I'm involved in a team developing a new messaging app.
Our main problem is that people who register in our app just go after some time. We've been thinking on the solution, but did not figure out any good solution.
So we decided to investigate how other messengers got popular. It's quite obvious about WhatsApp, but what's the thing with the others (Viber, Kik)? If we do the same, we could gain some userbase and money for further development.
Disclaimer, I'm not Googling anything, so I might be wrong when typing this out of memory.
>MSN
It was early in the game.
>Hi5/Bebo
Social media with photos, later losing to Facebook.
>Myspace
Similar to Hi5 and Bebo, but had something to do with music.
>Skype
This was the first "conference" messenger in the 00's era, allowing Online Multiplayer gaming and talking at the time.
>Viber
"So, now that we all have 3G and it's possible to communicate on the internet, how come there isn't a standard platform to do so internationally, free?"
>Snapchat.
Self-deleting nudes.
>KIK
Permanent nudes.
>Tinder
Hook ups and shit.
>Grindr
Gay Tinder
It's obvious apparently.
Anyway, OP, when your "business idea" is something that exists, you want to make it a combination of 3 things:
1. Better.
2. Less expensive.
3. Different.
Especially important is #3, why would people switch for no reason when what exists is already fine? You sound like one of those "It's like facebook, but ____________________________ and we charge for it."
>>1104401
Ask yourself why anyone would choose your product over the others (Kik and viber, for example).
>>1104401
If you're being paid in "stock" or being promised proper payment once the app goes big then gtfo of there and get a better job.
There's hundreds of teams like yours that are trying to become the next whatsapp, but whatsapp isn't going anywhere.
>>1104417
LOL. Italy €2033. Now way
>>1104417
Our main feature is strong encryption. But a lot of competence exists among secure messengers. Still, most of them are designed to be used by experienced computer users. So, generally, normies are not interested in them, even if "encryption" sounds good.
So, what other features can we add?
Ok, so how to get people hook and make them stay?
Obviously, they will not invite their freinds to a creepy messenger. So they should have the ability to find them inside, right?
I think a "messenger where you could find new friends for a casual chat" sounds good?
How to implement that technically?
>>1104501
Normies don't care about encryption, autists do.
And autists probably know about Retroshare and Ricochet.
http://retroshare.sourceforge.net
https://ricochet.im
I mean, you're not offering anything new. And why would they stay to a platform that none of their friends are using?
Wearable devices are "in" at the moment, so maybe make an App that has features for the iWatch or it's Samsung equivalent or something with a big "BOOM" for the typical normie.
>>1104527
Omegle and Whisper already exist.
>>1104535
Very shitty. The first question as A/S/L in most cases.
We can combine Omegle and Whisper.
>>1104531
>Normies don't care about encryption
True, but why?
>Retroshare
No webapp or mobile version.
>>1104550
Normies don't care if the NSA can read your shit. According to Snowden, even if it is encrypted there is a huge possibility that the NSA can read your shit anyways.
>>1104401
Well nothing wrong with going for marketshare in a competitive space but like the other anon said you need to offer something different.
Maybe there is a niche market you can go for like put little anime girl avatars I dont know
>>1104569
>mfw next unicorn app is a messenger with anime girl avatars
Sorry to burst your bubble OP but social networking apps are basically what old people with no experience in tech think they can build to get as rich as Mark Zuckerberg overnight.
It's quite literally the first idea that people have: "well it's like Facebook but ..." Ok - fuck off. Have you any idea how much I've heard that pitch? I work as a software developer so the answer is a lot. But the saturation isn't the problem here. The real problem with your idea is something called the "network effect" which basically states that for certain services the usefulness of the service is defined by the square of its users. For example - take file sharing. You develop a better protocol for p2p and release it but no one uses it. Why? Because other people aren't already using it and thus you can only get shit speeds.
In that sense (successful) social networking apps work like this:
1. An app explodes for no reason - no one really knows why but experts think they do.
2. People start using the app because so many other people are already using it.
3. The app gets even more popular with a feedback loop into 2.
Your app looks like this:
1. You develop an idea that you think will explode for no reason - you think you know why this will work when you're full of shit.
2. You grind to try get users and manage to get sign-ups.
3. The people who sign up stop using it because there's so few people there and so little to do on it. Feedback loop into 2.
But lets assume for a moment that you manage to stumble onto the first model (you won't - but for the sake of argument - lets say you do.) What kind of business model do you think would make this worth-while? Let me guess - advertising? And that's where you're really fucked because to even make $1k per month would require traffic in the hundreds of thousands - and with that much traffic in another business you could literally make millions.
tl; dr, your business model sucks and the idea is cliche as fuck
>>1104401
Telegram was a big thing in Brazil a while ago when our shitty government blocked WhatsApp in the whole country for 48h, presumably due to WhatsApp refusing to collaborate in a crime investigation (even though we all knew they did this for the phone companies who took a big economical hit after WhatsApp became a thing).
The ban was then lifted previously than expected after brazillian people went fucking apeshit over this situation (apparently the government can fuck us in the ass for our whole lives, but if they even touch our social networks, shit gets real).
People then quickly forgot about Telegram. I guess this kinda explains some of the downloads and then sudden uninstalls.
I really liked the app btw, had a lot of fun with the bot thing.
>>1104550
>>Normies don't care about encryption
>True, but why?
>if you got nothing to hide then why does it matter :-)
>>1104633
>Let me guess - advertising?
No. Donations. Selling stickers, etc.
>>1104633
This guy explained it to you, now fuck off.
>>1104462
The few very rich people rising the stat probably
>>1104633
This line of thinking isn't entirely inaccurate but it is defeatist
Your whole mentality is basically "if it doesn't magically explode into popularity then it's shit." Not to mention you preemptively deny anyone who claims they might have even a hint about what makes something popular.
So basically, anytime an app or social networking site gets insanely popular, it's unknowable magic and anyone who ever claims to know is a liar.
Cool so now what? Guess we should all just stop making anything new since we don't know wtf will work.
Or wait, maybe we should all make new apps and just gamble on if it will work or not.
>>1104401
OP, you can make a better app without forcing it into popularity and admittedly with some of that meme luck you can end up with something successful.
However you need to not focus on what made other stuff popular, but simply what else can be done and what can be done better.
For instance, Skype is a superpower when it comes to video and voice calling, but its design and IM features have always been like an incredibly strong retard- it gets what it wants and stays alive through brute force, but it's still pretty fucking stupid.
Many of the messaging apps have started out with popularity in certain groups and grew from there. I remember when I first started seeing kik come up so much, it was because it didn't keep any chat logs so it was promoted for its privacy, similar to how Snapchat was supposed to be self-deleting (though people found their way around it). Kik now is a bit more standard, but it still holds itself above Skype because it's far more simple and less clunky, less bugs, and a much better design and expressiveness (cuz Skype is a giant mass of white space which forces shitty emoticons and ads and gets worse and buggier with each update)
>>1104401
So if you really want to dive into messaging apps, then you need something far more effective than the others. Encryption isn't enough. We don't all use Tor do we? It's a perk but not enough to drive an app.
Photo sharing is covered by Snapchat, voice/video calling is covered by Skype, Kik and WhatsApp have simplicity and plenty of options for usage. At this point, conventional thinking would just say that you need something that can 'do everything' at once. Alternatively, you could just try to be a connection app like Pidgin and Trillion, but good luck getting any help from Microsoft in connecting Skype to anything else.
But hey, there are always new innovations that can be done. Just don't purely focus on ONE feature. You can promote one feature as better than what all the other apps out there have, but then you better have everything ELSE the other apps have too, or nobody is going to give enough shit to abandon what already works for something new and niche.
Don't wait for popularity to get you the money you need to be unique. That shit is on you. Figure out what people want that they haven't gotten yet, and do it before anyone else no matter what your cost, and even then you still need the wind at your side to get noticed.
Why the fuck would you want another messaging app? It'd be easier trying to sell sand to a people at a beach.
>>1104401
You went into a saturated market. You have to stand out and give people a reason to use your app over all the other more established apps. It's not impossible but I wouldn't want to have to do it.
Might be better off starting a new project. I stay the fuck away from apps and shit like that for money. So much competition.
>>1106414
Any ideas on what new features can be added?
>>1107162
You don't even know what you want to make? Why do you want to make it so badly then?
>>1104821
>(apparently the government can fuck us in the ass for our whole lives, but if they even touch our social networks, shit gets real).
Yeah, it's not two missed meals from revolution, it's a few days sans entertainment.
>>1104501
Can you make it so its compatible with other messaging apps? I.e. you can send messages from one app to the other?
>>1107221
Also what about implementing a feature where you can get recommended people to talk to based on distance? Like same, within a 100k radius etc.?
You choose if you just want to see people in your city or nearby and by how far.
What about.. Searchable index of user-made topic/subject-based group conversations, that last say an hour, with a limited population per conversation like say 100.
>>1104501
Focus on B2B sales then. Make your app the standard in interoffice chats. The current array of interoffice chat programs suck. Either they don't support multi media features like image sharing, screen sharing, voice etc, or they only support some but not all, or they support all and they're horribly vulnerable to hacking and outside attacks.
Focus on businesses.
And offer "free" secured mobile add ons so mid level and senior tier employees can chat with coworkers outside the office.
>>1104401
Make it support inline pictures.
This is why jabber is still shit and why anybody at all still uses aim.
>>1107244
In fact you wanna be really smart, focus on one industry.
Hospitals. Sure Google Talk/Hangouts is free but YOURS guarantees HIPAA compliance. Transportation/Logistics. Sure Lync is attached to Outlook but YOURS supports GIS/Geospatial mapping tools.
But yea. Fuck the people focus on the businesses. Personal chat is cluttered with "good enough". Business chat is in need of a gold standard
>>1107259
Do this.
Or do 2 apps, one for businesses and one for the public.
>>1104401
Tbh wechat is goat and has a goat system and layout.
>>1106402
>defeatist
It is, to a certain degree. A great way to get there is to have numerous superior products fail for no other reason. For the life of me I can't get why eBay, as broken as much of it is, hasn't been destroyed.
Hey OP, I'm a faithful user of Telegram specifically because it's encrypted. Maybe not a lot of people are educated about their privacy now but they will as the problem gets more attention
Telegram is just bland
Although it is a good app
Make a Tinder app, but with clothes.
>How ?
People put picture of their clothes that they want to trade. People People whose clothes has matched are connected so they can trade their clothes.
>Who the hell would use this shit ?
Will work because :
- girls have a lot of clothes and always want new clothes
- people hate spending money
- this is eco-friendly, green, reusable.
- people love swiping on tinder-like stuff.
- girls love to look at clothes and picturing themselves wearing them, so they'll go on the app even if they don't wish to trade no clothes at all
- you can show off by puting expensive clothes/nice pictures of you in your clothes and pretending that you which to trade them, when you actually simply want to see how many matches you'll get.
>Money ?
How to monetize it :
- advertising
- add a (sponsorised) "buy this clothe in store" on popular matches
- let companies register on your app and propose their own clothes
>Much more interesting than a boring encrypted messaging app.
>>1107774
This sounds good too.
>>1107774
Hey it's a decent idea
>>1107774
not bad, anon
You need to get celebrities to use it
>>1107745
>because it's encrypted
Do you use secret chats or think every conversation is encrypted?
>>1107774
How should I name it?
>>1108781
bangaboo
schumber
jowegan
frisker
dadumdi
haza
crue
wadamba
jukes
folendar
gabun
lound
qopi
>>1109464
>flomannotinni
>>1108781
Niqqr
>>1109488
>Tim tom, are you on that 18+ website again?
>What did I tell you about visiting that floor chang? come on out, papa has cake
>>1107774
anon you should've kept this idea for yourself, now someone is going to take it and make shekels off of it
>>1109487
>leflomannotinnipizzacoin
>>1109511
>implying this my idea
The idea of mixing clothes+tinder isn't really new. For example :
http://fashionista.com/2014/05/tinder-for-fashion-apps
The only originality is that content would be posted by users. So it would be more or less like a random ebay browser, that girls (main target) would use as a kind of instagram.
This, however, highlights the flaw in this concept : it relies heavily on users. If as >>1108601 said, you get some celebrities to use it, it will take off. Just like anything. If they don't, it won't. Basically, if nobody uses it, nobody uses it, the same problem as the OP exposed.
The other flaw is that people may actually don't want to speak to each other if they match. I mean, it isn't because you like someone else's clothes that you wish to talk to them ? I don't know, it may be pretty awkward. People are weird. Especially girls.
>you should've kept this idea for yourself
I don't think I should've. Because of the two major flaws of the concept, it is really hazardous for me to invest a lot in it. I'm still a student. If I needed to do it myself, it would take years, and when I'll have finished, the trend would be gone.
OP, however, seems to already have a team and experience, he only needs a good idea, and I'm happy to contribute to his success, if he wishes to pick up this idea.
>>1109534
NSA pls
>>1104633
I would add that the best way to add customers is incrementally dont just shoot for the largest demographic twitter started as a specific fan fiction rp site and facebook was started for zuckerbergs dormmates
>>1109534
>because what the fuck will they do with your petty info anyway??
build a geo-spacial recognizing AI and use it to oppress the world
hello
>>1107234
So... This site?
>>1113762
4chan has a fixed list of boards. It should add user boards and make notifications when someone replies to your post. Also it should be made be more normie-friendly.
