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*.
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.