Comments on: Welcome to Next Small Things! http://chaolam.wordpress.com/2005/09/01/welcome-to-next-small-things/ Working on the next small things ... Thu, 07 May 2009 01:48:09 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: chao http://chaolam.wordpress.com/2005/09/01/welcome-to-next-small-things/#comment-5 chao Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:19:24 +0000 http://chaolam.wordpress.com/2005/09/01/welcome-to-next-small-things/#comment-5 Shooperman, great points! We should discuss this more. But my initial idea is that, for phase one, we are more passive, and _observe_ how our 'alpha' (in both senses - alpha geek & alpha tester) users actually use the product and how they would like to use the product. From their actual usage, we can then be a little more smart about narrowing to a core group, or to a core user domain - which I agree is essential. Shooperman, great points! We should discuss this more. But my initial idea is that, for phase one, we are more passive, and _observe_ how our ‘alpha’ (in both senses – alpha geek & alpha tester) users actually use the product and how they would like to use the product. From their actual usage, we can then be a little more smart about narrowing to a core group, or to a core user domain – which I agree is essential.

]]> By: shooperman http://chaolam.wordpress.com/2005/09/01/welcome-to-next-small-things/#comment-4 shooperman Mon, 05 Sep 2005 02:34:13 +0000 http://chaolam.wordpress.com/2005/09/01/welcome-to-next-small-things/#comment-4 I believe there should be 2 levels of measurements on how successful a company is in the new Web2.0 economy: 1. The number of 'small things' a company has built online services for. Here, ClipClip would be just one small thing. Robo-Co-Op would have 3 small things: 43things, 43places and allconsuming (personal library of books, cds and movies). 2. Within each 'small thing', number of users, frequency of use and stickiness would be important too. These attributes would map to your market size (potential), value to end-user and loyalty. Actually, I'm pulling these out of a hat for the sake of discussion but deep down, I got a feeling that some 'small things' will be more successful than others. For example, I believe flickr is and will be more successful than 43things because keeping a photo album has more potential users, requires more frequent updates (everything your digital camera storage runs out) and more stickiness (I can re-type my list of things, but re-upload 1+ GB of photos?). If you agree with what I propose in (2), ClipClip would then have a good chance to be a successful 'small thing', well, for a start, we should benchmark it against 43thing's growth. However, I also feel we should think about who our 'alpha' group of users would be. Don't think I have to explain why early adopters would be important. But at the moment, we seem to be designing this for anyone who wants to make a clip. Can I propose that we nail down on an early adopter group to design the release candidate for and work from there. Two proposals: a. Bloggers b. Bookmarkers (ala delicious users) My vote is going for bloggers because the implicit viral value of this group is going to help Clipclip grow :) I believe there should be 2 levels of measurements on how successful a company is in the new Web2.0 economy:

1. The number of ’small things’ a company has built online services for. Here, ClipClip would be just one small thing. Robo-Co-Op would have 3 small things: 43things, 43places and allconsuming (personal library of books, cds and movies).

2. Within each ’small thing’, number of users, frequency of use and stickiness would be important too. These attributes would map to your market size (potential), value to end-user and loyalty. Actually, I’m pulling these out of a hat for the sake of discussion but deep down, I got a feeling that some ’small things’ will be more successful than others. For example, I believe flickr is and will be more successful than 43things because keeping a photo album has more potential users, requires more frequent updates (everything your digital camera storage runs out) and more stickiness (I can re-type my list of things, but re-upload 1+ GB of photos?).

If you agree with what I propose in (2), ClipClip would then have a good chance to be a successful ’small thing’, well, for a start, we should benchmark it against 43thing’s growth.

However, I also feel we should think about who our ‘alpha’ group of users would be. Don’t think I have to explain why early adopters would be important. But at the moment, we seem to be designing this for anyone who wants to make a clip. Can I propose that we nail down on an early adopter group to design the release candidate for and work from there. Two proposals:

a. Bloggers
b. Bookmarkers (ala delicious users)

My vote is going for bloggers because the implicit viral value of this group is going to help Clipclip grow :)

]]> By: chao http://chaolam.wordpress.com/2005/09/01/welcome-to-next-small-things/#comment-3 chao Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:25:32 +0000 http://chaolam.wordpress.com/2005/09/01/welcome-to-next-small-things/#comment-3 Shooperman, using "small things" to measure success is an interesting direction I've not thought about. How would you quantify this metric? By the number of projects we develop? or can we somehow measure the impact of such projects? Shooperman, using “small things” to measure success is an interesting direction I’ve not thought about. How would you quantify this metric? By the number of projects we develop? or can we somehow measure the impact of such projects?

]]> By: shooperman http://chaolam.wordpress.com/2005/09/01/welcome-to-next-small-things/#comment-2 shooperman Sun, 04 Sep 2005 14:54:43 +0000 http://chaolam.wordpress.com/2005/09/01/welcome-to-next-small-things/#comment-2 Your slant towards 'small things' is very thought-provoking. On one level, I'm seeing more services being launched and targetted at getting users to do some 'small thing' on their site, the latest being BlinkSale.com. Do you recall this craze we had about 'eyeballs'? Could small things be the yardstick of success for Web2.0 as eyeballs had been for 1.0? Your slant towards ’small things’ is very thought-provoking. On one level, I’m seeing more services being launched and targetted at getting users to do some ’small thing’ on their site, the latest being BlinkSale.com. Do you recall this craze we had about ‘eyeballs’? Could small things be the yardstick of success for Web2.0 as eyeballs had been for 1.0?

]]>