161–170 of 215 posts
To me it brings up an image of a road, covered with gum. I'm trying to get where I want to go, but there's all this gum on the road slowing me down. It's a huge and annoying obstacle. And that is a bad mental image, given that what you're selling is a sort of obstacle.
It's not too late for a different name.
How does this work for art though? I mean you want to see the icon/graphic/design/whatever before you pay for it. Also - once you've been redirected to the page, what's to stop you taking the link and sharing it yourself? Also also: if I've got something to sell, can't I just bung it on ebay?
Come on, if you want to see the icon/graphic/design/whatever before you pay for it obviously the seller can show you a smaller/low-res/watermarked/whatevered version. The second question has been answered. This is a completely different model than ebay. These are really bad questions. I'm not putting you down - its no big deal, but just a little critical thought should answer these for you. Cheers,
But that's the whole point. There's nothing that allows a seller to do this at the mo.
> The second question has been answered.
Sure, after my post. The answer to which seems to be "there isn't". So a valid question.
> This is a completely different model to ebay.
Perhaps from the platform's perspective, not from the sellers. The motivation is to enable someone to quickly put up an item for sale. I can pretty damn quickly put up a single item for sale on ebay too.
First off, I like the idea, but there are some noticeable flaws, many which have been brought up. One interesting one for me, which is more an oversight, is that anyone can make money off of the sale of a link. There is no way to validate that the person posting the link, is the owner of the content. So someone could sell links to a page on HN, Reddit, Techcrunch, etc. at no expense to them. If this did occur, I thin…
Interesting idea, but I see two main issues with this. First, anyone who pays and gets to the resulting link can trivially share that link; of course, you can always ask them nicely not to do so, and in some contexts that will work, but in general the security model just doesn't work unless you authenticate each paid user at the destination. You need to come up with an answer to this. Second, if you market this as a…
Your links can be one of two things: 1) a webpage, 2) a file.
For a file, I wouldn't worry about the DRM, as a person serving the file can have their own system, or you can use the system I'm going to propose for serving a webpage.
Essentially just use an iFrame.
So you have your public link: gumroad.url this leads to a paywall which then sends you to an auto-generated one-time link of gumroad.paidurl. This url is a simple page that loads an iFrame with the real private URL.
So gumroad.paidurl and gumroad.url both go to a paywall when user 2 tries to access it. And either paidurl or url will be the one that's shared. Yes, people can circumvent it by looking at the source of the iFrame, but 95%+ of people won't bother, and it's a heck of a lot easier than downloading and displaying the page through AJAX or server side.
I'd work on the name. Gumroad? What does it mean? To me it brings up an image of a road, covered with gum. I'm trying to get where I want to go, but there's all this gum on the road slowing me down. It's a huge and annoying obstacle. And that is a bad mental image, given that what you're selling is a sort of obstacle. It's not too late for a different name.
This looks like a really expensive way to get Rick Roll'd :)
This can't be a minor problem, either. At any given time the percentage of your users who are being ripped off by some nasty scam will be between 10% and 90%. You'll have to be very careful about policing things, otherwise the first mention of your business in the media will be "gumroad enables porn bait-and-switch scammers".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, at the moment only nerds use Bitcoins, but this _could_ become as universal as PayPal is today. But yes, it probably doesn't make much (commercial) sense right now.
> Bitcoins [...] _could_ become as universal as PayPal is today Putting aside numerous other issues, bitcoin.org states "The total eventual circulation will be 21 million bitcoins". [EDIT: DanI-S pointed out that bitcoins can already be subdivided. So this was switched from "there are too few bitcoins to support even American e-commerce" to "bitcoins are not valuable enough to support even American e-commerce". The n…
I bet you could make some money facilitating lower fee transactions backed by bitcoins.