Over the weekend I got to read and contemplate Jason Kottke's post A whole new internet?
that got my special attention because it solicited a response post from Mena Trott taking the bait.
Jason touches a couple of areas I'm quite passionate about and have been investing a lot of thought lately. So much so, that I'm dividing these thoughts into two parts. This first post covers the broader issue of how successful application handle success.
Kottke points out that innovation in the last few years came from creative and passionate individuals with no funding and shoe string budgets at best while unemployed or unfulfilled in a job. This is now changing as funding is becoming available and these projects are being turned into business ventures. There clearly are many cautionary tales to be noted as to not to repeat history or loose the essence of what launched these innovations.
His observations are quite correct benefiting from the perspective of the (first?) dot com boom that he was a veteran of. Being one of those veterans myself I agree and understand his perspective.
I'm not sure if this post is meant to be a criticism of these new Internet upstarts or simply observations with historical perspective sprinkled in. Perhaps it is a little of both.
Whatever the case, what Kottke describes from my experience is a basic and unavoidable part of evolution to any successful application. This echos the bottom-line of my O'Reilly Network Movable Type 3.0 and Eating
post of nearly a year ago though from a different angle.
When a project strikes a chord with a large community of individuals, how does it manage and survive its growth?
Balancing innovation with business and funding is an underlying theme I keep seeing for better or for worse.
Eventually these projects far outstrip the waking hours of its core team to handle the needs of the gathering masses let alone maintain their rapport with its existing supporters.
Distribution of the application (whether it be code or a service), in addition to any online documentation, support forums and mailing lists, cost increasingly more money. There are plenty of free software tools (Perl, MySQL, emacs, Apache) to cobble together systems. However there is no such thing when it comes to bandwidth or servers. Each and every month expenses are incurred and, as its success grows, so do these expenses. The goodwill of the community (donations) no longer cut it (if they ever did) to paying these bills, let alone carrying the cost of an employee – the biggest expense any company will incur.
All of this can be summarized by a line taken from Clay Shirky badly misquoted – a successful application is its own worse enemy.
In my opinion, the challenge for these early adopter communities is understanding this evolutionary process and participating in it through realistic feedback and support that manages success without selling out wholesale to the irrational exuberance of dot com boom.
How does a successful application protect
itself from itself while still continuing to grow and evolve? It's one that should and will be asked again that I'm not sure there is one right answer for.
<p><em>Over the weekend I got to read and contemplate Jason Kottke's post <a href="http://www.kottke.org/05/04/a-whole-new-internet"><q>A whole new internet?</q></a> that got my special attention because it solicited a <a href="http://www.sixapart.com/about/corner/2005/04/i_take_the_bait.html">response post from Mena Trott <q>taking the bait.</q></a></em></p>
<p><em>Jason touches a couple of areas I'm quite passionate about and have been investing a lot of thought lately. So much so, that I'm dividing these thoughts into two parts. This first post covers the broader issue of how successful application handle success.</em></p>
<p>Kottke points out that innovation in the last few years came from creative and passionate individuals with no funding and shoe string budgets at best while unemployed or unfulfilled in a job. This is now changing as funding is becoming available and these projects are being turned into business ventures. There clearly are many cautionary tales to be noted as to not to repeat history or loose the essence of what launched these innovations. </p>
<p>His observations are quite correct benefiting from the perspective of the (first?) dot com boom that he was a veteran of. Being one of those veterans myself I agree and understand his perspective.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if this post is meant to be a criticism of these new Internet upstarts or simply observations with historical perspective sprinkled in. Perhaps it is a little of both.</p>
<p>Whatever the case, what Kottke describes from my experience is a basic and unavoidable part of evolution to any successful application. This echos the bottom-line of <a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4870">my O'Reilly Network <q>Movable Type 3.0 and Eating</q> post</a> of nearly a year ago though from a different angle. </p>
<p><strong>When a project strikes a chord with a large community of individuals, how does it manage and survive its growth?</strong> </p>
<p>Balancing innovation with business and funding is an underlying theme I keep seeing for better or for worse. </p>
<p>Eventually these projects far outstrip the waking hours of its core team to handle the needs of the gathering masses let alone maintain their rapport with its existing supporters. </p>
<p>Distribution of the application (whether it be code or a service), in addition to any online documentation, support forums and mailing lists, cost increasingly more money. There are plenty of free software tools (Perl, MySQL, emacs, Apache) to cobble together systems. However there is no such thing when it comes to bandwidth or servers. Each and every month expenses are incurred and, as its success grows, so do these expenses. The goodwill of the community (donations) no longer cut it (if they ever did) to paying these bills, let alone carrying the cost of an employee – the biggest expense any company will incur.</p>
<p>All of this can be summarized by a line taken from Clay Shirky badly misquoted – a successful application is its own worse enemy. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the challenge for these early adopter communities is understanding this evolutionary process and participating in it through realistic feedback and support that manages success without selling out wholesale to the irrational exuberance of dot com boom.</p>
<p>How does a successful application <q>protect</q> itself from itself while still continuing to grow and evolve? It's one that should and will be asked again that I'm not sure there is one right answer for.</p>
