11 Nov 2004 | Natalie Buxton said...

I cant wait. If it's anything half as useful as BaseCamp I'll be very impressed.

11 Nov 2004 | Ryan C. said...

This is obviously a question asked far before I'm entirely sure what Writeboard will eventually be.. but will there be any integration with Basecamp, or will it be only available separately?

11 Nov 2004 | David Schontzler said...

Will you be able to see the various editing branches?

11 Nov 2004 | indi said...

but ... if you edit an older version doesn't it become a newer version ... but being based on an older version wouldn't it be missing some of the latest changes? I'll be interested to see how this actually works :-)

11 Nov 2004 | John Wilger said...

ummm.... Wiki, anyone?

11 Nov 2004 | Wade Winningham said...

Sounds like it could be very useful for web designers/developers in assembling content from clients for their sites. The last site I worked on had a Word document that was passed around like a hot potato. This would also allow clients to enter content without getting overly concerned about the design of it. Can't wait to see what we can do with it!

I had thought this may be a kind of repackaging of Instiki, and while it may be somewhat based on it, seems like it will be more.

11 Nov 2004 | Michael Spina said...

Grammar check: Shouldn't "There's 2 newer..." be "There're 2 newer..." or "There are 2 newer..."?

11 Nov 2004 | JF said...

ummm.... Wiki, anyone?

Writeboard is wikish in some respects, but it's definitely not a wiki.

11 Nov 2004 | Ritz said...

Wiki-wiki! Wikish - nadda wiki! Sounds like D.J. Short-bus is on the set scratching it up. Club SVN... word.

Sounds like a killer little app to me.

11 Nov 2004 | Olivier Garcia said...

I agree with John, it sounds like a wiki. Could you tell us one (or more :) ) of the features that make it not a wiki ?

11 Nov 2004 | Ryan C. said...

While I can see the similarities, that's like saying Basecamp is a glorified MT installation. While it's true in some respects, there is a significant amount of value added in the "37s extras"..

11 Nov 2004 | JF said...

I agree with John, it sounds like a wiki. Could you tell us one (or more :) ) of the features that make it not a wiki?

Stay tuned. More previews are on the way before the release. But, I'll say this: It's all in the execution, the details, what we've left out, and the interface.

11 Nov 2004 | pb said...

Even if it is very wiki-like, the current state of wiki software leaves a huge amount of room for improvement. Does anyone actually like the wiki they are using?

11 Nov 2004 | YoungHistorians said...

What Wiki software are you guys using now?

12 Nov 2004 | ~bc said...

This may be top secret, but for me, the killer feature would be integration with basecamp? Makes sense to have this right up there with to-do's, etc...

12 Nov 2004 | JF said...

This may be top secret, but for me, the killer feature would be integration with basecamp? Makes sense to have this right up there with to-do's, etc...

We'll be talking about this soon. Stay tuned.

12 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Does anyone actually like the wiki they are using?

That's a very good point. ;o)

12 Nov 2004 | Olivier Garcia said...

Does anyone actually like the wiki they are using?

I do. But I guess it's because I made it the way I wanted. However, I agree that some people don't like at all the concept of wiki.

13 Nov 2004 | Martin said...

Will this be available as a downloadable app or an installable/customisable app for my own website?

I like the idea, but what if I want to work on text that I don't want people outside of my own sphere to access - your best efforts to secure the Writeboard site from prying eyes won't be enough to convince me that you wouldn't be tempted to take a sneak peek at my work....

15 Nov 2004 | Paperhead said...

i like this.

15 Nov 2004 | JF said...

Will this be available as a downloadable app or an installable/customisable app for my own website?

Writeboard will be a hosted service.

I like the idea, but what if I want to work on text that I don't want people outside of my own sphere to access - your best efforts to secure the Writeboard site from prying eyes won't be enough to convince me that you wouldn't be tempted to take a sneak peek at my work...

If you don't trust us then Writeboard probably isn't for you.

15 Nov 2004 | Martin said...

If it's a hosted service, surely you could make it available for purchase and installation on non-SvN domains?

I'm thinking of recommending something like this to the company I work for, but they won't touch it if they know that confidential communications are being hosted on someone else's servers where they could potentially be snooped upon, corrupted or lost through no fault of their own.

15 Nov 2004 | JF said...

If it's a hosted service, surely you could make it available for purchase and installation on non-SvN domains?

No, it's a hosted service. We host it just like we do with Basecamp. There is no installed on your own server option.

I'm thinking of recommending something like this to the company I work for, but they won't touch it if they know that confidential communications are being hosted on someone else's servers where they could potentially be snooped upon, corrupted or lost through no fault of their own.

Then Writeboard won't be for them.

15 Nov 2004 | Gus said...

A funny thing about 37signals apps...

Basecamp, and from the looks of it, Writeboard, are fairly trivial to implement, especially using the Ruby on Rails framework which your own developer has open-sourced.

I realize you've invested alot into the design, but you can't really protect that. Even a mediocre developer and designer could replicate your work in a relatively short period of time -- you've done most of the hard work for them.

I got a real kick out of your post from a few weeks ago where you talked about auctioning off on-site licenses. It's one of the most ridiculous, arrogant and offensive ideas I've ever heard.

15 Nov 2004 | JF said...

I realize you've invested alot into the design, but you can't really protect that. Even a mediocre developer and designer could replicate your work in a relatively short period of time -- you've done most of the hard work for them.

Isn't that like looking at a painting and saying "I can do that" ? Maybe you can and maybe you can't. We did. It's a free market -- go create something. The barriers have never been lower. There are plenty of gaps for plenty of products. We look forward to seeing what you put together.

I got a real kick out of your post from a few weeks ago where you talked about auctioning off on-site licenses. It's one of the most ridiculous, arrogant and offensive ideas I've ever heard.

Sorry you feel that way. I guess people who sell stuff on eBay are the most ridiculous, arrogant and offensive people as well. All we were proposing as an idea was to limit the amount of software we want to sell and ask people to bid on it if they are interested in buying. That's not arrogant, it's pure auction supply and demand-based pricing.

15 Nov 2004 | Gus said...

Maybe you can and maybe you can't. We did. It's a free market -- go create something. The barriers have never been lower. There are plenty of gaps for plenty of products. We look forward to seeing what you put together.

Fair enough.

I guess people who sell stuff on eBay are the most ridiculous, arrogant and offensive people as well.

Interesting leap of logic. You're not just trying to make me look stupid are you?

People on eBay are selling products of which there are limited quantities. Software is an altogether different animal.

To me it comes across as arrogant for a software company to auction off its own non-shrinkwrap software. Maybe I'm wrong and you'll start a revolution. Good luck.

15 Nov 2004 | JF said...

People on eBay are selling products of which there are limited quantities. Software is an altogether different animal.

Our original point was that we couldn't manage hundreds or thousands of installed versions of Basecamp so we were putting a limit on the quantity we'd offer for sale. So, while some software supply isn't limited, we wanted to think a little differently about our software (and our sanity).

This isn't about a revolution. It's not about being different just to be different. It's about what you can manage with a small team. And we decided that we can't manage a massive installation. We'd rather make a select few happy, keep them happy, and keep us happy. No arrogance involved.

16 Nov 2004 | Martin said...

Then Writeboard won't be for them.

The thing is, Writeboard is probably ideal for them, but you don't seem to want to sell it, which is an odd way to do business.

Can you imagine the people at Six Apart having ever got off the ground by adopting a business model like that?

16 Nov 2004 | JF said...

The thing is, Writeboard is probably ideal for them, but you don't seem to want to sell it, which is an odd way to do business.

We are selling it, but we're selling it as a hosted service. An ASP-model like Basecamp or salesforce.com or Typepad, for example.

16 Nov 2004 | Martin said...

I hope I'm not sounding rude, because I'm genuinely interested in this product, but I'd like to try and understand why you don't want to sell it as a downloadable, customisable app, like Movable Type, for example.

A similar situation arose with Atomz Search. Atomz provide me with a free site search which indexes 500 pages on my site - anything above that, and I have to purchase a full corporate solution from them, starting at about $7,000.

It seems odd that they don't have a business model for indexing another 500 pages. I'd pay, say, $50 for them to index me another 500 pages, but they don't want my money - they'd rather hold out for $7,000 that they are simply not going to get from me.

According to their salesman, they "don't deal with individuals".

Hmm... they offer a free search to invididuals, but choose not to deal with those same individuals when they're prepared to hand over money.

Of course, they might argue that the cost of indexing another 500 pages could cost them more than $50 - but they're already giving me 500 indexed pages for free, so it doesn't add up.

Why not just give me another 500 indexed pages for free, and charge me $50 for the service?

16 Nov 2004 | JF said...

I hope I'm not sounding rude, because I'm genuinely interested in this product, but I'd like to try and understand why you don't want to sell it as a downloadable, customisable app, like Movable Type, for example.

We don't have the people, infrastructure, or desire to support an installed version. We'd rather put everything we have into the hosted version.

16 Nov 2004 | Bob said...

Some good arguments about developing web services instead of web products:

Adam Bosworth: Evolution in Action

Things that breed rapidly more quickly adopt through natural selection to a changing environment. Services can typically deploy changes every month or even more rapidly because they only have one single configuration on a set of machines whose OS, storage and networking they totally control and which they manage in their data centers.

19 Nov 2004 | Pete said...

Martin & Gus: I know what you're thinking, I used to be on that side of the fence, but when you actually develop products yourself, get into the business, and start working with your products as a business, you quickly (or not so quickly, in my case) learn a lot of lessons which help you keep the customers happy, you happy, and the product running well.

From what I see, JF is not trying to be the next Ben Trott, but is more interested in growing a small ASP at a steady rate with a guaranteed(ish) income per number of customers. It's a different strategy, sure, but it's unfair, as a customer, to get your panties in a bind over his strategy. If you want the products on your terms, find someone to develop them for you.

21 Nov 2004 | Larry Burningham said...

Martin & Gus Redux:

Having developed custom ASP apps, I agree with Jason's reasoning. The "ON Demand" phenom is great for all involved, Customer and developer. The developer controls the enviroment and upgrade distribution to one point and the client doesn't have to incorporate the app into their IT infrastructure. The client will save a fortune in labor and logisitic costs alone.

That being said it can be an uphill battle to convince a client to use such a tool at an external location. Perhaps SSL and customized login options would solve the issue. I find when I make the case above the client comes around because it makes sense.

Outsourced applications are the future. Now if someone would build a standard customizable platform to combine all ASP apps, that would be the final piece of the puzzle. FLEX anyone?

My 2 cents in a couple of hundred words.

Oh yeah, Basecamp HQ has saved me more money than I can count and propects think it is the bomb. So yeah I will sign-up for Write Board. Pretty soon I will be paying 37signals more money than my cable company.

22 Nov 2004 | ne said...

I think you guys already considered this... but why not provide a 50/50 solution? I mean, host a WS-based service and let people get the rest of the pack, this provide users with enhanced flexibility, and still keeps the core stuff in your hands, but a smaller one that you can manage with more ease..

22 Nov 2004 | JF said...

I think you guys already considered this... but why not provide a 50/50 solution? I mean, host a WS-based service and let people get the rest of the pack, this provide users with enhanced flexibility, and still keeps the core stuff in your hands, but a smaller one that you can manage with more ease.

Because, as I mentioned, we simply don't have the infrastructure set up to manage installed versions. It's a support, update, and distribution nightmare. We don't have the people or the desire for it.