Option one, with approximately 98% probability, is "fail hard". A few geeks will run nodes and brag about it on places like HN, and that'll be it.
Option two is that Diaspora succeeds, which will require some way around making everyone run their own node; basically, some company with the infrastructure to step in and host services for people, for cheap or preferably free. If an existing company -- one which already offers services most people use -- were to do this and make it easy enough, they'd probably end up running a huge percentage of Diaspora.
What sort of company would do that, you ask? Why, the company which already has all the info Facebook doesn't know about you, and would love to get access to the info Facebook does. You know, that search engine with the colorful logo.
> What sort of company would do that, you ask? Why, the company which already has all the info Facebook doesn't know about you, and would love to get access to the info Facebook does. You know, that search engine with the colorful logo.
And that's fine. But because they'll commit to integrating into the open standard that Diaspora defines, at any given time, you can take your friends and leave.
If GMail (apps) starts messing with the privacy of my e-mail, or wants me to pay more than I want to, or changes the layout to something I don't find pleasing, instead of joining a group complaining, I can leave them in a heartbeat. The people I exchange emails with won't notice a bit. The promise of Diaspora is giving me that option for social networks.
There will be a GMail, there will be an Exchange server and there will be a buggy open-source self-hosted PHP-app (and many many more) in the Diaspora universe.
Please. Somehow I doubt that Jason Fried, of all people, is losing sleep because of a vaporware product in a completely different space.
Or do you think that somehow Diaspora will be a product management solution? Will it also do my taxes? Perhaps it will print bingo cards, organize my book collection, and bake the world's tastiest pies?
This is exactly what Fried is talking about: When you launch a pure-vapor product you encourage people to project fantasies onto it. That sends you lots and lots of false signals and sets the public up to be disappointed.
So 4 CS grads raising below seed round range for a much needed project and supported by so many people is a Curse? For THAT he could not sleep?
A pity that this attitude comes from a startup news site. Again: It's a paradigm shift that should enable to create new class of web applications in "nodes" instead of "central hubs".
And all central hub owners, who make their revenues from the old paradigm, should be worried.
We have seen this shifts wiping out companies so fast before. It's not something to laugh about.
What makes you think Fried is losing sleep? Man, after reading the rest of your posts in this thread, you really need to stop and re-evaluate the rationality of your opinions.
37signals is not some machiavellian puppetmaster. Fried posted a simple opinion piece on a hot topic and you immediately start frothing at the mouth like a times square end-of-worlder. Get a grip.
You've not making any sense. Diaspora is a Facebook competitor. Arguing that Diaspora threatens Basecamp implies that Facebook itself threatens Basecamp. Which isn't true.
And, even if that were true, it will be still be wrong because vaporware isn't a threat.
Well, wordpress.com isn't a player in the e-mail space, which was the analogy.
And regarding Basecamp/Diaspora: I can already get most of the same functionality I can get from Basecamp in plenty of other products, both hosted and open-source. Basecamp is popular because it's really, really good, not by a long shot because they are the only option.
A project management application on the Diaspora platform would have zero advantage over Basecamp because of that. And even if it would have, Diaspora is open, and 37S could just implement Basecamp as a node.
Fried says Diaspora is going to fail because it's the provocative thing to do, and that's what Fried does on his blog.
nope, he is trying to block the finance momentum. they are going to need every $, which he and his provocative blog will not
What's the rush to bash Diaspora and make backers back off? so people put about 20$ each for seed round in an important project for seemingly honest guys. It's not that he has to stop a Maydof scheme.
The rush to disturb it, the strong word ("curse") are the result of deeper interest to stop them.
Than how do you explain his (successful) campaign against the free google chat that competes with Campfire? Google shut it down, basically, because it's "unfair to J.Fried".
Since Google did it, nobody else dare to compete directly with Basecamp, as is.
Diaspora is a paradigm shift, and it will be easier to implement a better Basecamp without single point of registration and billing.
Not a bit. They are a great company, great products and great inspiration.
I just think that this post is ugly. He could wait a while, let them finish the finance, let them work, and in a few months write about the results.
The rush, the hurry, the strong word ("a curse") is - to me - too bold to be pure "startup/product advice" issue.
I am sorry, but do you think that Jason can "shut down" something that Google makes, just with his writing?
And seriously, the idea of Diaspora competing with BaseCamp takes some imagination! At such an abstract level, almost any web app could be said to compete with any other web app.
And these are just the ones I know about (OK, I had to Google for a second to find EchoWaves).
Final nail in the coffin: If 37S was "competing" by shutting down competitors, why are they innovating their products at the pace they are? The Campfire of today doesn't look like the Campfire HuddleChat ripped off.
But not in Google Apps!
Google had no problem to add tasks (talk to remember the milk).
But why not project management?
BTW - it's fair. J.Fried is using his ammunition to protect his business. But let's just call it what it is.
Reg innovative: Huddle chat was written in weeks. We can only guess where it be now. Basecamp is great, but very similar to what it was 2 years ago
Anyway guys, we all should only hope the best of luck for this Diaspora thing instead of bashing them. That's all I'm saying. Mr. Fried could wait at least until the finance period is done.
From what I heared here and there, one of their plans is try to "embed" Facebook, allowing people to view Facebook info or switch to "private" P2P mode when the other one has diaspora that. So it's not either/or.
Concerning hosting, yeah there's google etc, but as they seem to have discussed with Elben Moglen, they will possibly also consider his ideas about self-hosting on small pluggable computers. And yeah, you probably already hava one: your DSL box. Some providers could play a a cool move on this one.
edit: I don't know if they will have the time, but with encrypted replicated data and external data stores, many things are possible. E.g. you could host the most sensible personnal info and links on your box backed up somewhere and have your photos at Flickr.
Right. I'm sure a large number Facebook's current users have devices on their networks that are more than capable of hosting an HTTP server (and maybe already do): the aforementioned DSL/cable modems, plus wireless routers, Roku boxes, video game consoles, etc.
Also, why not just host on the home's PC? Look at what the botnets have done. No technical knowledge required, easy installation, automatic upgrades, and no maintenance for the "host" (double meaning intentional).
Hosting on ones home PC is not an option. First, it needs it to be turned on 24/7, and limited upload speed of ADSL is a waste of bandwidth and would be impractical. Also you can look at logs and spy on what is being uploaded, unless there is an encrypted copy of all your files that are sharing.
Hosting on google or similar, would defeat the point of a decentralisation. As more people join it, setup their nodes and share files, there may be redudant copies of data. It is just faster and cheaper to host it on a single big server.
Normal users want to communicate, they do not care about installing software or anything more complicated than a simple web registration form.
A feature I would like is to be able to export a copy of all the data I can see and use it offline e.g for backup. Currently Facebook does not have this option.
1. Everything in this industry "starts with a few geeks". Including FB and that colorful logo company.
2. Let's do the math: FB valuation is 25B. 2% chances * 25B = Expectation of 500M. In these terms, a 250K kickapp funding is super-super-smart move :)
3. The question is not if Diaspora succeed but if the open source community can produce a distributed solution that will have non-geeky clients. It takes time, sure, but you have got to start somewhere (maybe the Flock social browser should team up as a non-geeky client?)
4. Hosting is no problem. It's like Wordpress hosting, it's done everywhere for cheap (and these are the bad news for J.Fried)
Google seems pretty attached to their advertising-subsidized business model; Diaspora hosting might be more likely to come from Amazon with a "consumer" version of EC2. Or Apple could decide to fight Facebook by adding Diaspora to MobileMe, but I think that's a long shot.
Jason's third point is, I feel, the strongest. People aren't contributing to Diaspora because of Diaspora, they're contributing as an act against Facebook. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.
I'm not sure if that's a good thing. It's one thing to get in front of a movement and ride that to success. It's another to get in front of a movement that's predicated largely on hate. Diaspora would have to turn this into something positive (Internet users for privacy!) as opposed to just letting the anti-FB vibe run its course.
PS: not related, but here's a thought: why is it necessary to have a special node system? Won't a super-simple, super-private social network work just as well? Facebook's problems isn't so much with the tech as it is with the company philosophy - they seem to want to do everything in their power to screw you over for their benefit. Change the philosophy and Facebook becomes a much harder target to hit.
nice comment from Fried blog (by Mark Pesce):
"Jesus fscking Christ. What these kids need is a little support, not some idiot tearing them down because they suddenly find themselves in exactly the right place at exactly the right time with exactly the right idea. Jealous much?
If you want to see Diaspora* succeed, then you’d better work very, very hard coming up with solutions to every one of the very real problems you just raised. Otherwise, you’re just a hater, and you’re only making the problem worse."
Jesus fscking Christ. What these kids need is a little support, not some idiot tearing them down because they suddenly find themselves in exactly the right place at exactly the right time with exactly the right idea
Bullshit - what they need is tearing into now (just like this; politely) so they realise that they can't wing it on the good vibe. They gotta produce something good off this money; otherwise it's a potential disaster!
What potential competing tool? You've been taking a rather ridiculous stance, lionshare. In order for your arguments to hold true, justify the following: a) that Diaspora (an anti-Facebook) is a Basecamp competitor, which implies that b) Facebook is a Basecamp competitor; c) the rise of node systems == the fall of centralized server systems d) that Jason Fried isn't just weighing in as a 3rd-party startup founder.
I don't think that the author has ever tried to undermine what diaspora is trying to do in any one word of the short article. What he has tried to tell everyone is what is essentially the best advice those people can ever get. Somebody has to put a reality check on things. I seriously believe that a reality check has to be put on the dream run the diaspora team is getting. Essentially they are getting money just for an idea. And that too, not even a half baked one. I would have been more supportive of them getting around 1700% of there expectations if they had at least a spec out before.
Edit: Changed kids to people as I am younger in intellect and age and it felt silly when I read it again.
The thing about selling the dream is that everybody has a picture in their own minds that makes it exciting. If we were to put actual code to it, it doesn't look like what I had in mind. So, alot of people will then say it's junk.
Now this 37 signal's guy might say hey, the expectations are too high. Yes it is. But like any it is a problem to be solved. Just off the top of my head frequent release of the progress would migitate this risk. Maybe code or Screenshots to manage expectation.
Look at Obama, tons of expectation or any other popular president, did they deliever as expected? No. I think everybody here knows that the presidents aren't going to deliver as expected. So, it is with these guys. With all the hype, people can figure it out. Hey they might not do as well as expected, but we can atleast try to be apart of history.
The thing about selling the dream is that everybody has a picture in their own minds that makes it exciting. If we were to put actual code to it, it doesn't look like what I had in mind. So, a lot of people will then say it's junk.
That's really very important. What you just said better describes what is my problem with them getting so much money. Essentially they are selling junk for at least 50% of the backers. The ideas are always different in one way or another than implementation thus people are paying up for something they think is what they want
hmmm... interesting. But really, to write some client software that stores and provides read/write of the common "social content" (pics, blog posts, writing on the wall etc) in common standard RESTful way is such a far fetched dream?
It could be simple as www.mysite.com/diaspora/albums or www.mysite.com/diaspora/wall.
Even Obama can handle it.
(Not to mention 4 dedicated CS grads)
So, that is the picture you have in your head? See I would be disappoint with this. My idea of it was you have a node and you add stuff to your profile, then some body copies it, several copies all on different nodes, so at any given time your nodes is always available. And there is some kinda security encrytion for each node. No key = no node.
What I was trying to point out some people are going to be disappointed regardless. All there is to do is manage it.
as long as the protocol is done right, applications are endless. TCP is maybe 30 years old?
The copy is an issue - because once it's copied you can not fully control it, similar to Facebook.
Yes, there will be disappointments. But it's not "a curse", a healthy 250K seed-stage worth is not the end of the world, and as someone pointed here: it's an open source seed. It will grow.
Fried should not bash them like that, unless he has some special interest - which he does. The Diaspora paradigm threatens his core business and he knows it.
So, now they're not building a Facebook competitor. They're building a protocol which can be used to build any number of Facebook competitors with different features. You are literally making Fried's point for him.
The reality check can be taken one day after the finance period is due. It's not a reality check, it's a deliberate attempt to stop the finance momentum.
They have basic specs, and it doesn't look like a rocket surgery (as Steve Krug calls it), certainly not for 4 dedicated CS grads working hard.
And although my comments are demoted here, the truth is that distributed "nodes" is a threat to the "central hub" owners, including J Fried, especially when your customers are geeks who can easily install and config the distributed thing. Paradigm shifts can wipe out other companies very quickly, and Fried knows it.
If you are paid $170K for this spec http://joindiaspora.com/project.html then it is easy to be rich. There are far too many better things that people can spend there money on. Cool things, even on kickstarter, are going underfunded. After all they just $10000 dollars, what is the need to give a 1730% funding to something.
1. A common seed stage is 250K-750K and they are currently way below it. Since they are going open source, there is no better way to achieve it.
2. 250K+ for 4 people will give them the opportunity to focus and advance fast without financial side effects.
3. Since when the J. Fried camp is so worried about specs? They want to build a tool to scrape the data, store it local and make it avail. via standard protocol. Nothing to invent, all the tools are in place, but a lot of hard work on the boring integration/config details and testing.
And to the point again: if such thing work I guess it will not be that hard to include a tasks and project management layer that will hurt Basecamp.
1) I am not speaking on the behalf of J. Fried. I don't care who that is.
2) I have said that before and will say it again. Sure seeding is way above that. But those seed money go to startups which make money. The VCs make more money off it. Nobody is getting money from this.
Exactly! We agree here. This is why they succeeded.
And this is why the old anti-raising money arguments of J.Fried do not hold. And his "anti-evil" strategy also doesn't work here. So he picks the "no product" PR strategy (again, when Google had a full product, albeit free and competing with Campfire, it was the "evil" PR strategy).
It's a PR to stop a competing trend, a paradigm shift that sooner or later threatens his core business.
His subtext is sorta "listen, don't give them more money because it will spoil them and there will be no product."
I see no other way to start such a project than a few geeks sitting and building it, and nothing will help them more than a few months freedom from financial distractions.
I too am against them getting so much money lionshare. As I said before, cool things can happen with the obscene amount of surplus money they have. They asked for $10,000 and thats what they need nothing more nothing less. If they wanted more, they could have asked for it.
well, they probably played with some draft code, hooking some libraries, and this is why they asked only 10K. as a summer vacation thing.
but they are on something important, the idea is right, the timing is right, and technically feasible. These funds and support are not what they expected - but taking financial distractions out of the equation, they have better chances to do it. It's an interesting thing, and the best thing would be to support them or at least wait before calling it curse.
Question is if you and me will install and use these nodes?
> PS: not related, but here's a thought: why is it necessary to have a special node system? Won't a super-simple, super-private social network work just as well?
No, it won't. Sure, central hubs can be private and simple, but they can't guarantee that they will stay so. Only distributed system could give you such guarantees.
Perhaps the node thing is a question of economics. Instead of a company forking out millions and millions and needing to generate revenue through ads or subs, distributing the cost (running a node) thinly amongst users might make more sense economically. Not sure how they plan on convincing non-geeks to do this though (google native client perhaps?)
> Jason's third point is, I feel, the strongest. People aren't contributing to Diaspora because of Diaspora, they're contributing as an act against Facebook.
For a hypothetical open project it might be good to distinguish between "contributing" (code/docs/whatever) and "donating" (money).
Apparently Mr. Fried just picked them both. To his behalf, he picked the right one. In a way, Basecamp is "Facebook for project management", and Diaspora distributed paradigm can threaten both.
The reason people have donated so much is because they are upset with Facebook's new privacy policies.
How diaspora can succeed: do the same thing Facebook does, but fix the privacy.
How diaspora can fail: by making some pie in the sky social networking platform that will elude most non-technical people. Unfortunately, it sounds like it's going this direction.
I truly want to see Diaspora work. And it doesn't have to be complicated...at the moment, all they need is a decent social network (one that's built with the help of a graphic designer) and chances are you'll have at least one new user for everyone who donated.
Lastly, make it easy for people to move from Facebook to Diaspora. Ease of use will be the pass/fail here.
Get everyone I know from high school and college using it and I might sign up, but I don't want to have to send invites, and I also don't want to be invited unless everyone I know is already there.
If someone such as you, a technical person, is unwilling to take the initiative in signing up for it, then it's really just a self-defeating prophecy, isn't it?
My point is, adopting a creed of proactivity is for the good of us all.
You mean self-reinforcing in this case, since saying this is going to fail makes it more likely to fail. Would you like me to lie to you? I'm good at lying.
This project is going to wildly succeed because it solves a major pain point for millions of people. They will deliver technically impressive software, like most people right out of school do. It will naturally take less than three months.
It will be so easy to host your own web server that my 52 year old aunt will not even need to ask my 14 year old cousin to do it, but my 14 year old cousin will do it anyway, because this will be so cool it will be like a boy band had a slumber party where they gave away free iPods and icecream.
We will see user adoption curves more impressive than anything previously because users, having gotten a taste of viral engagement mechanisms over the last several years, are screaming "Send me more invites!!!" and companies which control viral channels are making them more open with each passing week.
The New York Times will continue championing this particular company, because they are a respected news organization in it for the long haul and not desperate to prove that they get this social media thing. Indeed, their embrace of Diaspora will be as enduring as their embrace of Second Life and Twitter.
People will flock to pay for social networking, because their biggest issue with Facebook was that it was so "#$'("# free. The open source community, which is overwhelmingly charity by 20-something hipsters and not work product at multi-billion dollar technology firms, will embrace this product more than they have Mozilla and Linux precisely because it solves no need for any corporation anywhere.
"How diaspora can succeed: do the same thing Facebook does, but fix the privacy."
What is the definition of success here though? A super-niche social network that privacy-geeks use? The idealism is understandable but misguided. These guys won't touch Facebook by trying to make a social network with a feature better at X - in this case privacy - thats not how giants get toppled.
Facebook won social networking, Google won search. Each will be beat by their core business being displaced by something else, not someone coming along and doing what they do incrementally better. (e.g. socially shared links driving down search traffic is Facebook indirectly biting a chunk out of Google's business)
I disagree here. Facebook did a few things incrementally better than its prior contemporaries. Remember when Friendster and MySpace had more users than Facebook? Facebook won social networking because it essentially fixed a few problems that plagued its competitors. MySpace was/is a mess. And Friendster was too self-serious (forcing you to post a personal photo instead of an avatar) and restrictive. And both MySpace and Friendster got privacy wrong from the get go. One of Facebook's earliest appeals was the privacy it allowed users.
Another factor was how exclusive it was - first Harvard only, then just US colleges. People were anxious to get an invite, for Facebook to open up globally. When it did happen, it was massive.
Creating exclusivity can create publicity in its own right and increase expectation. It can also fail though - look at Google Wave.
A Diaspora project management plug-in is a Basecamp killer, and J. Fried (=J. Afraid) knows it.
What is Facebook? A central hub. What is Basecamp? a central hub.
He did succeed to kill google chat client to make us pay for Campfire. But it was easy PR against "evil" Google. This time it will not work.
Given that Diaspora has yet to be written, I doubt that J. Fried is particularly quaking in his boots regarding the hypothetical creation of a hypothetical plugin using a hypothetical API to provide a hypothetical service that would hypothetically be so great as to kill Basecamp.
Disclaimer: I dont use basecamp, have never used basecamp and have absolutely no idea why someone would want to kill it.
If you asked MySpace/Friendster few years ago what they think about this student Zuck hacking something in the Harvard dorms, they would probably respond: LOL.
What matters is the trend, and Fried is smart enough to see it.
What unfair here is that he spoils it in the middle of the finance period. They got traction, they look like smart and honest guys. He can bash them one day after the finance is done.
$170k = 4 young inexperienced people for a year to take on Facebook, WRONG.
This should be thought of an open source project, they should use the $170k to coordinate a large open source project to create this with experts from all over the web. I'm talking 40-80 regular contributors, 400 or more causal contributors. This is perfectly possible given the press they have gotten so far.
They need a leader, it's not clear to me which of the 4 is that leader, but they need one.
Also, whilst their eventual goal might be to take on Facebook, this is 5 years off at least. Facebook spent 2 years only in colleges and universities to get critical mass. Diaspora could try the same or work with niche interests like Ning does or do company social networks like Yammer do, to get started.
They will not take FB themselves, but this project will start the underlying infra. The "BitTornet" of social networks. Than we will need the clients, the eco system etc. But it's the first essential step.
And guess what? one of Diaspora's applications will be a distributed project management layer. And the FB of project management, Basecamp, will not like it.
So we better keep supporting it for the remaining 15 days than listening to a the "closed system" competitor(Fried).
A fair and completely unsurprising analysis, the spotlight is definitely on too early and I will be surprised if they survive it's hard glare. Jason's thoughts on taking money are well documented but I've always disagreed with this as an over generalisation, it depends on the people receiving the money. Certainly the scale that they're aiming at will require mountains of cash and having some early on doesn't have to mean they will get carried away.
And of course there is the fact that the story is the money, not the idea, which is the worst sign of the bunch in my opinion!
I agree that they're probably screwed--on top of the normal how-do-you-get-enough-people-to-switch-that-users-get-real-utility-out-of-the-social-network issue, people now expect, by virtue of the fact that they've got $170k and lots of attention, that they have something ready to compete with Facebook by the end of the summer--but I don't think they would have done any better waiting.
By doing it this way, they got to strike while the iron was hot. Right as Open Graph and the dozens of "Facebook is pure evil" posts were fresh in people's minds, they asked for money. With startups, the best time to raise money is when people badly want to give it to you, and it's no different here. If they had waited a few months, not only might they have had trouble paying their living expenses for the summer and their tuition bills in the fall, but they also, had they asked for donations after a summer of getting a crude v1 together, would have had a much harder time getting the money because Facebook privacy concerns wouldn't be as strongly in people's minds as they are now. Do you think they'd get anywhere near $170k with a v1--which would be nowhere near ready to kill Facebook--but in a few months when most people don't care anymore? In fact, it's quite possible that having a crude version 1 today would get them less money. Right now, they're selling nothing but ideas, which are easy for anti-Facebookers to latch onto. If they had a rudimentary implementation, potentially donors would be thinking about all of the ways in which the product sucks, not all of the ways in which it could be great. By having no product to criticize, they get the donors to dream.
And at least this way, they're set financially. They'll still probably fail, but probabilistically, they were going to fail either way. This way, if they do manage to ignore the hype and get a great product built, they'll definitely have money when they need it.
Another way that this does help them is something PG has pointed to--fear of failure. If they were just friends hacking this thing together in their spare time, maybe they would have made some grand statements to a few friends and family members, but there'd be a pretty low barrier to saying, "oh, building something with Facebook's capabilities is extremely hard. And even if we do a decent job, we probably won't get any users. Let's go play video games." But now, they can't give up entirely. They have to at least build something that sort of gets the job done. Thousand of people gave them money to do so, so they have a duty to do it. And millions of people read the articles about Diaspora and will read about it again if they fail. If Diaspora becomes a joke, every potential employer of theirs will think of them as "the guys who failed miserably at building Diaspora." All of a sudden, failure comes with a very high cost.
If they did fail miserably, I'd still hire them like a shot - they've shown they've had the chops to try and the initiative to think out of the box. The experience they would get through failure - whether the failure is technical. marketing or finance - would be an invaluable lesson for their future careers, far better than some internship at big company X.
An employer who would negatively judge a teenager on the failure of what is essentially a summer project would be very, very stupid.
> they've shown they've had the chops to try and the initiative to think out of the box.
Really? Are there any serious geeks that haven't hashed out a basic architecture (napkin-level) for a distributed Facebook-replacement over a beer or some coffee? I know I have, twice. The difference between me and them? A pretty website, a video and (probably the kicker) patronage by the NYT.
I agree that it shouldn't reflect negatively on them, quite the opposite, but are we back to 1998, where a good idea, "out of the box" and CS-grad in the same sentence is a qualification?
I would assume they've gone a little further than something on a napkin, and that by the end of the summer they will have something to show for their work and investment, and haven't spent the money on partying.
Let's judge their results then. If it's a failure despite their best efforts, I certainly wouldn't count that against them, if they've learned from their mistakes and have written some good code in the process.
Depends on how you define success/failure of course - I very much doubt they will make a dent on Facebook but if they come up with an open standard for distributed social networks others can build on, that counts very much a success in my book.
Absolutely, that was my point! I reacted to your statement that you'd hire them even if they'd failed miserably. If they're able to keep focus on what's important and end the summer with a concrete, open standard, even with little or no software, that's not a miserable failure, that's a little short of the goal.
But there are many, many more modes of failure than not getting people to leave Facebook by august. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's not even their goal.
Why are they screwed? Where is it written that four probably smart and dedicated guys must fail? Because they will have a few month without financial problems? Because they have momentum and support? really.
It's a nasty post to kill the finance momentum.
Please: J. Fried JUST FIGHTS FUTURE COMPETITION. Facebook is a central hub. Basecamp is a central hub. That's the whole story. A project management plug-in to Diaspora that can freely connect people is a threat to Basecamp.
When Google introduced their free chat client, a full product ready to use, he complained about "evil" (and forced us to pay for campfire).
Now they are not evil, than it's the product.
Err, jackowayed said they are (probably) screwed, despite having momentum, support, fear of failing, and no financial problems. Because the initial odds were really bad.
You may disagree with him about the initial odds, but I think you agree with his main point: the massive funding is good for Diaspora*.
Do you need to run your own mail server because you have an email address?
Diaspora should have a similar model. You can use a hosted node, or one your ISP provides you when you sign up, just like they provide you with an email address.
The Unix machine have been packaged in such a way that the user don't know it or care what it is running on. Everyone knows how to buy something.
That seems rather different here where users are asked to do things that in them selves are not obvious. The users don't know how to download a node and the idea that someone you trust is going to run the node for you just isn't a very convincing idea IMHO.
> The Unix machine have been packaged in such a way that the user don't know it or care what it is running on. Everyone knows how to buy something.
What has been done with pocket computers can be done with servers. An already set up Sheeva plug is all it takes. And it can be bough instead of downloaded.
Well, torrents are also rather complicated and people seem to cope with that as long as the software is usable enough. I agree that running a server that's available for 24/7 with enough bandwidth for video and images is a problem.
I think their surest way to fail is to do a very close Facebook clone. Let's not forget that those upset by Facebook's privacy are but a vocal minority. Catering for them won't be enough to get everyone to move. For most people Diaspora would be just a harder to use version of Facebook with less people on it.
Diaspora's curse is that it is a solving a problem that only exists in the eyes of people who don't need somebody to solve it for them.
Does anyone think my mom or my sisters give a damn about facebook privacy issues? NO! The only people that seem to are the types that come to HN and we all, for the most part, run our own webservers with our own blogs and pictures and soforth anyway.
When I tell non-technical people that Google is doing semantic analysis on their e-mail, (1) they believe me, and (2) they find that scandalous.
Unfortunately, this is not enough for them to switch. But if setting up and configuring a personal mail server at home took 5 minutes and no help, they would switch.
Now, we need someone to make Eben Moglen's "freedom box", to make is as sleek, as usable, and as cool as the iPhone. Then, people will buy it. Maybe not over privacy concerns, but at least, privacy will become a selling point instead of the major technical hurdle it currently is.
$170K isn't that crazy. Since when do programmers have to do the whole starving artist routine to get respect? Living close to the edge doesn't make you work any better. If it did, you would have to question companies like Google who give their employees really good benefits.
$170k split four (or more) ways actually doesn't sound like much, especially when you consider their location (NYC), and their massive student debt. NYU isn't a cheap school.
On a personal note, I lived in Harlem on a $24k/yr grad student salary this past year. It was a reasonably comfortable living, but being poor in New York City adds a lot of stresses to life that don't exist elsewhere. Walking around piles of dog shit and trash every day takes its toll after awhile.
I was actually surprised how well I made out, considering I was making the least amount of money I have ever made since age 19 and living in the most expensive city I have ever lived in my life. That being said I could be a lot more comfortable with just a slightly higher income.
Isn't that crazy, but they were aiming for 10k. At least that was official, maybe it was just a teaser, on purpose. Sad is, that they aren't even started and there's already lots of hype and I hope people don't get to the hate phase even before they launch.
I'm totally positive about the concept, but I always thought one should get motivated on his own, start the project, and beg for money to go further. This seems it's done the opposite way - give us the cheese so we start coding - and donating a video with a chalkboard I feel is a bit too much, for the moment.
Still, I'm very curious about this project and wish them best.
There's a 67 minute video on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRTzRAtDujU) where they're introducing the idea (with more details and exploring some possibilities) to a couple people (professors?) at their college and end up showing their very basic prototype. They did this before they created the kickstarter page, raised all this money, and got all this attention.
> Since when do programmers have to do the whole starving artist routine to get respect?
Having money lets you rest on your laurels. They could live off of that money with no work on the project for two years, more if they moved somewhere cheaper.
Would you work harder if you had two years' living expenses in the bank, or if you had to make enough sales to pay rent in two weeks?
> and their massive student debt.
As someone in this position, the answer is easy: deferment. It's really easy when you're making next to no money.
- firstly it is a very complex sounding solution (which is great in a way - I love technically interesting ideas/research)
- secondly it's not a direct solution to the problem.
The issue, as I see it, is that Facebook have a stranglehold over the social net. The solution isn't about hosting our own content (that is clearly impractical for the majority of social users). The solution is about splitting the infrastructure between multiple providers - but in a way that allows a fully integrated experience for users.
That way the "industry" will be self regulating (because if a company looks bad people can migrate quickly away from it).
Even if diaspora fails completely, all the investors will have still gotten something else for their money. The fact that diaspora overshoot their initial 10K goal by such a wide margin coupled with all the ensuing publicity the story is getting, is sending a loud and clear signal to Facebook that people are very dissatisfied with the current Facebook direction.
In fact, they're so dissatisfied, that they're willing to put their money where their mouth is, which is a very strong signal to send to Facebook.
Even if diaspora goes nowhere, it might still have a positive impact on Facebook.
I agree with more-or-less with Jason Fried. It's easier to succeed when expectations are low and you exceed expectations. I guess the more money you raise, the more the expectations are, and hence it's difficult to exceed them.
Then again, it's not Diaspora guys' fault that the press seem to have taken to them as saviours of the world.
I think the Diaspora group should consider "outsourcing." Hold a competition to pick 6 projects, which will get $20k each. At the end of the 2nd phase, they should pick the "winners" and integrate their code. The winners get another $20k.
This gets the initial pressure off of them, allows for a large amount of audience participation, and could attract a lot of programming talent to their project.
Diaspora may or may not succeed. The whole "node" concept turns me off, personally...
I'm more interested in the idea that is could compete with Facebook at all. Facebook has become too big for a small startup to just step up and replace it.
The reason I say this is that startups tend to follow the founders' vision, then get iterated based on customer feedback.
But "replacing Facebook" isn't a solidified enough vision to act upon. The project team would need to first find out what "Facebook" means to the average user. Because, like it or not, the readers of HN are NOT the average FB user. There would need to be some dedicated research done to determine what feature set would even appeal to the masses.
Once that is done, then we can talk solutions and build a team to make it happen.
But trying to point at any extant project and say it is the replacement project... I just don't buy it.
This post hit the nail on the head and got me thinking about the whole thing again (Diaspora, not the problem they're trying to solve. I already promised myself I wasn't going to jump into that race with however many other groups see the gold mine and are going to chase it).
I'm starting to think this was something one of them through out as an awesome idea, they said hell yeah why not... and then the money REALLY started pouring in, and then the Times showed up... and it's just snowballed.
I wonder how serious they were even planning on being before it got so big.
Mine you, I hope I'm wrong, but it's just a gut feeling I have.
While the article makes very strong points, it fails to address that Diaspora wasn't seeking attention and merely had attention thrust upon it. Since everyone else seems to be following suit, I'll throw out my two cents worth as well :)
Diaspora needs to be exactly what they said it will be. To do that they need to Ignore Everybody (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1350292) and stick to their original timeline :)
Lets also not forget that they've actually got some code. That's better than some bloggers seem to realize.
I think it's naive to think they weren't seeking attention. It's entirely possible they weren't seeking this level of attention, but they reached out to one person (at least) who wrote a story and caused the snowball to start rolling. If they wanted to be stealthy, they would not be giving interviews to the NYT.
I completely agree with Jason. The way Diaspora is starting goes against everything I've learned in my experience with startups. Unexperienced hackers raising a ton of money without as much as an MVP to show for it seems like a recipe for disaster. Probabilistically, they will fail, especially without any outside influences or wisdom.
I can only hope these kids have connections with people (and resources, such as PG essays) which can help guide them in making smart decisions. And I hope they listen.
What a Facebook killer needs most, is users. Diaspora has none, as it doesn't yet exist.
There already are other social networks that have plenty of users, but not enough to be a Facebook killer: Orkut (remember that? Apparently still big in Brazil, currently 100 million active users worldwide according to Wikipedia) and NetLog (big in Europe at 65 million users).
No matter how much traction Diaspora gets, I think it cannot possibly beat those.
To be fair I don't think they were out to raise so much attention, just enough money that they could actually spend there summer on this vs needing alternate employment.
They could turn money down but at this stage they already have the attention and that money could fund years of an open source project instead of having to worry about supporting themselves later to if things work out.
I generally agree with what the 37 signals guy say, but their view is never the only view.
Sure it might take most people longer to get something up with $150K than with $0K, but that isn't true 100% of the time. VC might be bad for most, but certainly not for all.
The talk in absolutes to get their point across - its a necessary method since everyone else is doing it.
Some people have the notion that when you have a good idea, all you need is some money and time in order to be successful. It's not like that. You can have all the money in the world (look at big corps like Microsoft), and you can have great ideas, but unless you can execute, the money and ideas don't matter.
Expectations for Diaspora are too high? Diaspora has a curse? I got the feeling from Kickstarter that people without expectations give money to a cause. When I donate money to Kiva, I know fully well that that money may never come back to me, and I am 100% ok with that notion.
Give them $25 for a t-shirt, it'll be like a pets.com t-shirt of yesteryear. Seriously though, even if these guys are a total failure, this whole episode shows that, if the conditions are right, open source software w/o a huge corporate entity can have a mass appeal. Exciting times.
All these guys did was try to raise enough money to pay rent and food (and barely!). Yeah, the whole world is watching, but they weren't exactly asking for the attention. They just struck a nerve.
Majority of FB users do not know or do not care about threats to their privacy. Diaspora will be percieved as something uber-nerdy. Try talking about "running your own nod" to a girl in a bar.
It's not "hacker nonsense". 37signals is generally fairly different in their opinions from most hackers (e.g., I strongly disagree with their opinion that Moore's law means web companies shouldn't wory about scalability: Gene Amdahl may beg to differ).
What Jason is saying is common business sense: don't sell something you haven't built. Build something as you're selling it, iterating on the product and adjusting to customer feedback. When the product gains traction, take external money (if needed and desired) to scale the business.
Facebook already had (measurable) traction _before_ they took VC funding.
This is not VC funding! This is seed capital... VCs hand out millions, not a couple hundred thousand. I believe in boot-strapping, and I boot-strapped my own start-up, but if these guys can get a small amount of money to work with, it is helpful.
"Your thirteen year-old sister will crap her pants when she's told to download a social "node" on her computer in order to tell her friends that Abercrombie is having a sale."
Your thirteen-year-old sister's "node" will live exactly where her email lives: on some ISP/hosting co.
Instead of "on some ISP/hosting co.", you mean to say "Google".
If Diaspora ever takes off -- and the odds are stacked against it -- then it's a very safe bet that Google will simply host nodes for free. Which means Google will have access to all the info they already have on you, plus all the info Facebook would've had.
This does not lead to the Glorious Distributed People's Republic of Privacy.
The usability problems of running your own node can be dealt with: just ship an already configured Sheeva plug.
The real problems are hardware price, asymmetric bandwidth, and the filtering of some ports, like SMTP. These problems will be tackled when we collectively acknowledge the importance of privacy.
It will take time (just see the success of web based mail), but I think it will eventually happen. The recent Facebook scandals are a little spark that may lit a fire. And I bet there will be many such sparks in the future.
In short, the Glorious Distributed People's Republic of Privacy won't happen tomorrow, nor next year. But 20 years from now doesn't seems unrealistic.
In your scenario the people who care about privacy can run their own nodes and the people who don't care can use Google, and everyone can still communicate. That's better than today's world, where basically everyone has to use Facebook.
Diaspora's curse: They don't actually have a working product to show off -- or any product at all. This whole farce has been amazing. I can't believe anyone actually thinks they're going to produce -anything- that can actually be run or used.
Because sooner than later we will see plug-ins that enable distributed project management.
As these guys say, we don't need a centralized hub for social network. We also don't need one for projects (Basecamp).
It's the Campfire story again: Than he had an echo against "evil" Google. but what can he say to a few nice guys going open source?
If Mr. Fried didn't roll his campaign against google free chat client, we would have a free one instead of paying for campfire.
BUT HE WILL USE HIS ALLEGED "GREATER GOOD" VOICE TO ELIMINATE ANY COMPETITION.
That really seems like a stretch, whatever you think about Diaspora, every point he made is absolutely right. They have no code, they have 000's of people watching them and they have 4000+ people who believe they should have a say in the development process.
If someone asked me up front which I would prefer to work with, 200k in money and 4000+ who all have a 'right' to be involved and their hand on a different piece of the elephant, or neither of the above....The answer would be easy.
That equation would be hugely different if I had released something already and those 4000+ people had their expectations driven by that....
I think it's not.
It's not the "product". On the Campfire issue he fought against Google's fully baked and ready product. Since he can't stick "evil" to these guys, he took another PR strategy TO SPOIL FURTHER MONEY IN.
As a "central hub" owner he has a strong interest here.
Diaspora barrier will be for non geeks, to install and configure the "nodes". But since many of his customers are geeks, they will have no trouble to switch.
Option one, with approximately 98% probability, is "fail hard". A few geeks will run nodes and brag about it on places like HN, and that'll be it.
Option two is that Diaspora succeeds, which will require some way around making everyone run their own node; basically, some company with the infrastructure to step in and host services for people, for cheap or preferably free. If an existing company -- one which already offers services most people use -- were to do this and make it easy enough, they'd probably end up running a huge percentage of Diaspora.
What sort of company would do that, you ask? Why, the company which already has all the info Facebook doesn't know about you, and would love to get access to the info Facebook does. You know, that search engine with the colorful logo.