> Without ever having officially launched, co-founder and CEO Or Arbel managed to secure $1.2 million in funding from a list of unnamed investors, except for co-founder, angel, and Mobli CEO Moshe Hogeg, who participated in the round.
Stuff like that really gets me. I see tons of start-ups that would have a fighting chance given that sort of investment and then lame stuff like this gets funding. Of course they're entirely free to spend their money any way they want, but was there really no place to spend that better?
Congratulations to the Yo team for furthering the research to the origins of the term 'dumb money'.
I guess if you timed it right you could use Yo to communicate in Morse, but that seems to be a waste of bits considering that each packet will activate a very large number of bits being sent where one would suffice.
Perhaps, and this would not surprise me in the least, it is vanity investing. Something which has some traction, clearly is scratching some itch, and is under valued relative to that traction. Here we are in June, a couple of months from April and it has 50,000 active users. With a bit of virality that gets to maybe 250K or 300K. Conceptually simple (probably not patented or otherwise circumscribed) the team is probably 2 maybe 3 people. So with the two founders and maybe an employee, its an easy Acqui-hire at $3M. So you put in your 1.2M, get prodded, sell for $3M and double your money in what, 6 months? A year? And I agree with your 1+M$ is nothing to sneeze at, a lot of good can be done with that. Welcome to the gangsta school of high tech investing :-) If you have the capital to play with you can lay down bets like this, and it is exactly like laying down a million bucks on the 'pass' line at the casino. If they get an acquihire you get your money + 100% back, if they manage to keep the shine and traction going maybe you get back 2x or 3x your money, or maybe they fizzle and fade and people move on and you are out a million bucks. I was familiar with a guy who was a 'player' and he mortgaged his house for nearly a million dollars and put it all into a 'winner' startup/concept which, in his case, did not win. It was an "interest only" note with a big payment at the 5 year point, at which time he turned the house over to the bank. Very sad.
I will take exception though to the 'dumb money' comment. It is dumb to gamble, but even smart people do it, it is a risk/reward trade-off. Smart people can look at the fundamentals here and see there is a possible 'flip' opportunity, high risk, high reward, short time to closure. The trick will be to see in 3 years if it hasn't flipped or exited by then. But that only tells you the payoff. I bought a $66M lottery ticket the other day, 'dumb' ? Sure it was $2 put at risk. I chose not to buy a $2 soda. Probably not a smart allocation of capital, but the soda would have been turned into piss in short order, the lottery ticket has potential right up until the drawing :-).
I'm suspicious of the "unnamed investors". Has anyone done any fact finding, I'm betting these guys are just looking for PR, and saying they got 1.2m for a "Yo" app is a pretty good way to do it.
Have you considered that perhaps the investors have more information than you, or the founders have an insight that you don't have, or that this is not their final product?
> I see tons of start-ups that would have a fighting chance given that sort of investment and then lame stuff like this gets funding.
What makes you think this is an either-or proposition? There's a glut of capital chasing startup opportunities today. No entrepreneur is entitled to money, but every entrepreneur can compete for it. Sure, some entrepreneurs are better connected than others, which often makes fundraising easier. But at the end of the day, why should investors be implicitly blamed for a failed startup led by an entrepreneur who was unable to convince said investors to provide his or her company with funding?
Sales is an integral part of building a successful business, and if you need capital, you had better be prepared to sell your company to the people you're asking to provide it.
> Congratulations to the Yo team for furthering the research to the origins of the term 'dumb money'.
Even if you subscribe to the notion that there really is "smart money" and "dumb money" when it comes to angels and venture firms, let's not pretend that there isn't such a thing as "dumb entrepreneurship." Entrepreneurs who start businesses without lining up the capital they need to execute are taking a risk. In many cases, especially among young entrepreneurs, that risk is not at all calculated.
On this note, it's sad that so many startup entrepreneurs bet the farm on day one by putting themselves in a position where they believe they need to sell equity to raise capital. There are a variety of ways to fund a business and early on, selling equity is often one of the least attractive despite the sex appeal that Silicon Valley has given it.
> but was there really no place to spend that better?
Maybe. Consider all of the competing opportunities that might be discovered in a short window, like say a week. Out of all of those options, which ones are still early stage, which ones are demonstrating any amount of traction, and which ones have fancypants metrics like "over 5,000 messages sent per day"? (I'm just making that number up. But I'm sure that sort of number was mentioned at least once. Even if they had to squint to ignore the power law distribution.)
edit: and which ones are riding on the news or rumors of a >$1 billion exit (while still demonstrating traction)? (Snapchat/Whatsapp rumors were probably floating around for a bit before they happened.)
How much is traction worth? what about fad traction?
i don't know, there's genocide and starvation and plenty of other profoundly disturbing things in the world. whether specific apps are stupid or not, or get funding or not, doesn't even register on my care-o-meter.
a huge portion of the 'technology' industry is just rich/privileged people doing nonsensical things that may make them a bunch of money. whatever.
trying to find or impose some kind of rationality on it is in my opinion pointless, and holding it accountable to some kind of moral benchmark is as sure as anything i've ever seen, to disappoint.
It's basically begging for you to switch apps after you get the "Yo" push notification. I can't really imagine a conversation which goes like this:
Me: Yo
Them: Yo
Me: Yo
Them: Yo
...
What I can imagine is getting a Yo from someone, switching apps, and being like "what's up? [p.s. dont fucking Yo me anymore. Just message me using a real app.]".
That "wut" app is similar in that you can't have a real conversation with anyone in particular, but it can at least be used for sharing secrets or something. I guess. Yo doesn't have such a use case that I can see.
They could maybe pivot it to act like tinder where if both of the parties yo eachother then it goes to a separate section of the app where they can actually IM eachother. But...idk. That doesn't seem particularly interesting/differentiating either.
A very large amount of my phone messages are actually null-content messages: my phone is very often a "I'm here" when picking someone up, or "let me in" or "done shopping, waiting for you" if I'm grocery shopping with someone.
Basically any time someone says "message me when..." there is no conversation when I message them. There is just a contentless phone call or text message. This is filling a communication niche that isn't well supported by the existing methods.
That said, I'm still not willing to install a new app just for that, but that doesn't mean there isn't value there.
Have you ever seen late night TV ads for a golf club that allows you to piss in it? I never understood Instagram and Snapchat and the likes. I don't use it and I find it's ridiculous that there people who use it. But apparently there is whole mass of 17 yrs olds who live on this crap. It's similar to whole mass of 65 years old craving for pissable golf clubs. These kind of things either will inspire you to make more things like that or just brush them off as side effect of huge human population where even 0.01% of market is pretty big number.
I could see the Tinder-style pivot actually making this an interesting app.
As it stands, what this app fails to do is establish a channel of communication. If I message a friend on Skype, I know that we're most likely going to converse over Skype. Same with email, SMS, phone call, etc. With Yo, however, they have to choose some method of communication which may not be ideal for me. Furthermore, given that there is zero metadata regarding the "Yo", they have no clue how urgent it is that they get in touch over some real communication channel. The only context that one can have around a Yo would have to be established before-hand (over a medium for real communication).
In fact, since there's no metadata (besides the identity of the sender), Yo is actually less useful than a beeper.
I'm actually kind of surprised at the large numbers of HNers running to defend this thing, and those that expressed the equally valid opinion that this app is garbage have been downvoted into oblivion.
In this thread I've seen lines like:
"Filling a communication niche",
"It reduces that friction of opening your SMS app and typing 'Yo'"
What a surreal thread. It literally could have come straight from a script from HBO's 'Silicon Valley'.
Yeah, hilarious. Shit like this makes me wonder if we have reached "peak human" on this planet. Even raising a hint of suspicion at an obviously idiotic allocation of capital is regarded as "hating" or "not getting it". I can imagine aliens watching the spectacle of our civilization from beyond our view and wondering how we justify allocating 10x the NIH cancer research budget to stuff like whatsapp, snapchat, etc and having biochem/physics phds having better job prospects driving for Uber rather than advancing science.
Poke is for attention whores. Excuse my slang. If you have something to say then say it. Otherwise what's your need to get someone else to initiate conversation?
The innovation, such as it is, is to get a zillion people to install an app that gives the company a direct line into your notification bar. Think they'll never put an ad there?
The onboarding process was really jarring. I expected to be able to use it instantly. Instead, I had to wait ~30 seconds while my username was registered, and now I'm sitting on my hands waiting for some SMS with a code that will allow me to login. Also, there's no easy way for me to use the app with other people without inviting them first (which, given my circle of friends and family, would have to be preceded by a sales pitch on why they should download this stupid thing in the first place).
As an app that prioritizes ease-of-use and fast communication, Yo really falls flat on it's face.
I'm not going to comment on the potential usefulness of this app, because I'm sure others will and I don't think it'll yield any particularly interesting discussion. References will be made to Snapchat and WhatsApp, the word "bubble" might come up, etc.
The SMS piece is a server issue with all the traffic they had today. It should be instant but it's been delayed all day for people, was fine when I first signed up. Once it does, your phone number will be verified and it'll connect people in your phone book like Snapchat, Whatsapp, Secret, etc.
One of the author's jibes at Facebook is that it "causes depression among its users".
But what about TechCrunch itself? I would bet money that there's a correlation between TC readership and depression. Reading about pointless apps is a waste of anyone's time and will make you feel worse in the long run.
Technology has a tendency to distill everything to its essence. This is just another step towards a world in which the number one film in the country is called "Ass" [1].
“It’s really lightweight,” said Arbel. “You don’t have anything to open. The Yo is everything, it’s all there is. You don’t have a badge you need to remove or any hidden content. Just a Yo.”
Ridiculous as this sounds, there's a very interesting conversation happening on Twitter with Marc Andreessen about this apps' uses.
Apparently, the "missed call" phenomenon, where people will call someone else and hang up, is incredibly popular, especially in other countries (e.g. Bangladesh). It's a free way to communicate 1 bit of information, which in many cases is enough if the people know beforehand what they want to communicate. E.g., "come downstairs", "call me back on another line", etc.
I think one article mentioned that missed calls are 70% of the traffic of cellular operators in Bangladesh!
When I was in high school our local mobile networks brought out a feature called "Please call me" in which you used USSD to send an unbilled notification for another number to call you - you only got around 20 per day but that was more than enough.
Most people seemed to use it to notify their parents that they were ready to be picked up from a prearranged place much like you're describing with missed calls.
The "missed call" is not a phenomenon. Most cell phone callers (not the receivers) in the developing world are charged by the minute for each call. Hanging up before the call is answered incurs no fee. This is simply a way to save money.
Yo is ridiculous and doesn't necessarily solve any problem that is not solved with existing messaging apps.
In Europe and a lot of developing countries, where missed calls aren't charged for - this kind of 'nudge' communication is pretty common. I have no idea if it'll work in the US but it's certainly valuable when both parties already have known context, e.g. 'I'll missed call you when I'm outside'
Please, please, please somebody buy this company for $10 million. This is the best chance in human history to bring Poe's Law to its absurdist conclusion.
What sparked my interest is that indeed there seem to be some words that are like a swiss army knife in possibilities. Yo is a prime example. It can mean hi, okay, no thanks, what's that, hey, a warning and the list goes on forever.
Trying the app it said to me that I could connect to Facebook through my settings. The app didn't have settings.
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
Stuff like that really gets me. I see tons of start-ups that would have a fighting chance given that sort of investment and then lame stuff like this gets funding. Of course they're entirely free to spend their money any way they want, but was there really no place to spend that better?
Congratulations to the Yo team for furthering the research to the origins of the term 'dumb money'.
I guess if you timed it right you could use Yo to communicate in Morse, but that seems to be a waste of bits considering that each packet will activate a very large number of bits being sent where one would suffice.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
I will take exception though to the 'dumb money' comment. It is dumb to gamble, but even smart people do it, it is a risk/reward trade-off. Smart people can look at the fundamentals here and see there is a possible 'flip' opportunity, high risk, high reward, short time to closure. The trick will be to see in 3 years if it hasn't flipped or exited by then. But that only tells you the payoff. I bought a $66M lottery ticket the other day, 'dumb' ? Sure it was $2 put at risk. I chose not to buy a $2 soda. Probably not a smart allocation of capital, but the soda would have been turned into piss in short order, the lottery ticket has potential right up until the drawing :-).
[+] [-] ry0ohki|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dustingetz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 7Figures2Commas|11 years ago|reply
What makes you think this is an either-or proposition? There's a glut of capital chasing startup opportunities today. No entrepreneur is entitled to money, but every entrepreneur can compete for it. Sure, some entrepreneurs are better connected than others, which often makes fundraising easier. But at the end of the day, why should investors be implicitly blamed for a failed startup led by an entrepreneur who was unable to convince said investors to provide his or her company with funding?
Sales is an integral part of building a successful business, and if you need capital, you had better be prepared to sell your company to the people you're asking to provide it.
> Congratulations to the Yo team for furthering the research to the origins of the term 'dumb money'.
Even if you subscribe to the notion that there really is "smart money" and "dumb money" when it comes to angels and venture firms, let's not pretend that there isn't such a thing as "dumb entrepreneurship." Entrepreneurs who start businesses without lining up the capital they need to execute are taking a risk. In many cases, especially among young entrepreneurs, that risk is not at all calculated.
On this note, it's sad that so many startup entrepreneurs bet the farm on day one by putting themselves in a position where they believe they need to sell equity to raise capital. There are a variety of ways to fund a business and early on, selling equity is often one of the least attractive despite the sex appeal that Silicon Valley has given it.
[+] [-] kanzure|11 years ago|reply
Maybe. Consider all of the competing opportunities that might be discovered in a short window, like say a week. Out of all of those options, which ones are still early stage, which ones are demonstrating any amount of traction, and which ones have fancypants metrics like "over 5,000 messages sent per day"? (I'm just making that number up. But I'm sure that sort of number was mentioned at least once. Even if they had to squint to ignore the power law distribution.)
edit: and which ones are riding on the news or rumors of a >$1 billion exit (while still demonstrating traction)? (Snapchat/Whatsapp rumors were probably floating around for a bit before they happened.)
How much is traction worth? what about fad traction?
[+] [-] beachstartup|11 years ago|reply
a huge portion of the 'technology' industry is just rich/privileged people doing nonsensical things that may make them a bunch of money. whatever.
trying to find or impose some kind of rationality on it is in my opinion pointless, and holding it accountable to some kind of moral benchmark is as sure as anything i've ever seen, to disappoint.
[+] [-] ISL|11 years ago|reply
Not sure? (don't do this) Try calling your local emergency service (911 in the US) and hanging up.
[+] [-] rlu|11 years ago|reply
It's basically begging for you to switch apps after you get the "Yo" push notification. I can't really imagine a conversation which goes like this:
Me: Yo
Them: Yo
Me: Yo
Them: Yo
...
What I can imagine is getting a Yo from someone, switching apps, and being like "what's up? [p.s. dont fucking Yo me anymore. Just message me using a real app.]".
That "wut" app is similar in that you can't have a real conversation with anyone in particular, but it can at least be used for sharing secrets or something. I guess. Yo doesn't have such a use case that I can see.
They could maybe pivot it to act like tinder where if both of the parties yo eachother then it goes to a separate section of the app where they can actually IM eachother. But...idk. That doesn't seem particularly interesting/differentiating either.
I must be naive/short sighted.
[+] [-] esrauch|11 years ago|reply
Basically any time someone says "message me when..." there is no conversation when I message them. There is just a contentless phone call or text message. This is filling a communication niche that isn't well supported by the existing methods.
That said, I'm still not willing to install a new app just for that, but that doesn't mean there isn't value there.
[+] [-] sytelus|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notduncansmith|11 years ago|reply
As it stands, what this app fails to do is establish a channel of communication. If I message a friend on Skype, I know that we're most likely going to converse over Skype. Same with email, SMS, phone call, etc. With Yo, however, they have to choose some method of communication which may not be ideal for me. Furthermore, given that there is zero metadata regarding the "Yo", they have no clue how urgent it is that they get in touch over some real communication channel. The only context that one can have around a Yo would have to be established before-hand (over a medium for real communication).
In fact, since there's no metadata (besides the identity of the sender), Yo is actually less useful than a beeper.
[+] [-] increment_i|11 years ago|reply
In this thread I've seen lines like: "Filling a communication niche", "It reduces that friction of opening your SMS app and typing 'Yo'"
What a surreal thread. It literally could have come straight from a script from HBO's 'Silicon Valley'.
[+] [-] aswanson|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fmendez|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pizza|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fizwhiz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmduke|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nextweek2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notduncansmith|11 years ago|reply
As an app that prioritizes ease-of-use and fast communication, Yo really falls flat on it's face.
I'm not going to comment on the potential usefulness of this app, because I'm sure others will and I don't think it'll yield any particularly interesting discussion. References will be made to Snapchat and WhatsApp, the word "bubble" might come up, etc.
[+] [-] fastest963|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kunaalarya|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavlov|11 years ago|reply
But what about TechCrunch itself? I would bet money that there's a correlation between TC readership and depression. Reading about pointless apps is a waste of anyone's time and will make you feel worse in the long run.
[+] [-] reamsofgleam|11 years ago|reply
I'm 50/50 on this happening within a decade.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
[+] [-] minimaxir|11 years ago|reply
I can't wait until the hackathons where everyone makes Yo clones unironically. It's going to create an innovation black hole.
[+] [-] eric_bullington|11 years ago|reply
"It's like Yo, only with 'Hey' instead of 'Yo'"
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stu_k|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mz|11 years ago|reply
“It’s really lightweight,” said Arbel. “You don’t have anything to open. The Yo is everything, it’s all there is. You don’t have a badge you need to remove or any hidden content. Just a Yo.”
Words fail me.
[+] [-] aashishkoirala|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edanm|11 years ago|reply
Apparently, the "missed call" phenomenon, where people will call someone else and hang up, is incredibly popular, especially in other countries (e.g. Bangladesh). It's a free way to communicate 1 bit of information, which in many cases is enough if the people know beforehand what they want to communicate. E.g., "come downstairs", "call me back on another line", etc.
I think one article mentioned that missed calls are 70% of the traffic of cellular operators in Bangladesh!
[+] [-] axisK|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clintonb|11 years ago|reply
Yo is ridiculous and doesn't necessarily solve any problem that is not solved with existing messaging apps.
[+] [-] free2rhyme214|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ashrust|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melvinmt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natural219|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pingburg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dep_b|11 years ago|reply
Trying the app it said to me that I could connect to Facebook through my settings. The app didn't have settings.
sad trombone
Don't snort the 1.2 million at once, yo.
[+] [-] prezjordan|11 years ago|reply