
Apps, made better by everyone - chrislloyd
http://assemblymade.tumblr.com/post/64965250674/apps-made-better-by-everyone
======
martythemaniak
It's a very interesting idea - so much so I can't think of anything to compare
it to directly. It's like github, but instead of contributing to a repository,
you're contributing to a running operation?

One thing I'm unclear about: how do you handle disagreements/forking? As in, I
want to add a feature I need, but can't get it greenlit, can I easily run the
app elsewhere?

Anyway, I'm interested to see how it turns out. Valve's structure is based on
similar principles, so there's definitely something there.

[http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-
what-d...](http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-do-we-
need-corporations-for-and-how-does-valves-management-structure-fit-into-
todays-corporate-world/)

~~~
bitsweet
Thanks, regarding disagreements, this is from our FAQ[1]

 _The Assembly platform is intended to allow everyone to vote and influence
the direction of an app. Assembly also actively surfaces key metrics so all
decisions are data driven and can even be reevaluated and rolled back later
when more data is available. In the event the community hasn 't come to a
clear direction and the data is inconclusive, the core team will be left to
mediate disputes and decide on an outcome._

[1]
[https://assemblymade.com/help/general#general-7](https://assemblymade.com/help/general#general-7)

~~~
rgbrgb
Cool idea but this sounds a lot like design by committee. For end-user apps,
there's nothing like focused design leadership to drive cohesive product
decisions.

~~~
bitsweet
Our goal is to mirror as much as possible the collaboration process that open
source uses to build better libraries then proprietary ones. Each product has
a core team that will help lead the direction. You can read more about it on
the FAQ:

[https://assemblymade.com/help/general#general-6](https://assemblymade.com/help/general#general-6)

~~~
alttab
Sounds like a bunch of "core" people could get open source contributors, then
muscle the votes so no one gets paid.

------
joshcrowder
Its a great idea - but the terms are horrible. From my understanding Assembly
made own the rights to the software and a pretty big stake in application.

The article talks about forking code, contributing to open source but goes
directly against it.

[https://assemblymade.com/tos](https://assemblymade.com/tos)

~~~
chrislloyd
You're granting us an exclusive commercial license (not assigning your IP). We
ask for that license so we can ensure that the other contributors who have
worked on a project get paid.

We've decided to distribute the code with a modified-BSD license. We're open
to discussing using different licenses but we've erred on the site of safety
(for now). It'll be an easy change to make in the future when the risk/reward
tradeoff of doing so is better known.

BTW, all our legal stuff is on on GitHub:
[https://github.com/assemblymade/legal](https://github.com/assemblymade/legal)
It's a work in progress :)

~~~
sorich87
The FAQ says otherwise about the IP...

> To do this, Assembly must keep and manage all intellectual property derived
> from Assembly apps. In exchange for that ownership, we give you perpetual
> income based on the extent of your contribution to all projects you work on.

~~~
joshcrowder
This was my take away as well

------
llambda
I spoke at length with these guys last night. My takeaway is that this isn't
something I personally would get involved in.

First and foremost because I have a preference for starting my own projects
independently as opposed to signing on with Assembly; for a number of reasons,
chief among them is arguably personal preference and perhaps a bit of an
entrepreneurial streak. I also think there's a potentiality, as open source
continues to grow in popularity, for corporate-funded projects to be more
alluring given that they provide a steady paycheck and benefits if you work
for the company. For example, I work on an open source project which was
initially an internal project developed for my employer and later released to
the public. Today we maintain the codebase and in a sense I am paid to do that
particular bit of open source work (I don't exclusively work on that, of
course). Maybe this isn't a fair comparison, but I wouldn't give up my day
job, which affords some of the benefits Assembly is ostensibly offering (get
paid to do open source), or exchange the free time I spend on my own projects
for this kind of stake sharing in a project or product...at least not yet.

On the other hand, this might be exactly what some people are looking to do in
their free time: maybe you don't want to start your own company or you want to
spend time in open source but prefer to get paid for it and your employer has
no intention of helping you scratch that itch. However, given that last
comment in particular, I really wonder if money is the proper motivating
factor for so much of what the community has come to mean? Certainly the
prestige of working on a popular or important project has historically been
far more valuable than monetary compensation (and can even lead to monetary
compensation these days, if a savvy employer is involved and happens to notice
you're a Linux kernel committer or some such).

It's an interesting idea, that I'm sure of and I'm wishing these guys the best
of luck with it! While I may not be their target audience, it does seem like
there could be something here. So here's to hoping it develops into something
awesome.

------
rushabh
These are all problems (email client, better support app, better mailing list)
many of us on HN fantasise about but each has a whole bunch of schleps
associated with it. The motivation to jump through all the loops is tempered
by pragmatism that sets in after the first few hours.

This is an interesting way of attacking the problem. Some thoughts:

1\. Community will be attracted / restricted by the platform.

2\. There is too much fatigue out there, as there are so many such "ideas"
competing for mind-space.

3\. SAAS based products for small businesses, freelancers has become a kind of
a cottage industry with limited scalability. I am doubtful how much revenue
this can generate.

~~~
bitsweet
Good comments. A few thoughts...

We only kickoff building one app a month.

 _1.Community will be attracted / restricted by the platform._

We agree and realize helping the community grow as a core responsibility of
assembly.

 _2\. There is too much fatigue out there, as there are so many such "ideas"
competing for mind-space._

We've thought a lot about this too. These are just of few of the initial app
ideas we received. We curate all the new ideas that come in and work with the
submitters on the promising ones before putting them up.

 _3\. SAAS based products for small businesses, freelancers has become a kind
of a cottage industry with limited scalability. I am doubtful how much revenue
this can generate._

I believe some the current app ideas are attacking larger opportunities, for
example support-foo.. its proprietary competition would be a Zendesk.
"Zendesk’s fiscal 2012 revenue will be approximately $30 million"[1]

[1] [http://www.pehub.com/2012/11/29/zendesk-ready-2013-ipo-
sourc...](http://www.pehub.com/2012/11/29/zendesk-ready-2013-ipo-sources/)

~~~
alttab
1\. this is a big responsiblity. Are you really signed up for this?

2\. You curate the ideas? Doesn't sound very open to me. What about voting?
How can you make this more democratic?

3\. I'm not convinced these projects could gain traction against a dedicated
team of people lead by experienced people in the industry, paid a full time
salary, with the sole purpose of making a profit. I would imagine that the
open-source "everyone gets paid" thing is where this idea will fall flat on
its face. Not sure it will get there though, because this process has to
produce an app that generates revenue above operating costs first.

------
graham1776
Can a non-technical person contribute and idea and watch other people build it
if it gets chosen?

Is this an "idea sourcing" engine or more "crowdsourcing developers without
needing to join a full startup"?

~~~
whatupdave
Non-technical people can definitely contribute to the apps. For one if it's
their idea, they get an immediate stake in future profits. There is also a lot
of marketing and strategy work that goes into any successful product. The
community around each product will vote the relative merits of each
contribution. Basically, if someone submits work that is deemed good, they
will receive a stake in profits.

In terms of where it lies on the idea sourcing to building spectrum, I would
say it's definitely leaning towards building successful products. There's no
shortage of good ideas floating around, we want to help organise people
together to build great products and push those products to succeed.

------
mp3jeep01
Very much reminds me of Quirky for Apps -- AFAIK Quirky is doing really well.
Congrats on the launch guys!

------
dotmanish
If Support-Foo is going to be open source, and as per its description "
_Instead of charging per-seat, it would charge by volume of support._ ", then
why does the Enterprise option say " _1 year license_ to run behind the
firewall with unlimited support and agents" ?

Is it open-source, and you need a license to run it behind a firewall?

~~~
whatupdave
To ensure collaboration is easy the code is open-source. To ensure
contributors get paid for their work we'll run a hosted version and allow
companies to run it themselves with a commercial license.

~~~
devd
I stand corrected - Now I see it is like developing AGPL products by a group
of individuals/community. Interesting concept, reminds me of an idea pitched
to me few years back.

------
mempko
Ah, almost communism except for the meritocracy part. Not sure why the Valley
people are so into meritocracy....

~~~
kazagistar
The less constrained by basic needs people are, the more important the social
desires, like acknowlegement, cooperation, sharing and so on become. There is
plenty of cach to go around in software, hence people act a lot less based on
purely selfish, materialistic motives.

~~~
alanctgardner2
I think you misread "meritocracy" as a good thing. Meritocracy is pretty much
Ayn Rand's ideal society: the truly talented, superior people rise to the top
and dominate the lesser. This is an uber-capitalist notion: the ubermensch
pretty much can't be nice to inferiors, because that opens the door for
cronyism, nepotism, etc.

By contrast, communism would be the ultimate expression of sharing,
cooperation, etc. but it ignores people's skill in the distribution of value.
The old maxim, "from each according to ability, to each according to need"
means that someone who is paralyzed and (would have) massive medical bills
receives free treatment, food, etc. to stay alive. Obviously this comes from
more "skilled" people - doctors - who in a meritocracy would instead extract
the maximum value from their skills.

------
matt_kantor
Will Assembly itself be open source?

------
pallandt
Neat idea, I like this very much.

