arielm

I don't know if I'd call 5 years "temporary", but considering it all started from a single app it's quite amazing that they're only starting to lose traction (as seen in the main graph) now.

Really in depth theoretical analysis.

I think the site is definitely slick, but I have two main problems with this:

1. The site doesn't really add much value on top of existing template sites that already have a search feature. In some cases an even more feature full one.

I think for me the value would be in not having so many filtering options but actually less. Build something smart that figures out why I want without me having to make many different selections. Reduce the options.

2. Even if you do that, is the market for templates that big and is what you're building hard enough to replicate that the template sites won't copy it immediately if it succeeds?

aka. are you solving a real problem? or is this solving a problem that doesn't exist?

I don't buy templates but I'd guess the market is fairly small and most template buyers aren't recurring buyers.

---

So what do you do - I think you should explore what you've built and look for something you can salvage. Then apply it to a real problem.

As a twitter-clone only, sure. But I think it was supposed to be about much more than that.

True, but they're only extending an existing service you have to be a part of.

I fully agree. Separation would have made it easier to understand it's not the goal but rather an implementation.

That's a somewhat different use-case though because the alternative (text-messages) always had some sort of price tag, and iMessage wasn't around when WhatsApp started.

Or use some sort of a freemium model much like the one they ended up doing anyway.

That's definitely what it feels like, a visceral reaction, but from everything I could piece together it was about much more. Dalton tried to create a platform for communication that could power a twitter-like service.

But... he never really explained it and in the absence of a message everyone had to figure out the message on their own using what's most obvious.

That's how it became a twitter-clone/wannabe.

If Wikipedia does a better job explaining the service than the service's own site it's in trouble. If there was no competition maybe, but there is, and everyone knows about it.

It's very true, but they:

1. never really made it clear 2. never explained what else that framework was good for 3. never grew out of being a Twitter clone.

I think if their concept was clearer the business model would have evolved to be effective. It's hard to get it right the first time but with a strong enough base they could have iterated.

Well said.

Thanks for sharing the cached version! The blog is back up and is fortified with a few layers of caching :)

I think trying to monitize the way they did was a big mistake. A social network isn't really a business tool and mass-market consumers aren't ready to shell our a monthly fee for a new and unnecessary way to communicate.

Twitter, the giant that's integrated into pretty much everywhere, is still fighting for engagement and new signups. So for a company to come and challenge them with such a vague value proposition is plain bad.

I totally agree, a clear message can make it or break it for a service, especially one with such a strong competitor.

I'm happy to see this service growing up and getting a real revenue model. In today's world it seems that to succeed you have to be free, get tons of VC money and sell your users or operate on a loss and exit.

That's not how great _products_ are built, just short-term sexy companies.

I like the product but just like most of the web I don't like that they're hiding their funding sources and making Kickstarter users believe it's because of them the product will come to market.

Building a bootstrapped company is significantly harder than taking outside money. If they're not bootstrapping they shouldn't pretend to because it's _cool_.

Would love to hear from any any app developers that publish on the Amazon Appstore exclusively about their decision to not cross-publish on Google Play.

I didn't submit this story because of the way the police office handled this person but rather because I (and most likely a good number of other readers) take uber x and should know that this could happen to them as well.

I was talking about the "legality" of uber x with a friend yesterday and figured other reader may have a similar question.

I'm pretty sure the URL disappeared after I updated the title. Thanks for correcting it.

Quirky does this for physical products. I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for but it's a pretty cool company with an interesting business model.

I'd personally love to see something like that for apps, but do see inherent problems with the model.