I'm not really in the target audience for the product at all, but it looks great.
What really interests me is that amazing ad unit -- it's a "sponsored article from Bank of America". I actually read it, unlike a banner ad, and while if I were at all in the market for a family social network, I'd now be interested in FamilyLeaf, it ALSO made me somewhat more positive toward Bank of America.
This seems a whole lot more effective than running banner ads.
Looks all nice and such but the family member role at the time of the sign up, seems limiting. What if your family is small based on the available relationship in the dropdown? You wouldn't bother creating a new social network just for one or two people. If the "family incharge" (as per your FAQ) can possibly extend the family he/she creates later on, than I think it should be identified first.
I think ultimately, the emphasis on the private nature of all of these social networks has one single limitation issue: the building of network requires few people taking initiative of building the network (which you have identified as "family administrator"). Without such people taking initiative, these networks don't really go anywhere. And we know that not everyone takes those initiatives, especially when the site is brand new, unknown and/or not so popular.
Thanks for the feedback! You're absolutely right about the family role dropdown. We put it there as a temporary fix while we built a more comprehensive "family tree" feature, and we'll be replacing it shortly so you can more accurately represent the relationships within your family.
Per your second point, we're extremely grateful to our early adopters who've taken the initiative to try us out with their family. We're constantly working to improve the product from feedback like yours, and trying to lower the barrier so those network builders do take the initiative. Would love to chat if you have any suggestions or concerns about the product!
The article mentions the competition for FamilyLeaf, but does not give any inkling of a clue as to how they'll overcome the competition and really the bigger competition from Facebook. Simply saying their confident it will fill the niche doesn't give me any reason to choose it over the myriad of other services lifted.
I'm also not really in the target demographic, but if someone asked me why they should choose to use this service instead of Facebook, I'd be hard pressed to give them a reason.
The article does implicitly address why this is an alternative to Facebook. "We feel that your work life and your social life have been well-addressed online, but no service has truly helped you stay in touch with your family".
Facebook is not for intimate conversation with your family. Path is mobile-first and isn't as big of a thing (yet). Google+ allows you define circles but is rather complicated. As with other spaces where network effects are important, only the biggest will survive and the biggest currently (Path/Google+/others) do not address the family niche conclusively (product wise/platorm wise).
The real question is whether the family niche itself is an important enough one to a large enough base of people. It makes more sense to assume that this is the case...than not right? The upside here is pretty huge if there's something to it.
I wonder if there would be a market out there for some kind of host-your-own system like this. Run an app on your family's central machine and register YourFamily.examplehostedapp.com. The app does the work of keeping that domain name pointed at your machine and keeping a upnp tunnel open.
One interesting question is backups. Encrypted snapshots to S3, maybe?
Indeed, I'd see it the same way - for individuals (and indeed families) it certainly is not really more secure - if anything, less so due to the likelihood and encouragement for families to put more intimate/sensitive and personal details into the environment.
This and things like Pair, the social network for couples, I would suspect are shooting for high 'value' - where value is correlated with selling that information to third parties (advertisers, at best; but other parties are possible customers too).
edit - after reading their privacy policy, they do currently seem to have a good standing; even so I'd generally be cautious
I don't see where it says "more secure". Secure only shows up once in the article and once in their privacy policy.
Perhaps it would be better to stick to "privacy" as that's the value i see here.
the privacy policy states:
... affiliated organizations that (i) need to know that information in order to process it on FamilyLeaf’s behalf or to provide services available at FamilyLeaf’s websites, and (ii) that have agreed not to disclose it to others.
Looks cool! I'm hopeful they will be around awhile.
[+] [-] nestlequ1k|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
What really interests me is that amazing ad unit -- it's a "sponsored article from Bank of America". I actually read it, unlike a banner ad, and while if I were at all in the market for a family social network, I'd now be interested in FamilyLeaf, it ALSO made me somewhat more positive toward Bank of America.
This seems a whole lot more effective than running banner ads.
[+] [-] webwanderings|13 years ago|reply
I think ultimately, the emphasis on the private nature of all of these social networks has one single limitation issue: the building of network requires few people taking initiative of building the network (which you have identified as "family administrator"). Without such people taking initiative, these networks don't really go anywhere. And we know that not everyone takes those initiatives, especially when the site is brand new, unknown and/or not so popular.
Just some thoughts.
[+] [-] liuhenry|13 years ago|reply
Per your second point, we're extremely grateful to our early adopters who've taken the initiative to try us out with their family. We're constantly working to improve the product from feedback like yours, and trying to lower the barrier so those network builders do take the initiative. Would love to chat if you have any suggestions or concerns about the product!
[+] [-] slashedzero|13 years ago|reply
I'm also not really in the target demographic, but if someone asked me why they should choose to use this service instead of Facebook, I'd be hard pressed to give them a reason.
[+] [-] levlandau|13 years ago|reply
Facebook is not for intimate conversation with your family. Path is mobile-first and isn't as big of a thing (yet). Google+ allows you define circles but is rather complicated. As with other spaces where network effects are important, only the biggest will survive and the biggest currently (Path/Google+/others) do not address the family niche conclusively (product wise/platorm wise).
The real question is whether the family niche itself is an important enough one to a large enough base of people. It makes more sense to assume that this is the case...than not right? The upside here is pretty huge if there's something to it.
[+] [-] zrail|13 years ago|reply
One interesting question is backups. Encrypted snapshots to S3, maybe?
[+] [-] sluckxz|13 years ago|reply
I have test installed a diaspora pod as well as a libertree tree. Diaspora has its well documented issues and libertree is still bleeding edge.
[+] [-] pclark|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melkisch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juanbyrge|13 years ago|reply
Many many many of these types of sites have launched and died. Dont let that deter you ! This Githubs first idea. One of these will work !
[+] [-] patrickg|13 years ago|reply
Photos and everything is still stored on a remote uncontrolled server.
[+] [-] jka|13 years ago|reply
This and things like Pair, the social network for couples, I would suspect are shooting for high 'value' - where value is correlated with selling that information to third parties (advertisers, at best; but other parties are possible customers too).
edit - after reading their privacy policy, they do currently seem to have a good standing; even so I'd generally be cautious
[+] [-] sluckxz|13 years ago|reply
Perhaps it would be better to stick to "privacy" as that's the value i see here.
the privacy policy states: ... affiliated organizations that (i) need to know that information in order to process it on FamilyLeaf’s behalf or to provide services available at FamilyLeaf’s websites, and (ii) that have agreed not to disclose it to others.
Looks cool! I'm hopeful they will be around awhile.
[+] [-] loceng|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scottmcleod|13 years ago|reply