Cake looks intriguing. Next-gen of social media or just another stillborn startup? 🤔
Cake looks intriguing. Next-gen of social media or just another stillborn startup? 🤔
Hi kk and welcome to Cake! 😁 As one of the founders I had many sleepless nights worrying about being stillborn because it's so hard to get initial traction and engagement. Now it feels like the baby is alive and kicking, people are leaning over the edge of the crib saying, "hey, that's a cute baby."
So now I've started worrying about what adolescence and adulthood will look like. If we can keep it away from a life of drugs and crime, I think we'll be fine.
Hey Chis. Thanks.
Agree, a baby looks really nice. Cake has a chance to take the place of G+ because its kind of similar. I hope everything will be fine and Cake will find a place in the sun.
I like how Cake looks. Pages looks clean and simple. Not like stupid-simple, but more like ingeniously simple. Awesome job, keep it up and good luck! 😁
Thanks Alex! Now I think the two big challenges to stay focused on are signal to noise and good content discovery as we scale, no?
The main thing about those “toxic” panels is that won't be blended in your own panels or conversations as far as you won't be inviting those panelist to your own panels.
And after two or three of these, you'll just ignore everything posted by those users
Some brands used to pay for articles in the old printed-press model; some of them now pay some users to post about how they love using their products (call them influencers), and some brands just pay people that already use their products and are respected authorities in their fields. These models evolve from the perspective of the authoritative person reccomending the product.
But what if starting a conversation about a problem lead to find how products fit or do no fit the needs? We are now quite in the philosophy of “the best” or “the right” product, as a one-size-not-only-fits-all-but-is-the-only-possible-solution.
If I were a small software bussines, whith a new product targeting a very specific problem in an area, I'd love to pay for a panel about products in that field, because I'd be very confident mine will benefit from public exposure. For example, I have been using word processors for years (since the 80's), but as soon as I was told about the problems Scrivener is solving when it comes for long text works (not just novels but also papers, essays, etc), I'm kind of an evangelist to my scientific friends as well as to those who love to write novels (disclaimer, this is not paid advertising).
I guess some more thought must be done on new business models, but also on new ways to spread the world why our product is better than some other… to solve the right problem 😉
For the life of me I don't see why this is hard to understand. If I'm following ideas instead of people, I want easy controls over the ideas in my feed.
Yes, I completely agree. @bstrong & @Vilen have taken this on and we think it's really important. The question is how to design it to be simple enough for everyday consumers to use. My understanding is power users liked the concept of Circles at G+ but there was too much friction for consumers.
Also, we want to make sure we construct it so it will scale from an engineering point of view so we don't tip over at scale like Twitter and Friendster did.
I don't think it was a matter of friction for consumers but rather a confusion with FB friends. Circles and FB friends are not so much apples and oranges as they are vegetables and fruits.
Circles allowed two things. First, to broadcast to a limited audience without the audience being compelled to tune in to the broadcast or to ever agree to listen. Second, to create a self-controlled listening stream. A circle could be used to segment when and who one chose to listen to but it did not compel those to whom one was tuned to broadcast.
I understand the desire for "leadership", "authority figures", and even that dreaded title "Influencers", but IMO they are one of the core culprits in why social networks fail.
It is their hubris, and the cultivation of the Influencer Culture based on illusory social proof.
Once, a long time ago on a network now being sunsetted, one of the great social media influencers once wrote:
"never trust anybody who has fewer followers than you... because if they really knew what they were doing, they'd have much more followers than you... so why would you listen to someone..." - Guy Kawasaki
Now that's not to say that all voices on Social should be treated equally, but that is the Silicon Valley View. If you don't have big numbers, no matter how inflated and meaningless they are, then you simply don't matter. Forget the value (or lack thereof) that you're contributing, if you don't have big numbers you don't have a voice worth listening to.
So how can Silicon Valley reform itself in regards to social to understand the true value propositions?
(an old thread on this: https://plus.google.com/+DavidKutcher/posts/cSb5DFk46Rj )
It seems this is true in teaching and politics as well. My first day as a grad student at Stanford, I was surprised to see my new professors make the front page of The Stanford Daily for their low marks as teachers. Strange, because they were such respected scientists.
So I asked one of them, the Dean of Earth Sciences, a fellow in the National Academy of Sciences, the president of the American Geophysical Union. He said the ratings are from evaluations the students submit right after the class. They lean toward how entertaining the professors are, how fun, funny, and easy they are.
But Dr. Cox said what he cares about is whether what they learned was timeless and important to them 20 years from now. That's the evaluation he wanted to see: what did his students think 20 years later.
I thought that so strange and a little bit crazy at the time. But there I was 5, 10, 20 years later, remembering what he taught us and thinking about how profound it was. It was boring at the time and I didn't see students lining up to take his classes, but looking back he taught the most important classes I ever took.
Social networks 'fail'. Hmmm...
Take 50, 100, 200 of those top "influencers" off of any given social network in the next 15 minutes. ::poof::
What happens to that social network that remains, minutes, hours, days, weeks later? If it's a behemoth like...well, you know...it probably survives.
Do the same thing here, MeWe, or any of the others that are looking to be the 'next Google+ that survives', and does it live or die?
I think to a degree we've experienced that at the Ploos.
What will dethrone the 'big-dogs' in this space?
I agree, to some extent it comes down to critical mass. Do you have enough people in the network to create the conversations, engage the membership, and drive activity.
And the unfortunate thing is that, to some extent, you need those "influencers" to get to that critical mass.
There is a word for this phenomenon.
The greeks had a word both for knowledge and wisdom. Sophos
They had another word for folly and ignorance. Moros
When a young person thinks that he is knowledgable and wise, when in reality his standards are flawed due to inexperience and a limited worldview, his thinking is called Sophomoric.
I liked the idea of google plus circles. You would place people in circles. High school circle, local to me, photographers (established) to follow, up and coming photographers (like me), Facebook tried to implement circles, but then moved away from that some, but I still use a short list to keep the noise at a minimum. And as an introvert, I am more likely to post or respond to a photo than I would be to create a long form post. Here at cake, it would be great to see then best of tumblr, flickr, and smug mug either stolen or integrated here.
sometimes just one or a few topics. G+ has the "Circle Streams" option
Whereas the the G+circle was people oriented i think, another example, here, is in feedly where you can group feeds into self titled buckets (feeds) or bookmark content into boards. That way, the highly politicized content of interest could be silo-ed into a bucket, for perusal up to your personal limit, and then no more.
Sorry if I am not explaining this well.
I followed you early to Google+, and I'll do the same here at cake. Think about MT for next Summer's road trip.
Follow up on cake...
Thanks for your honesty and baring your soul in post after post. The transparency of the
transformation you’re undergoing is an inspiration to others.
I’ve been waiting for another platform to begin to wean some of us away from Facebook
(which has all of the pitfalls you outlined) and Twitter (where there really is no social cohesion or community). So I’ll be checking out Cake and seeing how it’s markedly different from Medium. I do like the clean design (though I frankly don’t see the difference between a smiley face, a pair of clapping hands, a pair of raised hands, a thumbs up, and the dozens of other emojis that are supposed to provide a shorthand for what we’re thinking or how we’re
feeling ... but not sure I'm not the target audience).
On a side note, you write: “I'm quite convinced we all will be wearing glasses by 2025 for all work and play.” And I remember you saying at Jason’s Launch Scale conference that we’ll all be wearing glasses within 2 years – and that was on Nov. 14, 2016. Didn’t happen, and I don’t think it’ll happen by Dec. 31, 2025.
Let me know if you’d like to make a friendly wager (dinner for four? ... Jason Calacanis does this all the time on his This Week in Startups podcast), or if wagering is one of the things you’ve given up. Just trying to keep you grounded and not caught up in the tech razzle-dazzle that's coming down the pike, good sir!