We've been working really hard on our startup and now this
I'm sure you're aware that its been announced that Google and Yahoo will now be indexing Flash content.
Our idea for a startup was to create a search engine for Flash content. For quite some time now we've been crawling and indexing Flash content and we were getting ready to release a beta version of our site. What would you do if you were us?
Here's the URL http://mediawombat.com
Please beware that we weren't planning on releasing it in this state.
This is a very early beta version - before you click on the Image icon or Audio icon please allow the search results page to load completely or use the traditional search link :)
76 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 297 ms ] threadJust maybe you can get a mention off the topic as its hot right now.
Not sure of your funding/day-job(if exists) situation. My first instinct would be to keep going with it. There may be opportunities to use the code as a competitor to Google (at time people thought they too were stupid for reinventing a wheel), or to create something that could be licensed to people to use on their own site for custom content search.
There are also SEO opportunities, to crawl a flash-heavy site and dynamically create pages with the same keywords/content that is easier for other search engines to find.
You could also expand to other sorts of rich meta-data, like indexing the EXIM data on photos, etc.
The door has gotten a little harder to get through but it is by no means closed. Who knows, G and Y jumping into the market may make your technology a valuable acquisition for someone else looking to compete in search.
Every single of one of them called me to say "Well, Microsoft is going to be doing this now, we don't want to throw our money away."
It's one thing to have market validation by companies you could theoretically catch up to; it's an entirely different beast to try to compete with Google or Microsoft.
But I certainly think it's plausible that a startup could out-develop Google in a relatively unexplored area over the course of a year or two—and that's all they need, since their exit strategy is (presumably) getting bought out, not IPOing.
That thumping sound you just heard is a bunch of diehard Apple shareholders -- the ones who bought on Steve Jobs' first day and held on -- falling off their chairs in helpless laughter.
But I feel for you: I'm sure it's nigh-impossible to look your potential investors in the eye and tell them that they don't understand how business works. I'm sure they're all so focused on becoming the number-one player in a small and obscure market that they ignore the advantages of being the second (or third, or twelfth) player in a large and buzzing market.
Someone mentioned in another comment that startups should be more agile than the big corps, and they were absolutely right. In the vein of 37signals, we should have been focusing on one problem instead of a class of problems.
AOL mothballed the project, and the leading AIM firewall companies now make mid-high 8 digits.
I should have been clearer, but, we gave up. But check out:
www.imlogic.com www.akonix.com
Now do the same for Silverlight and sell the company to msft.
btw: I like the part about Investors on you website :-)
In fact VC's should start a fund, similar to Iphone apps fund, called "msft not buying yahoo, so lets make them use that 44 billion" fund ;-)
"Our search results are not very good right now. We are in the very early startup phase of our website. The crawler has only been crawling for a while, we only have crawled a handfull of websites, and our search query technology is only in the keyword phase. All of these things require time and money to implement. As things progress we'll improve our infrastructure and ramp-up as quickly as we can."
and focus on what you are apparently good at.
You can certainly leverage their marketing. For the next couple of months, the Flash universe is going to be filled with discussions of search. Google and Yahoo are going to do a bunch of marketing, and a bunch of market research, all of which you don't have to pay for. Just monitor some Flash-user forums, watch the users rave and/or complain about the new tools, and see if a niche market presents itself.
Meanwhile: Launch. Get something out there you can point to.
Also this is perhaps the downside of waiting too long to launch. Can you rescope this thing and release it sooner? Could you release a flimsy version 1 right now and then improve it and flesh it out over the next few months? Don't worry about solving technological problems that you don't have yet. Solve them when you have them.
I realize Twitter might sound like a counter-example to this line of thinking. But think about it. Imagine if Twitter had not released and was still working on their perfect architecture. Would they even know what the real problems were going to be? They might have squandered their time on non-problems. Plus, no one would know or care about them. So in retrospect, releasing their flimsy app was probably the best thing that they did.
You should never do this. When buying or selling something illiquid, the side who brings up the idea of a deal starts off at a disadvantage. So if you make the overture you will get hosed. Except you won't even get that in this case, as an offer like that coming in over the transom to a big company is never going to reach anyone who matters.
But your other advice is good.
- Steve Webb ( http://mediawombat.com - http://badcheese.com )
I wouldn't count on Adobe limiting access to this special player to just Google and Yahoo. Adobe wants Flash/Flex accessible by all crawlers, so it's just a matter of time.
I'm going to disagree with the people saying, "oooh, market validation". This validates that Google wants to index more stuff and Flash builders want to get indexed. It doesn't validate that users would go to a vertical flash search engine.
When Google does something in the search game, they are generally going to win. Without the exit strategy of selling to them, you are left with building your own search brand (supported by ads). Are there enough people who are passionate about finding Flash stuff that they'd rather use your (better) flash search engine over an integrated experience at Google?
It's interesting that even this article on YC has inspired people to submit their own personal Flash websites, so we'll crawl them and index them, so there's some interest. How much interest is still yet to be seen. We're not into the 10k uniques or anywhere close to it, so that's a catch-22.
I'm intimidated by Google and Yahoo going into this market full-steam and us being the only bug to squash. They might not even care about us and just roll over the top of us, but I think - at least listening to what others have suggested is that the key is to out-innovate Google and Yahoo and just do a better job. Ask.com has great search results, but hardly anyone even knows that they exist. Personally, I think that google likes that their search results are lame - they sell more ad clicks that way. Google's search results are just 'good enough' to keep people from abandoning their site and going somewhere else. Also all of the other web-apps give customers a warm-fuzzy about using a Google service. I know that we have all of that to compete with, but I'm still optimistic. :)
Seriously, solve that problem or have a VERY credible story on how you could in a very capital efficient manner with a little money. If you aren't growing organically (and FAST), you need to very critically ask yourself why. If your solution is YCombinator, TechStars, getting TechCrunched, etc-- you need to realize that none of those things generate growth. If you can't grow 100 visitors to 1000, you're not going to fare much better with the 10k uniques that a TechCrunch post gives you.
My gut tells me that the only people who want to search a database of ONLY Flash sites are Flash designers/developers... The rest of the world doesn't want a vertical search engine-- they just want the best results (whether it's Flash, HTML, or a PDF).
Maybe there's a niche business there, but there almost certainly isn't an investor on the planet who would fund it without proof of dramatic traction and growth. We're fundraising right now, have the YC stamp, a great growth rate, paying customers, bafflingly good PR coverage, and we still get plenty of investors who balk due to the perceived size of the opportunity.
Thank you for your thoughts. You could be completely correct for all I know. I don't mind serving a very niche community. But as far as organic growth we haven't released the site other then on YC today :)
Either way-- grats on what you've built!
And if you can, even show off the beta so that people and the media can quickly give you feedback, thus improving your site/software at a faster rate. Good luck.
P.S. Very neat search engine. I especially like the ActionScript view.
The point is that very few general users are going to give up on Google results and think "I wonder if what I'm looking for happens to be in a Flash file somewhere". Of course, if it's thrown in for free with Google results then it might be used by general users, but not on its own.
And there are plenty of other new directions that people have suggested for your technology. Probably the best to see a return on your investment so far would be to provide precisely the feature that Google have announced to the second tier of search engines.
Don't be intimidated by Google and Yahoo! as they're both trying to juggle too many balls in the air at the moment to design something that does a great job at dealing with this specific type of web content. If your service is done well, I really don't think you'll have any problem with the acquition.
It's probably too late to help much but when I look at product initiatives my first criteria to do something that is never going to show up on the shelves at Wal Mart and that none of the big boys like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc. would ever consider doing.
Also, Google AND Yahoo, i.e. two huge corporations working together raises flags for me. When's the last time that worked out? There'll be a lot of managarial communication, overhead, bureaucracy, stupidity, etc. Assuming they really are doing this together: having worked at large corporations and knowing how inefficient even internal management is, I actually wouldn't worry too much about this.
But as you can see below, licensing your technology to other companies would be a big step. If only you had it launched 6 months ago you would be in a better situation by now, but I see now evidence to say your a dead startup if your claims stand up! ;)
Just change your focus a bit, but keep your technology.