When a great idea isn’t enough: Why the “Last.fm for news” died(thenextweb.com)
thenextweb.com
When a great idea isn’t enough: Why the “Last.fm for news” died
http://thenextweb.com/uk/2010/12/17/when-a-great-idea-isnt-enough-why-the-last-fm-for-news-died/?awesm=tnw.to_17Cic&utm_content=twitter-publisher-main&utm_medium=tnw.to-twitter&utm_source=direct-tnw.to
17 comments
Sorry, but his article is really one-sided. It just blames the lack of funding for the failure and disregards other factors and challenges of a startup.
As I understood Readness was somehow funded (4iP) but the funding was then cut off for some reason. They tried to get into YC but failed and then decided to kill the service/startup.
What I read from the article is that the founders weren't trying hard enough. What about other sources for funding? Sure, YC is nice, but it isn't the only place in the world to get funding. To how many other investors have the founders reached out? What about the numbers (users, pageviews)? What were they going to make money from?
> "When we returned from San Francisco, we realised that the funding and resources required to iterate Readness into something that could attract hyper-growth, were far higher than we had available."
This reads like: "We weren't abele to get the funding that easy and decided to kill the service after a half year of operation."
How about slow and steady growth in contrast to hyper-growth? More PR? (I would have been a potential user, if I knew it existed). Most startups take definitely more then 6 months to build a solid user base, features and to get funded. It's very hard work.
As long as you are somehow growing and improving the service, you're good. Don't count (on) money, build a business/service and work hard. If you need money to cover your costs of living: bootstrap, do consulting, take another job.
What I basically want to say is that while funding might an essential aspect of your startup, it's not the only one and the solution to everything. So, don't blame it always on funding!
As I understood Readness was somehow funded (4iP) but the funding was then cut off for some reason. They tried to get into YC but failed and then decided to kill the service/startup.
What I read from the article is that the founders weren't trying hard enough. What about other sources for funding? Sure, YC is nice, but it isn't the only place in the world to get funding. To how many other investors have the founders reached out? What about the numbers (users, pageviews)? What were they going to make money from?
> "When we returned from San Francisco, we realised that the funding and resources required to iterate Readness into something that could attract hyper-growth, were far higher than we had available."
This reads like: "We weren't abele to get the funding that easy and decided to kill the service after a half year of operation."
How about slow and steady growth in contrast to hyper-growth? More PR? (I would have been a potential user, if I knew it existed). Most startups take definitely more then 6 months to build a solid user base, features and to get funded. It's very hard work.
As long as you are somehow growing and improving the service, you're good. Don't count (on) money, build a business/service and work hard. If you need money to cover your costs of living: bootstrap, do consulting, take another job.
What I basically want to say is that while funding might an essential aspect of your startup, it's not the only one and the solution to everything. So, don't blame it always on funding!
It feels oddly ironic for you to criticize an article of being one sided and then for you to make various assumptions based on the article.
Maybe you're right. Maybe I let myself get carried away.
However, in the first part of my comment, I ask questions I wish the article would have answered somehow.
In the second part (after the quote), I'm maybe a little fierce, but it's more a general statement on a common mistake (giving up too easy) that many fresh startups make, including some in which I was involved.
It was not my intention to make assumptions. So, in order to improve my writing, it would be nice if you tell me about the assumptions the you read in the comment.
That all said, I feel sympathy for the founders and wish them all the best. Too bad they shut the servie down, as I read about it here for the first time and would have been a potential user.
However, in the first part of my comment, I ask questions I wish the article would have answered somehow.
In the second part (after the quote), I'm maybe a little fierce, but it's more a general statement on a common mistake (giving up too easy) that many fresh startups make, including some in which I was involved.
It was not my intention to make assumptions. So, in order to improve my writing, it would be nice if you tell me about the assumptions the you read in the comment.
That all said, I feel sympathy for the founders and wish them all the best. Too bad they shut the servie down, as I read about it here for the first time and would have been a potential user.
(By the way, you're replying to one - pclark is one of the founders of Readness/Broadersheet).
News is just a tremendously hard market. My suspicion, and I have scar tissue to back this up, is that it's a trap. It's one of those things everyone thinks should be sexy, but the numbers don't work.
News is just a tremendously hard market. My suspicion, and I have scar tissue to back this up, is that it's a trap. It's one of those things everyone thinks should be sexy, but the numbers don't work.
adw is totally right about news/content. Bad Market, glad to be out.
What are the reasons that it's a bad market?
Consumers don't feel many pain points that are harsh enough to change habits and loyalty from current market leaders.
Hard to monetize in scalable manner.
News (and even content) is percieved as small by investors.
Numerous - dozens - of failed startups, that have tried hundreds of propositions in the past decade - isn't clear what has changed to make those propositions work today.
Using someone elses content is of questionable legal grounds (EG: when you are winning, they'll knock)
Current social products like Facebook or Twitter or even Reddit do "good enough" job for vast majority.
Hard to monetize in scalable manner.
News (and even content) is percieved as small by investors.
Numerous - dozens - of failed startups, that have tried hundreds of propositions in the past decade - isn't clear what has changed to make those propositions work today.
Using someone elses content is of questionable legal grounds (EG: when you are winning, they'll knock)
Current social products like Facebook or Twitter or even Reddit do "good enough" job for vast majority.
I was interested when I heard about it on HN, and went to sign up immediately...and then immediately didn't bother with it when I learned it required Facebook and Chrome. Facebook as a log in is a complete dealbreaker for me, and I've heard others express this sentiment too.
I'm not so sure it was that great of an idea. Do I really want everyone to know that I secretly checked out the video of Miley Cyrus taking a bong hit? Or that I visit the Fark 5x a day?
Not everything that can be shared should be shared, people. :-)
Not everything that can be shared should be shared, people. :-)
Wow, why I haven't heard of this?
First delicious now this?
I was just waiting for voyurl because of the potential, then bam there was already one and it is now closing...
It seems like a cool idea to me. I'd even thought of working on something similar.
How many of you would use a service like that?
How many of you would use a service like that?
I would not. I primarily share news with friends using Facebook. Facebook has the one-stop solution for almost every social thing I need.
But why couldn't they get funding?
Where TF is last.tv.
Lastfm for tv would be the best thing since er... lastfm.
Lastfm for tv would be the best thing since er... lastfm.
I'd argue that Netflix is slowly moving towards such a concept.
or lastf for youtube/video in general
I think it's kind of lame to disseminate why stuff failed in hindsight publically, but I'm proud that we failed with Readness so fast - it'd be easy to be so determined we continued iterating for many more years without having a fresh start to be radically new.
(I have a new startup in the works, don't worry)