> even the people building it don't seem to use it
This is a (unintentional, perhaps) statement of FUD based on your perception, and not based on reality.
I came across a pretty good quote the other day in relation to the ActivityPub space which struck a chord: "A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom#Ostrom's_law
> Our entire ecosystem is built around the way people work and play today, allowing you the freedom and flexibility to get things done wherever you are, whenever you need them done.
Seriously, what does this even mean? It is absurdly blatant, generic, and cliche marketing-speak. It sounds like they just covered a raspberry-pi with pretty lights and connected it to facebook.
> But is it possible you spend time building something without validating it's a solution people actually need and pay for?
Absolutely.
The service I provide is also available in a free form, but lacks some of the features I offer. It definitely is the case that those features I offer are - apparently - not as valuable as I had hoped for the target demographic.
If I were to do this whole thing again, I would probably lead with finding product market fit, rather than blindly building something and hoping for the best.
> most of the industry (from product teams to VC) still stays obsessed with exclusive social apps that regularly ignore — or even silence — real needs faced by marginalized people all over the world, and exclude these folks from the building process. As an industry, we need to do better.
Yes? Promoting social equality imo is building something real. More real than hover cars and spaceships.
I've smiled at this one. Taking a moment to think about it, it's true.
If you've looked at the presentation, one the things I'm looking at - is to market this as a personal device, for exactly that reason. Thanks for input.
> But if your friends aren’t on it, i guess that means nothing.
Well... yes, actually. Governments use a lot of things that don't have widespread adoption outside of governmental use cases.
If your goal is to build for that market -- for environments with very specific needs -- then you're doing a great job. But governmental use isn't the ringing endorsement that you seem to think, because it has no bearing on actual widespread adoption.
> The app or website should make my life better but instead it's harder.
This is the sub-goal, but not ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to maximize the profit, with accounts created, all the analytics will work out, and they could do all kinds of promotions or targeted ads.
I guess that's the same reason why you are asked to install a mobile app whenever you visit Reddit mobile WEBSITE. It does not attempt to make your life better. At least it's not the ultimate goal of ecosystem.
> The next big idea is to help connect the next 6 billion people to the Internet...and then he went on to say this is an exciting idea but may not be good business. Make of that comment what you will.
Someone is only a customer if they have money to spend on your product/service/widget.
> But that project is actually shipping code that works
I get that this is more than just vaporware, but getting past the vaporware stage doesn't necessarily prove that something isn't too ambitious. When something is attempting to enact a paradigm shift, the final goal is adoption/usage, not just a working/functional product.
> The only fundamental way for a business to make more money is to invent actual, new feature and business models.
I’m not sure this is fair for services like Airbnb where what they sell is conveniences.
Their entire product existed before Airbnb. It even existed before the internet. What Airbnb did so successful was that they branded themselves with a good product that disrupted the market by being easier to use.
The thing about disrupting markets by selling easy of use, is that your competition is already well versed in the market you disrupted. Some of them may do the dinosaur but others will take your ideas and try to make them better. If you don’t continuously improve the ease or use of your product, then people are going to download eurobooking or whatever other options there are now instead.
You know this, because you’ve likely done it yourself a million times with various applications that do the same thing, but some find a way to be easier to use.
Obviously these companies are going to want to find (or invent) new products to get included. But that is typically more of a non-software quest that eventually leads to some of the engineers being tasked with building what the marketing/sales/business process people find.
My thought process is that I personally would like to see more products with a higher focus on being good for a smaller group of people, rather than cheaper and /or worse but aimed at a huge audience. [0]
Focusing on delivering a good product to a smaller audience allows you to have tighter feedback loops and create more useful iterations because of that. You can also usually charge more. Personally, there are a lot of product spaces that I currently prefer or would prefer spending more for higher quality. But I don't always get that option due to the obsession with casting a wide net, as it were.
Do I expect this to happen organically? No, market forces seem to heavily incentivize races to the bottom.
[0]: NB my use of relative statements and not absolutes. Going from one extreme to the other likely won't produce a net positive.
> e.g. the tech for AlphaGo was made by a startup.
Making the next AlphaGo is far less accessible than making the next AirBnB. The gold rush where we're basically sticking a web/mobile app on a business and off to the races is ending.
Like most standards, its success hinges on the success of products/projects/whatever that employ it.
reply