Comment by austenallred | Hacker News Reader

Comment by austenallred | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have this strange sense of aversion to Periscope, even though I know it's not logical.

It feels to me like Meerkat was a cool thing built by a bunch of my friends that took off, and then the big blood-sucking corporation (Twitter) tried to rip it off and make some money (even though that's not accurate).

That probably stems from this conversation between Ben (the co-founder of Meerkat), and someone who was building something similar: http://austenallred.com/assets/ph-ben.png

> Pete: "I was working on the exact same app... kind of depressed right now. :("

> Ben: "PETE! What makes you think you're not capable of doing something better/different? It would be a very sad world if people just gave up on ideas. I can tell you that the live video space is still broken in terms of the distribution mechanism, and that obviously Meerkat is not perfect. There's a very good chance that anyone in the world could come up with a better product/perspective. Please, go back to code. That's how we'll all build things better together, even though we'll all work separately - we learn from each other."

How can you not fall in love with that product/company?

> How can you not fall in love with that product/company?

For several reasons, mostly for destroying my Twitter feed in the name of "growth hacking."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9208429

Can you blame them? One way or the other, it was probably one of the only strategies available and ended up being successful.

Unlike larger companies, they had to solve the chicken-and-egg problem to distribute the product.

I'm of a mixed mind on this, but I will add clarity here: you are definitely condoning spam in the name of 'doing whatever it takes'.

Not really. There's a clear difference between Meerkat and Viagra spam: it had a lot of unproven value. Once people starts to use it, it's usually not a waste of time.

That's true, Viagra is actually proven to work, whereas Meerkat isn't.

There isn't a difference. Spam is spam.

I robbed a bank. Can you blame me? I got a big stacks of cash!

Reckless comparison. You can do better.

Fine, I'll remove the hyperbole:

I did something wrong. Can you blame me? It worked! (That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. And spamming is wrong.)

Yes, I can blame them. My inbox despite Google's spam filtering is full of Indian offshore developers who believe that hustle trumps all. And that's including my right to have people respect my contact page's clear indication that I don't want to outsource web/SEO work.

When that hustle steps on my turf, yes, I blame them.

Just like always it's never the idea that worth a lot, it's always the execution, how you market it, effort put into it, etc. And I guess luck also plays a big role at times!

This reminds me about the stories how the Pinterest founder went around a campus opening the site on random pc's, how Reddit started out by submitting posts/comments themselves or even how Airbnb developers went out themselves to photograph their users places with their own camera's.

It makes perfect sense: as you say, you fell in love. Love is not logical.

Meerkat crafted a narrative that you became invested in, and they were good at it. You were their target audience. You felt validated and included, and so you became personally invested in their success or failure. Unfortunately, the best narrative advertising in the world doesn't change the spammy tactics or the flaws in the product. Love can't guarantee success.

As a Sharks fan, I know this pain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com