tapfame.com
There seems to be general agreement that a startup should build something people want. The most common response here (and with similar apps, in recent memory) is people saying they don't want to have to register with another service like Facebook to use it. And yet, people keep building websites that do just that, and indicate that they will not change this.
Is Facebook so big that startups can afford to blow off everyone who doesn't use it? Is integrating with Facebook's identity system so much easier than writing your own that it saves significant development time? Is there a strategic plan to do something unique with Facebook later?
I'm not saying anyone should do product design by surveying users, and I admit I'm not a great product designer, but when potential users all say "I'm not going to use this product because it makes me jump through hoop X" (and X isn't a fundamental component), my response would be to remove X.
IMO there are two salient points to this:
1 - The people who really, really dislike logging in with Facebook (to the point where they will refuse to participate) are a small but vocal minority. Even in the tech industry itself.
2 - The strong dislike for using Facebook login is many-fold. For most people it comes down to abuse of the Facebook link (e.g., spamming things onto your feed, messaging your friends, being in general awful), and that is a trust issue that can be mitigated with the correct positioning and assurances. The people who are against cross-network authentication on principle (as opposed to some negative artifact of its current implementation) are an even smaller camp, and they're the only ones you're really guaranteed to lose out on.
> "but when potential users all say "I'm not going to use this product because it makes me jump through hoop X" (and X isn't a fundamental component), my response would be to remove X."
1 - Beware of what your users say, it is not always what they want, or what they would use. People are extraordinarily bad at guessing their own motivations, if you took all feedback literally at face value, you might be screwed. A complaint against X may be actually a complaint against sub-component Y, or the interaction of X with unrelated bit Z.
2 - The benefit here vastly outweighs the objections. The numbers have shown this again, and again, and again, and again, that when given the option to do a one-click signin vs. filling out a form (and giving out your email address, again), people will overwhelmingly choose the former.
This is the same search API that Apple uses for the App Store, and returns the same order and results as Kickfolio. The first result is usually correct, but you could always double check with the developer.
Example: http://itunes.apple.com/search?entity=software&term=Shar...
It would be cool when there is a little more data in the about the performance of the app. I think of it like a dribble for app developers that keeps itself up to date. As we're programmers we don't want to maintain it :)
You should talk to my friends from appmonsta. They have a lot of data around apps. Maybe you can work something out.
What if we let developers create portfolios without social identies. Then, if they do want to be notified about freelance gigs they would need to connect their Fb/Linkedin.
The multi-stage approach could work. When a developer creates a nice profile it will probably get interest from people seeking freelancers. You can then entice developers to add social identities with something like "123 people were interested in your profile. Verify your identity and contact them today!".
I forget how eLance does the identity verification. iirc it was on the thorough side. Perhaps more work than you want to invest now but perhaps worth it later.
Not sure why but I have only read your main headline when I looked at the page for the third time. My attention was completely drawn to anything below that blue-black bar. It has almost camouflage-like properties.
In the featured portfolio all tooltip app names are "App Name".