A distributed list app, actually, which is more functional and builds a network of users. It's possible to move out of monetary plans from that point to a bulletin board at least. Which can be free or $2 to download.
Distributed list is, to a first approximation, a solved problem. I wouldn't suggest trying to build a business on it. You need that twist that sets it apart from Keep, to name just one example.
I don't necessarily agree that one should avoid re-solving "solved problems". Couldn't someone have argued that social media was a "solved problem" between MySpace, Friendster, LiveJournal, etc. before Facebook and Twitter came along? What about the new restaurant down the street? Isn't "getting food" a solved problem?
Not only is there nothing wrong with copying a successful company and implementing a business model that's been proven many times over, but it's far and away how most businesses start. There are a lot of wealthy people out there who got fired or laid off and just decided to start up an entity that directly competed with their former employer. Zero creativity involved in the conception of the business and zero uniqueness in their core value proposition. The customers differentiate on the dressing.
Of course it's worthwhile to consider whether the field is crowded or not, but that shouldn't be the sole consideration.
> I don't necessarily agree that one should avoid re-solving "solved problems". Couldn't someone have argued that social media was a "solved problem" between MySpace, Friendster, LiveJournal, etc. before Facebook and Twitter came along?
Facebook and Twitter each, as I see it, sought out to solve very specific different problems -- that other alternatives had not at the time. Now, each branched out (and drifted) once successful, and those problems were put under the broader label of "social media", but they weren't really the same as either each other or pre-existing players in the broader "social media" space.
Not sure exactly how I'd articulate FB, but Twitter was all about providing a common one-to-many messaging platform that could be used online and via SMS.
Well, I don't know if you got this fired off before I got https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11692983 out, but I certainly hadn't seen your post before mine, so, thanks for proving my point.
I don't think it proves your point. Almost everyone has an analogous service competing against them, either because "great minds think alike" and other people noticed the same need around the same time (e.g. digg v. reddit) or because they heard of someone else doing it and thought it was a great idea they could jump in on. I listed Facebook and Twitter, but I could have gone on, there are many services that were once dominant and got overtaken by something that is functionally equivalent or even functionally worse, but had more attractive dressing that drew users in.
The things that caused Facebook to spread like wildfire were not "twists" or enhanced value propositions highlighted in marketing material, nor were they Facebook's raison d'etre. If we're being honest, the most probable reason Facebook came into being despite Friendster, MySpace, etc., was not some analysis of the marketplace, but it was probably as simple as Zuckerberg had some of the code sitting around from his failed contract with the Winklevosses, and he got a kick out of people submitting their profiles to his service. Not much of a twist there.
Facebook exploded basically by accident, and the rest is history. There's no reason that the next Facebook couldn't have a similar history.
The gist of what I'm saying is that "the twist" or the killer feature(s) or whatever you want to call the things that drive adoption are less announced (e.g., as the reason your startup exists) and more accidentally discovered, happened upon. That process of discovery occurs by a segment of applications entering the marketplace and iterating based on what they see their competitors doing and what they see their customers responding to. It's hard to know a priori just what combination of tweaks is going to excel out in the marketplace, so several competitors that don't have a unique value proposition (aka "twist") are valid. Any one could eventually stumble into a formula that allows them to win and overtake the incumbent.
Well, the full ___domain will probably give you a hint of why I'd want a very solid "twist" before I went up against it: https://keep.google.com/ It's a default install on many Android phones I've had. Your app isn't going to get that.
And, just because I've been on the internet a while and I know what comes next, let me repeat my point: Yes, you can compete with built-in apps, but you need a twist. "Shared lists" is a solved problem; if that's all you've got, you've got nothing.
