DISQUS

Marc Vermut · 1 year ago

Louis, while the title of the post touched on it, the meat of the post glanced by it, seemingly more focused on building better services/toys. Fred Wilson addressed it more directly today (http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2008/07/the-death-tra...), in the sense that there won't be "one site to rule them all," but a number of services/sites/destinations that serve audiences of adequate size. Many of these startups will disappear/disengage/be acquired, but there are large enough pools of users in the different markets to support more than one player. And the blogosphere should keep that in mind as it seeks to continually project and crown the "winner." The real challenge is in accurately determining the market size for a service or site, to calculate market share. Oh, and in finding a sustainable business model.

Louis Gray · 1 year ago

You're right about the content/headline mismatch. That's why in journalism, the reporters usually don't write their headlines, and the headlines are written after the story is complete (assuming the layout fits, of course).

I will surely check out Fred Wilson's piece. I know not every site will succeed. Some will see key staff defections when they don't achieve the growth they expected, or revenue they needed. But there's always room for niche players with similar features.

Mark Krynsky · 1 year ago

"It's not about finding how much they're all the same, but determining the differences, and seeing what I can do that's new."

That's exactly why I cover the Lifestreaming services space. There's a fairly large numbers of services in this space. Each of which has varying niche focused features that people gravitate to.

When you have a new service area with a very broad range for potential you will see many startups attacking it in different ways. So while many similar services will have the same base functionality, I welcome all of them because they ultimately provide a competitiveness that spurs innovation in which the ultimate winner becomes the users.

Slybacon · 1 year ago

Posing the question "who's writing all these me-too sites software apps",seems to assume that the sites were actually developed as a rival to a similar existing site. I doubt whether that is the case in many of the examples quoted: what I suspect happens in practice is that different groups of developers have the same or similar original (innovatory) idea at about the same time, and the developments proceed in parallel. I am involved in the development of the Friendbinder lifestreaming site (friendbinder.com), and I know that when the site was first designed there were no other similar sites out there. Also when developing a social networking site there is no obvious way of finding out if anyone else is working on the same idea.

Because of the inevitable lead time to go from an original idea to a usable site, one of the developments will get released first, and other sites still in development then need to decide whether to abandon their project, or continue in the hope that they can develop a set of facilities that complement any rivals, and attract its own market. It is human nature that people are very loath to abandon a project into which they have invested a lot of time - particularly if they feel they can bring something new to the field. Also being first doesn't guarantee success - Google was by no means the first search engine on the market.

MayankDhingra · 1 year ago

I too am of the opinion that nobody would simply pick up an application and build a "clone/me too" version. I very much agree that at times the differentiator/purpose isn't identified quickly and easily, its a bit more difficult when the differentiators aren't conspicuous visually but then isn't it expected of experts/thought leaders to notice the differences even the subtle ones ?

That said "IM status aggregation" and the whole approach towards "microblogging" is quite different/unique in kwippy. Would love to see you spend more time with the system and share your feedback for improvements.

calebelston · 1 year ago

The great thing about so many of these apps is that they start out as side projects, little pet projects that one or 2 people work on for their small group of friends or their slightly larger group of quasi-friends. Getting your first 100 users is a rush, getting your first 1,000 users is even cooler, and 10,000 users feels like cresting the precipice of a roller coaster.

Building something that others find useful and spend time using is an unbelievably motivating factor that keeps so many of these projects alive without funding or the immediate hope of generating any revenue. But that is the cool bit.

The product that materializes on day 1 or even in month 1 is rarely what the entrepreneur expects their service will end up as, they have visions that extend for many months and even grand plans for what the future might be in a year or more. This optimism and hopefulness is what creates such dynamic products that hopefully become more differentiated over-time, because of style, or customer care, or features, or UI, or ease of use or any combination.

The constant desire to 'make things better' or 'do it differently' is why we will continue to see new apps launch every week.

charlieanzman · 1 year ago

Louis .... Well, Yokway came back into my radar today too .... and led me right to this post. Just one question. Why do you have more followers than the developer?? Never mind ....

gregorylent · 1 year ago

truly innovative minds are very rare on this planet, and to combine one with business acumen? ha. me-to is the game most can play. better than being a spammer or inventing creative misspelled sites for ad bucks. but not by much.

Louis Gray · 1 year ago

The great thing about all the new Web services out there is that there's bound to be a few you really like, and you're not required to sign up to any of them! It's a new world. Just think of how much fun the Web would be like if AT&T and Comcast got together and split it in half. Oh the humanity!

sent from: fav.or.it

khris · 1 year ago

Hi Louis,

We are at an early stage in the market. Many companies will try innovations, get traction, & raise capital. What is interesting is that these early entrants are at a huge disadvantage. They often run out of money and energy just as new entrants flood-in to capitalize on early mistakes, add some innovations, and rush in with fresh cash and new energy.

This cycle will end as these services mature and reach scale. As the services transition from a single feature into a product, support administration, security, and reporting adoption will accelerate. This will create a gap that will be difficult for new entrants to close and will ward-off seed investors. The result is a "shutting down the gate" --- until there is another major shift in the market -- and the process will start all over again.

Thanks for starting the thread.

Be Well,

Khris
JS-Kit Comments, Ratings, Polls

khris@js-kit.com

David Cohen · 1 year ago

Often, startups see the same market opportunity and work on it in parallel. they're not copying one another - they're just innovating at the same time. combine this with the markets tendency to stick similar stuff in the same exact bucket (e.g. friendfeed and socialthing, which are similar but coming at things very differently), and it's not that surprising.