l*******o
发帖数: 12469 | 1 俺觉得这个作者说的东西有道理。但是真的要how to fix it，各位如何看？
Julie Ng, originally from Boston, now living in Munich as a designer and
entrepreneur.
The internet startup model is broken and how to fix it
The market for internet companies is broken. We cannot continue starting
companies with millions in venture capital and no business model from day
one that generates revenue, and more importantly profit.
Don't rejoice at Facebook's plummeting stock. It’s an ominous sign for us
all. Companies are willing to pay boatloads for great designers and
developers in part because they believe we will make the difference and help
them become the next Apple or Google. When that bubble pops, many of our
salaries may also pop.
Big leads to big costs, not big profits
We often talk about how cheap and easy it is to start an internet company
today thanks to software as a service (SaaS) companies like Amazon Web
Services (AWS). Many dev tutorial site talks you through building a twitter
clone. But while it is easy to build the functionality, the behind-the-
scenes infrastructure costs to receive and store terabytes1 of data every
day is not cheap. So building Twitter skeleton functionality is cheap. But
running Twitter, supporting millions of users while making sure it loads
fast, is not.
Small in a small market (Instapaper vs Pocket)
But many startups want to bring service X to the masses. Founders dream of
revolutionizing a service or changing human behavior through scale and
breadth.
Pocket, formerly Read it Later, is such a company and has already received
over $7 million in funding without generating a dime. With that money that'
ve hired some great designers to relaunch their brand. And they’re looking
to “expand” to more platforms. But the service is free.
How does it expect to make money? And can it make money? At least $7 million
, which only pays back the investors, who will probably want more than that.
Reasonable prices and reasonable costs
Instapaper has been profitable from day one. The apps currently costs $2.99
and users can subscribe at $1 / month for extra features like search. When
developer Marco Arment dropped the free version in 2011, people hardly
noticed and sales increased!
One dollar. A month. That is probably a realistic cost too for the service.
We’re not paying for content, but rather the ability to read it offline, in
a stripped down version, and in my case to archive articles I like.
If one dollar a month is the reasonable market price for such a service,
costs have to be lower to make such a service profitable. So I don’t see
how company with millions in cost can be profitable, even in the long run.
Because in the long run there market is not that large and there are too
many free alternatives.
Pocket is prettier, maybe even better. I’ve tried it, but I don’t use it.
I don’t want to support an unrealistic industry.
Be real.
The market is not big enough for big, just you
Be real and be profitable from day one. I admire such companies. Those
companies often turn out to be single persons or small teams. I don’t think
a service like Instapaper can survive on the scale of Pocket. The demand
just isn’t there to finance large and expensive teams.
Paying for a real and sustainable web - Cheddar vs Wunderlist
A year ago I was excited about 6Wunderkinder, one of Germany’s first and
original startups. They are developing Wunderkit to change how we organize
and collaborate on projects. 6Wunderkinder has received $5 million in
funding. But Wunderkit is free. And Wunderlist will always be free. So how
are they going to make money?
Part of me wants a German startup to really take off. But part of me sadly
doubts it will be 6Wunderkinder. We have enough todo apps in the market that
sync across devices. People don’t need to pay for that. So what will you
pay for?
I am paying for a real web. I subscribed yearly to cheddar at a mere $19.99
a year. I like it. I also admire solo developer Sam Soffes for quitting his
job, starting a company and sticking to his guns, not selling when an offer
came along.
I do not support App.net, however. I don’t think it will succeed in the
long run. I love the principles behind it. But I don’t think $50 a year can
sustain a twitter-like service and still be useful to me. To be useful, it
needs scale. We’re not just interested in other developers and designers
but also Tweets from God, Yoda, as well as the New York Times and Obama. And
for that type of scale, a company needs revenue. And advertisers are always
willing to be pay more than we are. They’re here to stay. Deal with it.
So what does $5 million but free get you what $20 / year does not? A very
pretty app that looks more like a game than something useful. That’s the
result of talented but expensive designers. I signed in for the first time
in months and saw very little “active” activity. Pretty, but not useful.
Cheddar supports features like cloud syncing, pushed updates and Markdown
but lacks visual fluff.
Support Instapaper and Cheddar
Especially if you are a designer or a developer, support Instapaper, Cheddar
and any other service that you find useful and sustainable. These
applications offer products and services at a reasonable prices and costs.
You are not supporting outside investors or bloated marketing teams. You’re
supporting real web workers, real designers and developers like yourself. | M****z
发帖数: 1058 | 2 大概扫了一眼，我不认同文章的说法
互联网很大程度上是赢家通吃，和谁先盈利关系不大，赢家可以在通吃后赢利
文章起了一个很吸引眼球的口号而已
help
【在 l*******o 的大作中提到】
: 俺觉得这个作者说的东西有道理。但是真的要how to fix it，各位如何看？
: Julie Ng, originally from Boston, now living in Munich as a designer and
: entrepreneur.
: The internet startup model is broken and how to fix it
: The market for internet companies is broken. We cannot continue starting
: companies with millions in venture capital and no business model from day
: one that generates revenue, and more importantly profit.
: Don't rejoice at Facebook's plummeting stock. It’s an ominous sign for us
: all. Companies are willing to pay boatloads for great designers and
: developers in part because they believe we will make the difference and help
|
|
