matthewhardnack

Yeah, there's a lot of research required for a project like this, so much so that I don't think one person could cover all the bases. Another reason I turned to HN.

Like you mentioned before, most of the bigger companies that need this level of power already have it. But the real question we need to ask is, do they want it? Does a cheaper price, less maintenance and greater amounts of power qualify for a transition to third-party cloud-computing? Or would security and the ability to fix any in-house issues out-weigh those?

As far as the server configuration, that's not my specific expertise, so that I'm not sure, but that sounds like a viable solution.

I think I'm going to write up an article on posterous about this, I'm interested to see how many people I can get interested in a project like this, in order to determine if I should dedicate any time to it.

I'll go into more details, such as specifications, features, issues and what the project hopes to solve. I'll post it as a "Show HN" when I get it finished, I'll also reply to to this comment so you know when it's up.

Also, sorry for the delayed response, in the middle of a flight to HK.

Right, but the idea is to outsource the computing power to clients for a given amount of money. Users are then paid small amounts of money for returned computing power from their inactive home PC. This would give more incentive for users to utilize these services, instead of the mere 527,880 active computers for BOINC. This would also provide a more affordable solution to owning/maintaining data centers.

I notice that the BOINC wiki mentions that users are attributed credits. "BOINC Credit System helps volunteers keep track of how much CPU time they have donated to various distributed computing projects." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOINC_Credit_System

Thanks, we certainly will.

We received a rejection letter as well, we aren't disappointed, the whole process has been a great learning experience for us, filling out the application and recording the video got us thinking about things we hadn't.

I've also learned to get more feedback and to go to great new places, like wompt and convore to get that feedback.

When we submitted our application we thought that our service was the only service like it out there and we had a hard time explaining our service. But we were wrong just yesterday (1 day before the rejection letter), I found out that there is a similar service and that it was even funded by YC. That service being Songkick. Our lack of research is our own mistake, a mistake we'll learn and grow from.

Today our description is:

Subscriby is like Songkick but for any interest you decide on and like Topspin, it allows brands to connect directly to it's fans to promote and sell.

Yesterday it was:

A service that is like twitter/facebook but provides filtered updates for relative interests.

And on our website it's:

Subscriby is a User-submitted Micro-news Aggregator. Users subscribe to interests and receive filtered updates of user's selected types.

So I'm not surprised, that out of the very talented people that applied, we got rejected.

Thanks and we'll see you next batch!