Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

news.ycombinator.com

111–120 of 567 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#111
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The remarkable thing about Medium was that it went downhill so quickly, or, compared to other platforms like Twitter, it started trying to make money early in the process of gathering an audience, which limited it's growth. In my mind it never had a good reputation. Successful blogging has three elements: (1) writing a lot, (2) technically running your blog, and (3) promoting your blog. In principle Medium took (2) a…

> Successful blogging has three elements: (1) writing a lot... How much truth is in this often-repeated statement?

In the case of blogging, writing is (typically) one's product. Writing is relatively cheap and depending on the subject is highly commoditized, so you need to write a lot to incentivize audiences to return and to continue to consume, and presumably pay you somehow.

This isn't always the case. You might be an otherwise famous individual who will have an audience regardless of your publishing frequency. But I think for most bloggers, you have to have enough material that people will visit, and continue to make more so people will come back.

I published between 1 and 3 times a year on my blog/website. But then I'm not doing it for income.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#112
It was nice at first but as usual it had to satisfy the shareholders/VC profit margin and for something as mundane as a blog platform, this means annoying the users at unacceptable levels. So the readers fled, and so did now the content creators.

Lets see how long Substack will take to wither away…

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://hashnode.com/ is close to what medium used to be, I suppose. Hope it will stay like that.

Is there a way to confirm whether hashnode is VC-funded or not? Because if it is VC-funded, enshittification is inevitable.

It's VC funded, but maybe Salesforce and Sequoia don't care about investor return (ha): https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/hashnode/company_fin...

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#114
I think it's that sites initially provide valuable services for free, at a loss. Users love them, and so they grow. But loving something and being willing to pay for it are very different.

The site expects, eventually, to stop losing money and even maybe earn a little profit. So after they've become popular and everybody seems to love them, they start trying to charge a little money here and there, or otherwise find some way to monetize.

Then the site realizes that all those users that love them so much, don't really love them enough to pay or to tolerate other irritating forms of monetization.

So then the site has a choice: A. Continue losing money forever B. Keep up the monetization efforts, despite knowingly irritating and losing your customers, partners, content producers, etc.

And most reasonably choose option B, even though they know it's the death knell.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#115
I remember seeing a few medium posts on Hacker News a few years ago. They all had good tone management; but when read with a critical eye, they were factually incorrect or had poor comprehension of the subject matter.

It got the point where, if I saw "medium.com" next to a link I'd think, "oh, that's a medium post" and not open it. If I accidentally opened a Medium post, I'd close it immediately without reading it.

"Medium.com" is a stamp of mediocracy, IMO. I just won't read them.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#116
post #92
post #87

Lots of answers point to the user experience of Medium becoming worse. This misses the bigger picture: the economics of free blog hosting don't work. V1 of Medium was great because they weren't concerned with monetization. The product was built fully in the interests of the user. Once the company grew, they saw that the bottom line was not sustainable, and so started adding features that would possibly increase reven…

I think a big part of it is that users/readers understandably feel that a bait-and-switch has happened. Because it has. I really think the whole idea of "make it free at first, monetize later" is what's broken. If the intention is ultimately to have it generate revenue, the best thing to do is set up the revenue mechanism right from the start.

Well, they can start free, get 1M users, and then try to monetize.

Or they can charge up front, get zero users, and then find something else to do with their time.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#117
post #25

cory doctorow has codified this precisely in his theory of "enshittification": 8 Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the…

Are there examples of sites/platforms that are doing it "right"? (however you interpret 'right' to be, I guess). Ones that have been around for a while and haven't enshittified?

https://NeoCities.org, free static hosting, $5/mo for higher storage/traffic limits.

https://Groups.io (rebooted Yahoo Groups).

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#118
post #25

cory doctorow has codified this precisely in his theory of "enshittification": 8 Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the…

do all platforms go through this? if so, it's very sad.

It's a sort-of inevitable thing when your focus becomes earnings and growth rather than whatever your actual business is. Facebook's business was providing a common platform for people that know each other to share publicly. Twitter's business was a billboard to share what they're doing. Google's business was to provide a way to find things on the web.

Unfortunately, none of those things is particularly easy to charge money for. So you take Venture Capital to fund your development, and then you try to find a way to pay that VC through other means - Advertising mostly, it turns out. Then you have to keep pushing that because your investors want returns, and it funds the party.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#119
I'm Medium's current CEO as of last July. I actually pay a lot of attention to this sentiment on Hacker News. For example, I've bookmarked and often share this recent HN poll where 88% of people here think there's a negative stigma to a medium article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33223222

It's sad and entirely our fault. We didn't fail but we did lose our way. Here's how I see it:

1. Lost our way on recommendations. When I showed up the company was convinced that engagement equals quality. That's not true and it gets even more pronounced if you pay people to game your recommendation system. I think we were boosting articles that made people think we were a site for clickbait. The canonical example for HN is "Why NodeJS is dead" by a new programmer with zero experience or context. Readers noticed this, but worse, so did authors. And so we lost the incentive for a lot of the best and most interesting authors to bother because they were getting swamped by content-mill type authors. As of December, about 30% of our recommendations are generated by a new system that is picking much higher quality articles that have been vetted for substance over clickbait. This is getting a lot better, rapidly.

2. Got lost thinking about the creator economy, when we should have kept thinking about doers. Distribution was our winning value proposition (on top of simple free tools). We were built to find and boost individual articles and that meant that anyone with something great to say had a chance to get their story boosted, often by a lot. This is my original background in publishing: working at O'Reilly helping them publish programming books that were written by programmers. For a lot of topics, personal experience trumps everything. Not to knock creators, but by definition full time content creation gets in the way of having personal experiences that are worth writing about. We are partly through fixing this and #1.

Those are the two most obvious ones. But then there's a longer list. We competed with our platform publishers by starting our own in house publications. Those are shut down now. We started but didn't finish a number of redesigns and so the tools didn't get better for a couple of years. We're past that now and are putting out table stakes features again and some innovations too.

What I told our investors was that there was a huge pile of shit to dig out of, but that it would be worthwhile eventually. And I still believe both that there is a lot more to do and also that it'll be worthwhile.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#120
I have a love and hate relationship with Medium.com. On one hand has a very nice design and it was is really nice and comfortable to read. On the other hand limiting the amount of reads per month while putting that stupid popup to read is absolutely dumb.
Post reply on HN