
Why Diaspora will fail - tca
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2010/05/21/diaspora-social-network-fail-kickstarter-facebook
======
grellas
I don't know about the merits of or prospects for Diaspora one way or the
other but I have dealt with founders of every stripe for years and understand
how people can get carried where money is involved.

If a nascent founder group raised $170K from hundreds or thousands of small
and unsophisticated investors by traditional means (i.e., by offering them
stock in the company in exchange for their small investments), and if those
founders did so based on public advertising and without offering those
investors any opportunity to learn the material facts about the startup's
finances, product plans, founder backgrounds, etc., such an offering would be
illegal, plain and simple, and every investor would have a right to get his
money back not only from the company but also from each of the founders who
controlled this offering. There is a valid reason why securities laws exist,
and it is precisely to protect innocent investors from being induced to part
with their hard-earned money based on fast and loose pitches that may or may
not correlate with reality.

Now, I am not saying that Diaspora has done anything wrong here, or has misled
those who have contributed, or any such thing.

My point has to do strictly with the crowdsourcing funding model as a legal
tool for raising money. That model attempts to bypass the securities laws by
using a donor model, and the key to its attempting to remain legal is to avoid
at all costs having the contributors be characterized as "investors." I think
that Kickstarter does this legitimately and appears therefore to be operating
well within the bounds of the law.

But here is the Achilles heel of crowdsource funding: if the cause being
supported does amount to some sort of hustle job (hypothetically speaking and
not intending to impugn Diaspora), crowdsource funding enables those who might
operate with less than pure motives a loophole by which they can make a mass
appeal to potentially thousands of unsophisticated persons who might fund a
venture without having to be accountable to those persons in any significant
way. In effect, it is like an open ticket (legally speaking) to take their
money and do what one will with it.

When there is no legal accountability ultimately for how such funds might be
used, that means that the founders of a crowdsource-funded company basically
are telling the public "trust us, we're good for it," which may or may not
bear out in reality. This is a genetic weakness with this model of funding
that is bound to lead to problems at some point down the road, however well it
might play out in the Diaspora case.

~~~
cubes
While you raise a legitimate point, I think you discount the basic fact that,
on balance, most individuals behave in a trustworthy manner. Society depends
on this fact. We trust people to drive cars, and not intentionally run people
down. Stores trust that most individuals will not shoplift.

Will there eventually be a large scale case of someone untrustworthy duping
people via crowdsourcing? Probably. Does that mean the model is fundamentally
flawed? No. Plus, crowdsourcing spreads the risk around so the loss is
minimized. It's not like Bernie Madoff who insisted that investors invest all
their funds through him.

~~~
GrandMasterBirt
It only takes one guy to play on that and steal millions. Yes not millions at
a time, but pitch 20 ideas as different aliases and have 200k investments in
each. Its not hard to appeal to desperation and mass fear.

~~~
cubes
The average Kickstarter is not pulling down anywhere near 200k, and it would
take a remarkably clever con to pull off what you propose. Why would a clever
con target Kickstarter, something that is trivially traceable? Also, why
target a large group of smart, motivated individuals who know quite a bit
about how to track people down on the internet?

------
gfodor
Online video -> NYT article -> $170,000 handout -> lots of hard work -> great,
successful product

The order and substance of these events are _not_ how new, big, innovative
things have been built in the past. If anything, it's like this:

lots of hard work -> failure -> even more hard work -> skepticism, ridicule
(optional) -> failure -> even more hard work -> early adopters "get it" ->
small successes -> more hard work -> big successes -> mainstream adoption ->
donations/funding/etc -> NYT article -> success

~~~
Tawheed
What you're describing sounds like what I'm going through now with Braintrust.
A small subset of people "get it" but there's still a lot of hard work ahead.

------
cubes
The reasoning in this article is pretty specious and circular. Some of the
author's arguments can be summed up as:

* Diaspora will fail because it sounds similar to something someone else tried one time that failed.

* Nobody will use Diaspora because it will fail.

* Diaspora will fail because nobody will use it.

* Nobody will use Diaspora because it will never ship.

* Nobody will want to pay for Diaspora because nobody will want to pay for it.

* Diaspora will fail because the creators are young.

I don't know whether or not Diaspora will succeed. The old school cypherpunk
in me wants to see Diaspora, or something similar, succeed. I would be more
curious to see a well reasoned article on the obstacles Diaspora has to face
with getting traction, and finding a viable business model.

~~~
GrandMasterBirt
1) It will only succeed if it integrates into shit like facebook. (as in can
pull friends from there)

2) It will only succeed if setting it up is only a tiny bit more difficult
than facebook.

3) It will only succeed if a hosting service provides basic plans for say 300M
of storage of an automatically set-up account. The idea is its as easy as
facebook BUT you own an encrypted account instance which can't be used by the
hosting service. The service makes money by people investing 1-10 bucks a
month for their super awesome more space service.

I cannot imagine it ever succeeding if these conditions are not met. (1) is an
uphill battle, (2) possible, (3) idk what the cost possibility is.

Maybe 1 is not so bad, but when FB started MySpace was not the size of
facebook today, and it was sort-of crap. Will people be willing to just leave
facebook and their friends and stuff to go to this new service? Its like why
people still use AIM today. AIM protocol ain't great, but if your friends are
on there, you can't use google talk, because everyone you know is not there.

But yea the article is all about "kids cant succeed" and circular arguments.

~~~
cubes
Facebook did not integrate in to MySpace, and managed to unseat it. I agree
that ease of use is key, and this is what has crippled cypherpunk projects in
the past; it's why STARTTLS protects so much email, and PGP protects so
little. Also, most people using IM service today use Adium or Pidgin, which
supports multiple networks.

------
vegashacker
_They [Diaspora] offer anyone who donates $2,000 or more a brand new computer
specifically "configured" to host Diaspora. Again, it had better at least be a
Mac Mini, because I'm having a hard time coming up with any reason that a
server for this sole purpose should cost so much money._

That's such a bizarre criticism. It's a donation. The server is a thank you
gift for your donation. It's not supposed to match that cost of your donation,
or else what's the point of the donation?

Incidentally, when I saw this server offer on the Diaspora website, I thought
that was too big a gift for only $2000. Not only is there the cost of the
hardware, but also configuration time, and probably support time too.

~~~
pjackson
I agree. I'm pretty sure the diaspora team wasn't expecting such a huge
response and priced their rewards accordingly. "What is someone donates 1/5th
of what we need? Let's send em a computer!"

------
NathanKP
That is one highly negative, pessimistic viewpoint, but I have to agree that
he does have some valid points. I can't see that many people will have the
technical skill to install Diaspora. They don't know what a server is and
think that the internet is somehow magically inside their computer. Unless
Diaspora finds some way to make running the server extremely simple people
won't adopt it. Also they would have to educate their users on the basics of
server operation. (Otherwise someone will start their Diaspora server, then
turn the computer off and wonder why no one can see their profile.)

It sounds like a mess to me, and I agree that only the geekiest of people will
even attempt to adopt it, and of those I wonder how many will stick with it.

~~~
randallsquared
Each server is single-profile? If so, I agree that that's a terrible design.
I'd assumed that it was more jabber-like in that anyone could start a server,
rather than having to have one.

~~~
NathanKP
It sounds like each server is single-profile, though perhaps the server could
be shared for a household. But if you want the true privacy of Diaspora then
yes you would need to host your own Diaspora server.

~~~
anamax
"need to" points to biz opportunities.

If people actually care, there will be a number of services providing
"servers" under various conditions. Some will be advertising supported. Some
will be for-pay. Some will be subsidized. Some will be shared. Some will be
virtual. and so on.

~~~
randallsquared
This is exactly what I assumed. This model would allow the Diaspora developing
company to host their own set of servers to jumpstart the network effects.

------
stevenbrianhall
I happen to agree with most of the press about Diaspora being doomed to fail.
According to phrases and ideas all of us throw around, it's doomed to fail.

If I were the Diaspora team, I'd print out every piece of negative press and
post it up on the wall in front of me. Then I'd make a pot of coffee and get
to coding, using my "bad press" wall as my motivation to beat the hell out of
the naysayers with a fantastic product a few months down the road.

The number of stories where the underdog or unknown in the start-up world
surprises everyone and creates something unbelievably successful is
staggering. I guess that's why I can't help but root for them. The odds are
stacked against them, for sure, but that kind of pressure has brought forth
some world-rocking products, and it's not my place to declare something dead
before it's even been born.

~~~
what
> If I were the Diaspora team, I'd print out every piece of negative press and
> post it up on the wall in front of me. Then I'd make a pot of coffee and get
> to coding, using my "bad press" wall as my motivation to beat the hell out
> of the naysayers with a fantastic product a few months down the road.

They're too busy making flyers:
[http://www.joindiaspora.com/2010/04/24/awesome-flyers-are-
he...](http://www.joindiaspora.com/2010/04/24/awesome-flyers-are-here.html)

~~~
logic
Surely it's relevant to point out that those are from a month ago, during
their fundraising push?

~~~
what
Sure. But it shows you where their priorities are. Rather than actually work
on Diaspora, they're working on raising money for "a bunch of ideas" in
exchange for the promise of releasing Diaspora as aGPL software.

On their blog they say "We think a project focused getting something out there
should be priority #1." Their priority #1 was fundraising and talking to the
press.

------
plesn
Basically, this sums up to two things criticized:

1) the decentralized architecture: people won't install servers

2) not concrete enough: they only pile buzzwords and money for now. See also
the 37signals criticism <http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2330-diasporas-curse>

While I mostly agree with (2) I think that we can't criticise (1) based on the
current situation on the web because the whole innovation -- if it happens --
is precisely the way all this will be done. Just saying "people having
servers? crazy!" is just as pointless as saying "people having personnal
computers? crazy" was 3 decades ago ago: people sort of already use servers
all the time: DSL boxes and smart phones on the hardware side, bittorrent on
the software side. So of course it is not easy, but don't forget that if there
is a need for such a thing, it will eventually made easy to use. And
concerning diaspora, it's not even about servers, it's about standards: think
rather about something like email. The question is rather if will we go
towards more decentralisation of the data and more autonomy for the users on
the net.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> So of course it is not easy, but don't forget that if there is a need for
> such a thing […]

I'd rather say "if there is a _perceived_ need". The actual need is there for
quite some time. The hard part is to collectively realize that.

------
GiraffeNecktie
Yeah there's no way a bunch of university students can compete with a big,
established social networking site! Oh wait ...

~~~
what
I don't think the article argued that they can't compete because they're
university students. It mentioned that this idea has been tried in the past
and failed. Also that the average Joe won't want, likely even know how, to set
up their own seed. People probably don't want to pay to host their own seed.
Not mention you're going to go where your friends are. People aren't going to
leave Facebook in droves because a couple of their nerdy friends left. Did you
even read the article? Granted it's rather negative, but some of the points
are valid.

~~~
devinj
It emphasized that the creators were "kids" who had "high school English". If
he didn't state it outright, he implied it.

------
msy
I think the key points here - that it won't get critical mass and that people
aren't going to host their own are both demonstrably solvable. Hosting: there
will be an open market for people to set up hosted seeds of every level and
flavour and Flickr showed that people will pay for a social service. There's
nothing stopping someone offering free seeds with advertising. And nothing
stopping someone selling pre-configured VMs with gobs of storage.

The network effect is more interesting. Diaspora is designed to hoover content
from other networks, I can see how I could use it as much as a distribution
and management system as a network in and of itself. It's a meta-network, an
identity framework on which services can be built. That mechanism will
hopefully provide base utility from day one, as well as an open platform on
which people can easily build new and innovative services without those ideas
being dependent on either a 3rd party's infrastructure or building one
themselves.

I'm not convinced it's going to succeed but I'm hopeful.

------
jeiting
I imagine this could work if a third party steps in as a seed hosting service.
Perhaps how domain registrants or OpenID services work. "I have my seed
through SeedFactory" but it shouldn't really matter who's seeds are through
whom, much like the way DNS works today.

The article is correct. Not even nerds are going to install their own nodes,
if that is the model they are relying on.

------
ErrantX
I too think Diaspora will fail (got a blog post in the works with more
specific reasoning) but I think this is a little too pessimistic.

Sure they've got a lot of money; which is not a good thing really. Sure their
plan (as much as we have seen of it so far) has serious hurdles to overcome.

Im pretty sure that it won't be the solution everyone is looking for.

But we should let them give it a shot. Hell if they had come to me asking for
$10K I'd have given it to them and let them at least try.

There is technical merit in the idea. It is going to raise the profile of
privacy in general and moving away from FB in particular. And at the end there
will be things to take away and work with.

It might even fluke out and take off - wierder things have happened.

We can _criticise_ now, but lets not judge.

------
dlnovell
Sorry if this has already been commented on - how in the hell can anyone
insist that "no one will want to setup their own seed because it will be too
difficult"? It hasn't been developed yet so how does anyone know what setup
will be required? What if they figure out how to automate configuration?

Maybe I'm missing something, but bittorrent is wildly popular, typically
requires little to no configuration, and acts a "seed" (node) in a distributed
network. I don't understand why the prevailing assumption is that diaspora
will necessarily require some complicated configuration that is beyond the
capabilities of your average, competent computer user.

~~~
ErrantX
By "no one" we generally mean "the vast majority". As tech-able people we make
up a small minority of social network users - many many people struggle with
aspects of Facebook. Setting up a Diaspora seed (while possibly not beyond
them to learn!) is an immediate turn off :)

------
pjackson
It's an interesting, if severely opinionated, analysis. The author makes a
sound argument, but I think he's wrong. The landscape has changed a lot in the
two years since Appleseed was abandoned.

Also, it used to be that facebook was only used by the savvy folks. Now my
grandmother has a facebook account.

If they made a one-click installer that ran on my iMac and automatically
discovered all of my media, then configured it into a personal web server,
then allowed me to friend people via email, I'd probably love it. I might even
pay for it.

------
pstevensza
Diaspora will be a geek resource at best, possibly backed by a nice network in
academia. For the vast majority of people who post photos of their weekend
(mis)adventures to share with family and friends, it just isn't going to work.
No-one in my family in the UK is going to host their own seed. Thus, I will
use Facebook, where my non-technical friends and family are. If I want to
share ideas with the nerd set, I hammer out a blog post, link in some Gists
and have Posterous fire off a notification via Twitter.

------
DrSprout
Someone really needs to start a nonprofit Facebook with the same basic design
goals, a steering board, and probably some nominal monthly costs for
accumulating more than 2GB of photos. Facebook solves the Internet anonymity
problem, but it does so in a business-oriented way, which is gradually eroding
the benefits of verified identity.

Only a non-profit with the stated mission of facilitating private and
consensual friendship between existing, identified private individuals can
really solve the problem.

------
blhack
I'm sorry, but why are people even _talking_ about this thing? It's...nothing.

Hey, guys, I'm going to start a new social networking site and it's going to,
uhh...solve all the problems that facebook has! I'll call it "beehive". (Oh,
wait, that might actually make sense)

Me and my "team" are going to pose around for a bunch of hip shots of us
sitting around and being hip.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound so harsh, I just _don't get it_ with all this
buzz over this non-project.

~~~
dfj225
I think a lot of the buzz is meta-buzz, especially here on HN. Like you said,
there is no product, just an idea. I think what's interesting is that with
only an idea they were able to generate a lot of cash through donations.

I don't think any of us here would expect to just have an idea and then see
170 grand fall into our laps.

------
cianestro
"Now that we have much more money than we asked for, our situation has changed
a little." --Diaspora Team O.O

What does HN think about gift donations instead of money as a funding
platform? A site that simply allows startups to request the raw
materials/skills they need and people pledge those things. Kind of like a
potluck but for funding.

------
philcrissman
IIRC, offering a hosted version ala Wordpress.com is part of their plan. I'm
not positive they'll succeed, but I don't think there's an intrinsic reason
their plan can't succeed.

Depends on the quality of what they build (apologies for this blatantly
obvious commentary, but really, that's what will matter, I think).

------
moomba
I doubt that this product will become successful.

I'm not concerned so much with the publicity and the undeserved donations. The
article does bring up a good point about having these "seeds" serve their own
mini social networks. I don't see how the average user will plan on taking up
this task.

------
nhooey
Well, at least when it all comes crashing down, we can call it _"Disaspora"_.

------
melling
If we could only channel all the pointless effort that went into writing this
article, and others like it, into some way to contribute to projects like
Diaspora, we could actually accomplish a lot.

~~~
shpxnvz
There will always be more critics than makers; the trick is to remember which
really matters.

 _It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong
man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The
credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred
by dust and sweat and blood..._

<http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html>

------
misuba
Where did people get the idea that you'll have to set up your own seed? Most
people can't install WordPress either; hence WordPress.com and a viable open-
source business model.

------
Ionic_Walrus
the article has no merit, younger people get the technology and are open to
try it out.

------
coconutrandom
Ugh, this post is irritating. Did you fund Disporia? No? then why do you care
about its success? or its funding? or the buzzwords? or whatever?

Let them try before condemning them to failure.

"By the way, what have you done that’s so great? Do you... just criticize
others work and belittle their motivations?"

