Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by boredguy8 6565 days ago
Almost no (current) social networks provide a service - they provide a distraction. And we're supposed to be surprised that they're having a hard time making money?
3 comments

I would argue distraction is a service, but not an easy one to monetize, at least in this form.
I'd say "entertainment" is a service. Although entertainment can be a distraction, it's a) not necessarily a distraction; b) a component of being entertainment. Purely (or at least mainly) being a distraction isn't a service. And it's hard to think of most "social networks" as much of anything more than a distraction.

Really, of the major social networks, I can't think of one that does anything that's not done better somewhere else. And, at least so far, no social networking site has combined those services in a synergistic way.

It's easy to make money if you're willing to set a price. The trouble for web-based distractions is that they're afraid the price will be too high and kill their traffic.

Weewar.com is a solid game, but it's still just a distraction. The way they're making money is by providing a "pro" version where you get access to more distractions: http://weewar.com/upgrade

http://www.realitywanted.com

Read about them in my local paper. They actually charge for premium features.

They make money. It's just not explosive growths.