It's a very interesting idea - so much so I can't think of anything to compare it to directly. It's like github, but instead of contributing to a repository, you're contributing to a running operation?
One thing I'm unclear about: how do you handle disagreements/forking? As in, I want to add a feature I need, but can't get it greenlit, can I easily run the app elsewhere?
Anyway, I'm interested to see how it turns out. Valve's structure is based on similar principles, so there's definitely something there.
I can compare it to http://reddit.com/r/somebodymakethis except the mods (or owners of Assembly) are free to commercialize your idea and not share the profits with you if they decide.
Thanks, regarding disagreements, this is from our FAQ[1]
The Assembly platform is intended to allow everyone to vote and influence the direction of an app. Assembly also actively surfaces key metrics so all decisions are data driven and can even be reevaluated and rolled back later when more data is available. In the event the community hasn't come to a clear direction and the data is inconclusive, the core team will be left to mediate disputes and decide on an outcome.
Cool idea but this sounds a lot like design by committee. For end-user apps, there's nothing like focused design leadership to drive cohesive product decisions.
Our goal is to mirror as much as possible the collaboration process that open source uses to build better libraries then proprietary ones. Each product has a core team that will help lead the direction. You can read more about it on the FAQ:
- a very strict requirements collection phase: You're only green-lighting one app a month, surely you could spend some time frontloading the decision making so the people proposing the idea can be very specific.
- an MVP phase: build as little as possible to have a functioning product. Everyone needs to agree what the MVP is before starting, which is the purpose of the requirements gathering.
- bounties: get the people who set out the requirements to "kickstart" the project by kicking in cash. When the project is green-lit, the cash is apportioned to the tasks within the MVP and stretch goals - additional features to supplement the MVP.
It seems like there's too much of "we'll let everyone do everything!". The developers don't need to be making decisions about what features are worthwhile, the people who pay money should have some skin in the game. If people stand to gain real money, there's got to be a gatekeeper who decides whether a merge is worth paying for.
Its a great idea - but the terms are horrible. From my understanding Assembly made own the rights to the software and a pretty big stake in application.
The article talks about forking code, contributing to open source but goes directly against it.
You're granting us an exclusive commercial license (not assigning your IP). We ask for that license so we can ensure that the other contributors who have worked on a project get paid.
We've decided to distribute the code with a modified-BSD license. We're open to discussing using different licenses but we've erred on the site of safety (for now). It'll be an easy change to make in the future when the risk/reward tradeoff of doing so is better known.
> To do this, Assembly must keep and manage all intellectual property derived from Assembly apps. In exchange for that ownership, we give you perpetual income based on the extent of your contribution to all projects you work on.
I spoke at length with these guys last night. My takeaway is that this isn't something I personally would get involved in.
First and foremost because I have a preference for starting my own projects independently as opposed to signing on with Assembly; for a number of reasons, chief among them is arguably personal preference and perhaps a bit of an entrepreneurial streak. I also think there's a potentiality, as open source continues to grow in popularity, for corporate-funded projects to be more alluring given that they provide a steady paycheck and benefits if you work for the company. For example, I work on an open source project which was initially an internal project developed for my employer and later released to the public. Today we maintain the codebase and in a sense I am paid to do that particular bit of open source work (I don't exclusively work on that, of course). Maybe this isn't a fair comparison, but I wouldn't give up my day job, which affords some of the benefits Assembly is ostensibly offering (get paid to do open source), or exchange the free time I spend on my own projects for this kind of stake sharing in a project or product...at least not yet.
On the other hand, this might be exactly what some people are looking to do in their free time: maybe you don't want to start your own company or you want to spend time in open source but prefer to get paid for it and your employer has no intention of helping you scratch that itch. However, given that last comment in particular, I really wonder if money is the proper motivating factor for so much of what the community has come to mean? Certainly the prestige of working on a popular or important project has historically been far more valuable than monetary compensation (and can even lead to monetary compensation these days, if a savvy employer is involved and happens to notice you're a Linux kernel committer or some such).
It's an interesting idea, that I'm sure of and I'm wishing these guys the best of luck with it! While I may not be their target audience, it does seem like there could be something here. So here's to hoping it develops into something awesome.
These are all problems (email client, better support app, better mailing list) many of us on HN fantasise about but each has a whole bunch of schleps associated with it. The motivation to jump through all the loops is tempered by pragmatism that sets in after the first few hours.
This is an interesting way of attacking the problem. Some thoughts:
1. Community will be attracted / restricted by the platform.
2. There is too much fatigue out there, as there are so many such "ideas" competing for mind-space.
3. SAAS based products for small businesses, freelancers has become a kind of a cottage industry with limited scalability. I am doubtful how much revenue this can generate.
1.Community will be attracted / restricted by the platform.
We agree and realize helping the community grow as a core responsibility of assembly.
2. There is too much fatigue out there, as there are so many such "ideas" competing for mind-space.
We've thought a lot about this too. These are just of few of the initial app ideas we received. We curate all the new ideas that come in and work with the submitters on the promising ones before putting them up.
3. SAAS based products for small businesses, freelancers has become a kind of a cottage industry with limited scalability. I am doubtful how much revenue this can generate.
I believe some the current app ideas are attacking larger opportunities, for example support-foo.. its proprietary competition would be a Zendesk. "Zendesk’s fiscal 2012 revenue will be approximately $30 million"[1]
1. this is a big responsiblity. Are you really signed up for this?
2. You curate the ideas? Doesn't sound very open to me. What about voting? How can you make this more democratic?
3. I'm not convinced these projects could gain traction against a dedicated team of people lead by experienced people in the industry, paid a full time salary, with the sole purpose of making a profit. I would imagine that the open-source "everyone gets paid" thing is where this idea will fall flat on its face. Not sure it will get there though, because this process has to produce an app that generates revenue above operating costs first.
Non-technical people can definitely contribute to the apps. For one if it's their idea, they get an immediate stake in future profits. There is also a lot of marketing and strategy work that goes into any successful product. The community around each product will vote the relative merits of each contribution. Basically, if someone submits work that is deemed good, they will receive a stake in profits.
In terms of where it lies on the idea sourcing to building spectrum, I would say it's definitely leaning towards building successful products. There's no shortage of good ideas floating around, we want to help organise people together to build great products and push those products to succeed.
Assembly is a collaboration platform to enable everyone to work together and get paid to create better products.
The "idea sourcing" and backing is meant to find new products with some market validation so we know people want what we are building.
Non-technical people can definitely contribute to the apps. There are many coding tasks, like marketing and copy editing, that goes into any successful product.
If Support-Foo is going to be open source, and as per its description "Instead of charging per-seat, it would charge by volume of support.", then why does the Enterprise option say "1 year license to run behind the firewall with unlimited support and agents" ?
Is it open-source, and you need a license to run it behind a firewall?
Actually the site does not claim to build open-source products. They want to use open-source methodology to collectively build and commercialize SaaS products/apps.
To ensure collaboration is easy the code is open-source. To ensure contributors get paid for their work we'll run a hosted version and allow companies to run it themselves with a commercial license.
I stand corrected - Now I see it is like developing AGPL products by a group of individuals/community. Interesting concept, reminds me of an idea pitched to me few years back.
The less constrained by basic needs people are, the more important the social desires, like acknowlegement, cooperation, sharing and so on become. There is plenty of cach to go around in software, hence people act a lot less based on purely selfish, materialistic motives.
I think you misread "meritocracy" as a good thing. Meritocracy is pretty much Ayn Rand's ideal society: the truly talented, superior people rise to the top and dominate the lesser. This is an uber-capitalist notion: the ubermensch pretty much can't be nice to inferiors, because that opens the door for cronyism, nepotism, etc.
By contrast, communism would be the ultimate expression of sharing, cooperation, etc. but it ignores people's skill in the distribution of value. The old maxim, "from each according to ability, to each according to need" means that someone who is paralyzed and (would have) massive medical bills receives free treatment, food, etc. to stay alive. Obviously this comes from more "skilled" people - doctors - who in a meritocracy would instead extract the maximum value from their skills.
One thing I'm unclear about: how do you handle disagreements/forking? As in, I want to add a feature I need, but can't get it greenlit, can I easily run the app elsewhere?
Anyway, I'm interested to see how it turns out. Valve's structure is based on similar principles, so there's definitely something there.
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-d...