compared to Facebook or Twitter.
The response I got, six months later, was to the effect of a brief "thank you for your email, answers to some of your questions can be found in the FAQ".
Maybe they won't amount to much, but criticising them because they didn't respond to your email is not fair.
The Bitcoin community has been thinking about it in the context of Bitcoin at least: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1790.0
Is anyone aware of other work being done in this area?
"We are working on an outline of what we have learnt so far, and where we see Diaspora going in the next year."
Right.
Diaspora is raising awareness, it's bootstraping a movement around it, and it's contributing to the technology required to make distributed social networking possible (protocols, algorithms).
Perhaps they'll be the Hurd of social networking. So long as there's a Linux, I say let them be the Hurd.
That said, I haven't really seen much from them in the way of developing protocols, etc. They had the money many other projects could've used to get farther, and what would have been better stewardship of the donations would have been to use that money to spearhead a movement between existing projects to interoperate and create formal standards. Instead, they spent several months and gave us insecure rails code.
Now that is my criticism.
--- EDIT:
You make a very good point: for the money they got, they could be creating more value (or creating value differently). I'd prefer if they released a stripped-down 1.0 that anyone could dig into; right now, they're centralizing too many design decisions.
As far as developing technology goes, a working proof of concept should be as good a starting point as any and that's what they're doing. (Sure: not the best practice out there, to develop first and document later, but in this particular arena, I'm a pathological satisficer: just get the bloody thing done.)
I give it 0.01% chance of succeeding if keep things the way they are.
Seriously, a year of fucking development? Facebook launched after a few hours.
It amazes me the kinds of expectations people have. I mean, Diaspora is partly to blame with making huge promises and feeding the hype machine, but that can only be a small fraction of the problem, the ideas people have about what's possible in this problem domain is really off the charts. Even hackers and geeks, who really should know better.
A year is nothing compared to the scope of what they're trying to solve. Appleseed, Elgg, OneSocialWeb, etc. have all been in development for years.