The current leader on angel.co for blended metaphors may still be "Mint for X". It seems like "Uber for X" is destined to replace it, but its popularity is still staggering.
AngelList has startups which are primarily described as Mint.com for "stocks" (Vuru), "financial institutions" (MoneyDesktop), "banks" (MyJibe), "student loans" (Tuition.io), "education" (Always Prepped), "cloud content" (AnyCloud), "your digital data" (voyurl), "your time" (Meexo Labs), "your career" (Mighty Spring), "your belongings" (Itemology), "relationships" (EvenBetterHalf), "maternal and pediatric health" (HealthyUs), "fitness" (Curl), "health and fitness" (Total Health Card), "medical records" (ExtrinsicCare), "diabetes" (HealthEngage), "legal services" (AttorneyFee), "sales software" (Stride), "enterprise marketing departments" (Allocadia), "small business marketing" (BringShare), "business relationships" (Mosec), "business" (Cheqbook), "consumer utilities" (dropcountr), "energy" (MyEnergy), "energy usage and expenses" (Power2Switch), "mobile payments" (Wallet), "cars" (Price My Ride), "insurance" (PolicyOwl), and "travel" (Superfly).
Whew. And I didn't even include the ones that are something else plus Mint.com for X.
Honestly, after going through this list I'm not sure what "Mint for X" even means anymore! Cynically, I suspect it means the technology they're hoping to apply is pie charts and snappy web design.
It's like they forgot that mint was invented to sell people new credit cards and bank accounts. Probably half of these other concepts have no ultimate purpose that produces revenues.
recently launched a mobile app for selling clothes, super hype interface, spend months tuning it, only to realize some time after the release that a simple wordpress e commerce site made in 2 weeks makes ten times more revenue in a tenth of the time ( with the exact same products beeing sold ).
Some things really aren't meant to be purchased on a phone, period.
I suppose some very cheap, very easily understandable gadgets (such as pink usb cable) could be purchased via mobile. But in my opinion every "serious" purchases are not something you would buy via a phone.
Also, my app was sold in Europe, so maybe the US market is more mature...
The "mobile first" attitude in the Valley these days always struck me as somewhat misguided. As the article points out, it makes perfect sense in select niches, like Uber's. In many others, the non-mobile web offers a superior browsing experience and if your users prefer it, that's probably where your focus should be. As in all things, know your customer better than anybody else and you'll do well.
That, and the interesting fact that "mobile" is a broad term which seems to encompass tablets in most interpretations. Modern tablets often do a pretty good job of displaying sites which haven't been particularly optimized for mobile anyway.
One of the huge benefits people who dismiss mobile first is the ability to control the entire experience. If you launch an iPhone app, you have pixel perfect accuracy, fast speed and can make sure your app works perfectly on all 5 of the devices out there.
Yup, it does narrow your market even further. But not in a very meaningful way. iPhone owners are drastically more likely to download and use your app than on any other platform.
The hard question is whether to launch on the web or mobile first. Once you've decided on mobile first, choosing iPhone first is a fairly obvious choice.
It's not always about reaching everyone as fast as possible. Going wide initially is usually a first time entrepreneurs mistake. Build something, figure out that your value proposition is compelling for your target users. As soon as you have hit "product market fit" go wide.
There is a reason companies are going iPhone first.
There are many potential narratives that explain why companies are going iPhone first.
An alternate explanation to yours is that companies are going iPhone first because it's trendy. We all know about the SV echo chamber. Following trends seems to fit the data just as well as your hypothesis.
I was surprised by how incredibly good the Amazon android app is—it seems to have basically all of the features of the website in a vastly more focused and usable form.
Of course some of that is because Amazon's website is awful, full of noise and random goop that's simply distracting 95% of the time.
But still, I think that actually reflects a lot of websites: the actual content takes up a small fraction of the page, and is surrounded by noise; even those which are less clumsy/cluttered than Amazon often fill the space with graphical prettiness rather than useful content. A small-screen interface can often just eliminate the noise and will be better for it.
At first I didn’t care much for the Uber metaphor, because it's not accurate (it turns out, less than 20% accurate), but I’ve warmed to it, to convey the gist to the listener.
We had a mobile-first product, and while getting ad hoc snow plowing is useful the day of a storm (and from the supply-side, mobile solves a problem), most of our business is from repeat customers. That is, snow plowing is a route business, and mobile is a companion (e.g. for one-timers, to get info. on your plowguy’s eta/location etc).
Like others, I find the Uber metaphor useful for telling people what we do in 3 seconds, though interestingly, it’s hardly ever to customers. Most of our customers have never heard of Uber in fact, probably not a surprise given their age (many 55+) and where they live (suburbs). I imagine this is different than other Uber for X companies.
By the same token, I find it helpful to invert the Uber metaphor to further explain what you’re doing. For example, Uber would be like PlowMe if it had the option of picking you up at the same place and time automatically.
This isn't directly related to the article's point, but I really don't understand this trend of describing companies using analogies like "Uber for X". I imagine people do this because they think it's a simple way to communicate the purpose of their company, but it usually just confuses me. The "Uber for tennis" company referenced in the article is the perfect example. Here's what goes through my head when I read that - "Well I use Uber to book I car so I guess this company books cars for tennis? Hmm, that doesn't make sense......Oh, I guess they help you book a tennis match? Maybe they help you find a nearby tennis partner?". I honestly still have no idea what Uber for tennis is supposed to be. Seems like they would be better served by just saying "We do X"
That would require thinking through your business plan, which is, like, haaaaaard and stuff. Much easier to just point at something and say "US LIKE THAT."
Hey, I started Tennis Buddy, thought I'd chip in what we had in mind. Everything we built upon is what what Matt Cohler said last year at TC disrupt to the question that the next big thing in mobile is gonna be that you just "push a button and something amazing happens in the user’s world.". http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/21/great-mobile-apps-are-remot...
That's what the Uber for X is, it doesn't matter if it is cars, services or in our case - people. If you need something, just let everyone know in your area by simply pressing one button and they'll come to you.
So for now, you can find someone nearby to play tennis with you, whenever, wherever you want to :)
When you guys launch in San Francisco, I will try Tennis Buddy. I think it's an interesting concept if you guys broadened it to more general athletic activities (as opposed to just tennis).
I can imagine this being particularly useful for pickup basketball and running buddies.
"Describe your product in 3-5 words. Consider comparing your product with something that people are already familiar with. For example:
-> Better comparison shopping (Shopobot)
-> Flickr for video (YouTube)
-> Group video chat (Tinychat)"
- AngelList hover suggestion for writing your high-concept pitch.
Here's how I see it:
1) There are many, many thousands of startups on AngelList.
2) AL explicitly prescribes this exact "X for Y" formula for writing your 1-liner, where X is a well-known success.
3) Uber is a well-know success.
4) Author points out that "30+" companies chose Uber as their X.
This doesn't really seem like a fair characterization. People are following suggested wisdom and 30+ is hardly considerable. Probably about what would be statistically expected, distributing good candidates for X (well-known successes) across AL startups.
At the end of the day.. probably what most people need to know, and few do. Uber is a logistics company. A wide open market with high growth. Just look at Coyote, or any other logistics company that has blown up size in the past few years.
1. Identify a service-based industry that feels archaic.
2. Recruit suppliers in your given vertical.
3. Create a mobile application with a big green request button."
@arbuge 100% agree that the non-mobile web has advantages over mobile - and that many people have become blinded to that fact. Thanks for the comments!
AngelList has startups which are primarily described as Mint.com for "stocks" (Vuru), "financial institutions" (MoneyDesktop), "banks" (MyJibe), "student loans" (Tuition.io), "education" (Always Prepped), "cloud content" (AnyCloud), "your digital data" (voyurl), "your time" (Meexo Labs), "your career" (Mighty Spring), "your belongings" (Itemology), "relationships" (EvenBetterHalf), "maternal and pediatric health" (HealthyUs), "fitness" (Curl), "health and fitness" (Total Health Card), "medical records" (ExtrinsicCare), "diabetes" (HealthEngage), "legal services" (AttorneyFee), "sales software" (Stride), "enterprise marketing departments" (Allocadia), "small business marketing" (BringShare), "business relationships" (Mosec), "business" (Cheqbook), "consumer utilities" (dropcountr), "energy" (MyEnergy), "energy usage and expenses" (Power2Switch), "mobile payments" (Wallet), "cars" (Price My Ride), "insurance" (PolicyOwl), and "travel" (Superfly).
Whew. And I didn't even include the ones that are something else plus Mint.com for X.
Honestly, after going through this list I'm not sure what "Mint for X" even means anymore! Cynically, I suspect it means the technology they're hoping to apply is pie charts and snappy web design.