Every team is different and in the teams that I have worked in, Git commits and Task Trackers don't usually contain the same type of information I present in a standup.
Git commits are way too technical for non-engineers and task trackers either have too much information (i.e debate on how to do X and Y) or too little information (i.e just a simple task title).
This may be the case, although, I'd argue that Facebook really doesn't do anything that makes it any easier for you to connect with your friends and family than email does. However, let's say it does, that still doesn't mean Facebook is world changing, it just means its a better mousetrap.
And email doesn't make it any easier to connect with friends and family than paper based mail does. Oh wait.. it does...
Facebook has a number of features for communication that email doesn't have:
1) Passive communication: the fact you can go and check someone's profile and see what they have been up to is very powerful
2) Default public communication. By making communication public by default it lets your other friends and family benefit from any communication you do with a 3rd party
3) No email addresses - people change email addresses a lot more than they should. The only comparable problem on Facebook is when women get married and change their lastname, but I've never seen any problems arising from this.
That really just scratches the surface of the differences.
Sometimes, doing something better really is enough to make a huge difference.
Yes, but Facebook is fungible. In the same way that MySpace and Orkut were. The only thing that's holding people on your website is other people and a bunch of dumb games. You can say whatever you want about Google, but there is not a single search engine today that is as good in all cases. That's why I'll bet my money that 10 years from now Google will be well and going strong, whereas I have no idea what will happen to Facebook.
This is such a weak post especially coming from "An Ivy League MBA." I thought business schools teach people to write essays with strong arguments.
The first few paragraphs talks about how Facebook has not and probably cannot charge its users. Google doesn't charge its users either; is Google "worthless?"
The next few paragraphs states that Facebook is not interesting anymore, claiming news feed is full of nothing but "bored office workers", "super moms", et al. First off, the author's experience is anecdotal. Second, all the "bored office workers" and "super mom" quotes - as stupid as they may sound - are parts of socializing. When we "chill out" with our friends, what do we talk about other than "man, my work sucks" or "omg, my son Jonny is learning to walk!"?
It is not that "bored office workers" and "super moms" are uninteresting; it's just that the author is either 1) independent and/or self-center or 2) has too many people on FB she doesn't care about. If it's the latter, the author should learn to "hide" uninteresting people in her stream.
Finally, the author ends the post by saying that FB's cost is rising and that it should charge $0.99/mth to "be worth something." Yet, never does the author mention 1) how much cost is rising and 2) how much FB's revenue is growing.
The details are unclear, but Facebook became cash-flow positive in 2009, and there's no signs of it slowing down.
So Facebook is worth something unless this whole "online social" thing-a-magic is really a fad. But to find out, shouldn't we ask all the "bored office workers" and the "super moms" - the people who socialize the most - rather than a business MBA who could care less about small talk?
Replace "Bebo, Myspace, Friendster" with "Altavista, Lycos, Infoseek" and we've an argument that Google has no future as a search engine.
Facebook has been less fragile because it has provided more value for its users. That they have a 500m users locking in each other is a bonus. Whether Facebook continues to thrive depends on whether they can fend off competitors.
> When we "chill out" with our friends, what do we talk about other than "man, my work sucks" or "omg, my son Jonny is learning to walk!"?
If all I ever had to talk about was work sucking and kids learning to walk, I would not consider life a fun adventure and would probably not ever speak. That's what philosophy, art, literature and technology are for: intriguing, awe-inspiring, non-mind-numbing conversation. The kind Facebook is not too good at promoting.
That you spend much time in art and philosophy is great. I also spend lots of time reading books, watching TED videos, and working on side projects.
But not everyone is like that. Many parents care a lot about their children and can indeed talk about them all day. Many people also think work sucks and find it comforting to have friends who agree.
Whether you can have awe-inspiring conversations on Facebook depends on your FB friends. I've friends who frequently post tech news, political news, and other discussion-inspiring things on Facebook. I also have friends who post mind-numbing conversations online. Both are valuable to me.
However, I've got some fantastic friends with whom I talk medical ethics, the state of the world, our technical future, etc., almost exclusively. On Facebook, with those same friends (I constantly prune my FB friend list for real, current friends), no such conversation ever happens, even if we've (say) been on vacation away from each other for a solid week.
I've heard many many people say on FB: "This is not the place to have this debate, let's have coffee?" I'm convinced that there's no way to have a rational (but heartfelt) dialogue in the tiny, self-collapsing ("don't talk too much!") blue boxes that make up that all too superficial site.
Are you serious, gilbertl? Who says FB became cash flow positive in 2009? Facebook, that's who. Demand Media also said they have always been cash flow positive and in the documents filed with the SEC for their IPO they denied ever being cash flow positive. Private company's can say whatever they want and some idiots will believe it. Some people believed what George Bush said and will argue it to the death and some people believe Obama in whatever he says. Does it make it true? Please. There is a fundamental reason FB hasn't gone public and it isn't because of all that cash flow they're producing.
Facebook has no soul and Mark Fuckerburg is the man who sold the world. The 2010's are set to be a time of great chaos and creation, something like the 60's. Facebook's facade will melt in this furnace. Once the shepherd is gone, the sheep will scatter. You and I both saw it coming, along with a few other outliers...
Your biggest problem, as someone pointed out, is that nobody understands what AtomBox does.
I land on your page, and the first thing I see is a screenshot of "categories" and "atoms." Most people will leave at this point. Some will read further and see that "AtomBox keeps your GTD lists in one place." Okay, so it's [another] GTD app.
If you're targeting the GTD audience, then realize that they most certainly already have a GTD app. This means you have to convince them to switch over. Unfortunately, none of the 6 bolded features you listed are "killer features." The "full-featured, for free" part is a little enticing, until I read on to see that I have to pay anyways.
Go google "best GTD apps" and figure out what makes your app different. Make a short video or draw a diagram signifying those key points.
That makes a lot of sense. We are focusing on the GTD crowd and you're right that we need to differentiate with respect to other GTD apps because anyone that does GTD will have some sort of system already.
I decided to stop working on it because I want to spend more time on another project.
Feel free to do whatever you like with it.
Contact me or reply below if you have any questions.
Git commits are way too technical for non-engineers and task trackers either have too much information (i.e debate on how to do X and Y) or too little information (i.e just a simple task title).