[HN Gopher] Show HN: I'm building an open-source Amazon
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: I'm building an open-source Amazon
A couple of years ago, I had an interesting idea. What if there was
a marketplace where all the underlying tech was open-source? The
order management system, the storefront, customer support, etc.
The marketplace would simply connect to the seller's infra instead
of locking them in. If, for some reason, the seller is removed from
the marketplace, their software stays with them and they can
continue accepting orders directly. This model can be used to
disrupt any marketplace from AirBNB to UberEats: building tech for
home renters and restaurants and later, leveraging that to build a
competing marketplace. In 2019, I started building the first
piece, Openship, an order management system that lets you source
orders and fulfill them from anywhere. Now that that's in stable
release, next up is Openfront (an e-commerce platform for
storefronts) and Opensupport (ticketing software for customer
support). Together, they provide the staples for any modern
business: sales, fulfillment, support. Let me know what you guys
think of the idea and if you see any potential pitfalls.
Author : theturtletalks
Score : 612 points
Date : 2022-09-02 13:19 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (openship.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (openship.org)
| ivoras wrote:
| One of these day someone will do OpenBazaar
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBazaar) right. They were on to
| something, and just possibly, all this infrastructure built
| around web3 might not be completely useless for that kind of a
| distributed marketplace.
| themagician wrote:
| I also work with basically every Amazon selling platform
| globally: Vendor Central (Direct PO) in the US and EU and Seller
| Central in the US, CA, MX, UK, DE, FR, IT, ES, TR, PL, NL, JP,
| AU, and SG.
|
| The software is (generally) not the issue. The software is great.
| The service is great. FBA can be a game changer in many regions.
|
| The real problem with the Amazon, from a seller/brand/manufacture
| perspective is support. If you get banned--if there is a hiccup,
| or if there is a problem of any kind--it is a nightmare (or
| straight up impossible) to resolve.
|
| I don't really want to own the software. I want to talk to a
| human when something goes wrong. I want to talk to someone who
| will ban a seller infringing on my trademarks. I want to talk to
| someone who will give me control of my listings when someone else
| hijacks them.
|
| Amazon is, for better or worse, where the customers are. I have a
| good product and I don't have to pay for advertising. I don't
| want to have to pay for advertising to get people to go somewhere
| else. I just want to be able to talk to a human on occasion to
| resolve issues. I do millions of dollars of business every year
| with Amazon and reaching a human--let alone a human who can
| actually do something--is the most frustrating part of Amazon.
| nprateem wrote:
| Particl.io does this on the blockchain. It's fully anonymous
| luc_ wrote:
| Thank you.
| jpatt wrote:
| A few points I'm skeptical of: simply connect to
| the seller's infra instead of locking them in.
|
| One of the value-adds of Amazon is there's a whole bunch of tech
| sellers don't need to know how to write, run, and maintain. You'd
| need to understand how big the niche "technically literate to run
| their own e-commerce business, but selling on Amazon for other
| reasons" is, then how your operation would answer those "other
| reasons" to make you competitive to the niche.
| If, for some reason, the seller is removed from the marketplace,
| their software stays with them and they can continue accepting
| orders directly.
|
| Apart from the software systems, there's a whole bunch of basic
| business processes that Amazon takes care of, which are less
| portable. Using FBA? Leaving means learning how to run a
| warehouse, shipping logistics, pricing, staffing, etc. Not using
| FBA? How's your Marketing department doing? Hopefully you didn't
| let it get too anemic or too fitted to "people who are good at
| gaming Amazon's algorithm."
|
| In short, if your value add is: "Amazon, but you get to take the
| tech home with you if you leave the platform," then that feels
| like a small niche of highly competent businesses, then you're
| stuck with "well if they could do all this on their own anyway,
| why are they choosing Amazon?"
|
| Hope that helps and wasn't just me blabbering. Good luck!
| ajvs wrote:
| More of your storefront being portable is a big plus for any
| business that fears lock-in or unwanted removal from Amazon.
|
| I haven't looked into the specifics of this offering, but if
| you were able to use your own custom domain for your
| storefront, minimise the platform's insights into your actual
| sales (i.e. to prevent a similar case to Amazon launching
| products in your niche), etc and mainly leveraging a
| centralised platform for the audience, then that's the best of
| both worlds.
| melony wrote:
| You can always do what bookshop.org did and appeal to social
| justice and hipster oppression. Talk about supporting "small
| business" and pretend that everyone's not just dropshipping
| from asia.
| joemi wrote:
| I don't think you know too much about how the book retail
| industry works. If people are dropshipping from anywhere,
| they're dropshipping from Ingram, which is in the US. Some of
| the stuff they carry might be printed in Asia, but it's not
| shipping directly from there to individual US customers. If I
| had to guess, this is how I'd expect bookshop.org to be
| fulfilling orders that they fulfill themselves. I can't
| remember if bookshop.org kicks any fulfillment to its indie
| bookstore partners, but if they do, those stores are almost
| certainly using Ingram dropshipping or fulfilling from the
| store's in-store inventory.
|
| That said, it's still not nearly as good for indie bookstores
| as just buying directly from the indie bookstore, but it's
| pretty far from your characterization.
| melony wrote:
| I was referring to OP's product. The non-book part of
| Amazon sources the majority of their products from asia.
| Bookshop was just a point of comparison. Their schtick is
| to complain on media (said media is conveniently on an
| anti-big tech crusade right now) about small indie book
| stores being oppressed by Amazon while ignoring the fact
| that most publishing is centralized upstream.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| It's the word "simply" that usually raises all the red flags
| :-)
| bookofjoe wrote:
| "just" is another red flag word
| swyx wrote:
| i think the branding "open source Amazon" is just way too
| ambitious/big. invites a lot of confusion/criticism if Amazon
| is different things to different people.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| should start small, like an open source Google, then work
| your way up to an open source Amazon.
| ReedJessen wrote:
| literal LOL
| cush wrote:
| Harsh, but true
| kornhole wrote:
| Many have already done open source Google and MS. We have
| those solutions already, and they are great though not yet
| pervasive. We need open source market place and logistics,
| and that is where they should stay focused.
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| Nobody ever wants to open source Pornhub. Wide consumer
| interest, no physical products to worry about, lots of
| advertising potential - and your not competing with Amazon,
| Wal-Mart, Google, Apple, or Target. Sounds like a better
| deal to me.
| egypturnash wrote:
| Constant hassle with payment processors deciding to ban
| smut once you get too big, though.
| oefnak wrote:
| Maybe practice creating an open source Microsoft before
| quitting your day job?
| jannes wrote:
| They previously submitted the same link with a different
| title and got... 3 upvotes.
|
| The Amazon comparison clearly helped to get on the HN front
| page.
|
| > Show HN: I'm building an open-source order management
| system and marketplace API
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=openship.org
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| Probably for this crowd anyway. My first thought at seeing
| the title was AWS, not the store front.
| sigg3 wrote:
| For some blissful seconds I thought this post would be
| related to reforestation efforts.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Amazon to most is primarily a website where you get
| everything mostly reliable and mostly with a consumer
| focussed service (I for one never had any issues when
| returning things, any problem was like "yeah ok, send it
| back, we send you a new one or do you want a refund?" ... For
| sellers they play a different game with their market power,
| discounts or they won't offer your things or rank competitors
| higher)
| pushedx wrote:
| I think it's good marketing.
|
| Amazon's primary source of revenue is as a market-
| maker/logisticics provider, so why not position yourself as a
| competitor if it gets contributors interested?
| [deleted]
| AndyPa32 wrote:
| I had thought until now that Amazon primary revenue stream
| is running a good chunk of the internet. Quick research
| tells me, you are right.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Revenue for Amazon is in the retail business. The margin
| however is a lot better in the AWS side. Warehouses and
| logistics cost real money to operate.
| kornhole wrote:
| >One of the value-adds of Amazon is there's a whole bunch of
| tech sellers don't need to know how to write, run, and
| maintain. You'd need to understand how big the niche
| "technically literate to run their own e-commerce business, but
| selling on Amazon for other reasons" is, then how your
| operation would answer those "other reasons" to make you
| competitive to the niche.<
|
| The bigger stores with IT staff and budgets would be first to
| join and contribute. Some of us consultants could help the
| smaller shops and possibly combine energies into communities or
| coops using shared resources.
| kaiusbrantlee wrote:
| re " how big the niche "technically literate to run their own
| e-commerce business, but selling on Amazon for other reasons"
| is,
|
| As the platform matured, the level of technical literacy could
| decrease over time. e.g. the more technical aspects get
| abstracted away from the users.
|
| Furthermore, users who are motivated enough would begin to
| extend their technical reach by means of self education, and/or
| collaboration with more technical party/(ies).
|
| This is a common arc in technology.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| I think it's fantastic.
|
| Growth _will_ be slow. This is something like xmpp or mastodon,
| people will use it for sure, it will grow over time, but you 're
| not going to see an explosion of use like amazon did. Keep at it,
| your work is much needed and this system you're building is
| wonderful.
|
| Don't concern yourself with monetization too much. I know you
| need to eat, HN is populated largely by people in startups
| (because it's run by a sv startup accelerator) and you'll have a
| lot of replies asking you how you'll monetize and giving you
| advice on that. Don't do anything too hasty, don't break what
| you're building by being short sighted. You can run storefronts
| as a service to people who don't want to, that's in your back
| pocket (or front pocket, I don't know your plans), so changing
| the open dynamic of this thing is not necessary and it would end
| the whole value proposition of what you're building.
|
| I don't know if you are familiar with OpenBazaar, if you aren't
| take a look at it and see if you can get any ideas from it, or
| even if you think what you're building could improve on it. I
| think it's cool but lacking and I think what you're putting
| together could actually be widely useable.
| craniumslows wrote:
| I think this is a good solution for businesses that are starting
| to outgrow their home garages. Here's my feedback:
|
| When I read this post and looked at the site I thought you were
| offering a turnkey drop shipping solution service. I also had the
| impression that you offered warehousing and other logistical
| services.
|
| I know this is not the case, but it took me several minutes to
| figure out what exactly was happening.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Wouldn't this be more of an open source Ebay then, if the
| logistic components, which make up much of Amazon's value, are
| not there?
| trollied wrote:
| I have flagged this because the title is clickbait
| kburman wrote:
| You're solving the wrong problem, For building Amazon you need
| capital not tech so much.
| 5Qn8mNbc2FNCiVV wrote:
| Mobile layout is a bit cramped with half of the screen seemingly
| being cut off the way it's done. The bottom part looks like a
| banner
| activatedgeek wrote:
| Very ambitious! Good luck!
|
| A small bug in the call-to-action at the bottom of the page - If
| I upvote only "Stripe" in the "Connect your Shops" section, the
| call-to-action reads:
|
| > Want to know when Stripe, Stripe, and more integrations are
| ready?
|
| Voting for greater than one shop resolves this repetition error.
| samsquire wrote:
| You might find odoo interesting, it's an Enterprise Resource
| Planning system and open source in Python. It has its own ORM.
|
| You can also build websites with it.
| cbreynoldson wrote:
| Cheering you on!
| 0x9b wrote:
| The change in your past HN posts from "open source order
| management system" to "open-source Amazon" is a great case of
| vision selling better than the product itself.
| criddell wrote:
| When I read the title, I assumed they were taking on AWS, not
| setting themselves up to sit between a business and their
| customers.
| kristov wrote:
| I think it would be really cool if all your sellers had to do was
| maintain their inventory in a google sheet, and "share" access to
| your marketplace thing. Maybe you require columns to be named a
| certain way etc, but much lower barrier to entry.
| eastbayjake wrote:
| Love open source projects in the eCommerce domain, especially
| ones that are JavaScript instead of PHP! Two pieces of feedback:
|
| - Using a copyleft license like AGPL makes this an automatic non-
| starter for most businesses, no matter how impressive your tech
| might be. You'll have a lot more luck with mid-size and
| enterprise adoption with an MIT license.
|
| - You've really built an Order Management System for marketplace
| use cases, which is in industry typically a distinct domain from
| a Warehouse Management System (WMS) or a Transportation
| Management System (TMS) which at large-scale tend to handle how
| orders actually get fulfilled and shipped to customers. Your
| naming is a bit misleading - at the very least I'd emphasize
| somewhere on your landing page that this is an open source Order
| Management System if you want eCommerce domain folks to grok
| quickly what you've built and how it plugs into a broader
| architecture.
| ddevault wrote:
| >Using a copyleft license like AGPL makes this an automatic
| non-starter for most businesses, no matter how impressive your
| tech might be.
|
| Maybe some (but certainly not most!) tech businesses, but what
| makes you think that vendors of real-world products give a shit
| about AGPL?
|
| https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html
| ryan29 wrote:
| > - Using a copyleft license like AGPL makes this an automatic
| non-starter for most businesses, no matter how impressive your
| tech might be. You'll have a lot more luck with mid-size and
| enterprise adoption with an MIT license.
|
| What makes the AGPL unattractive? I thought it was basically
| just the GPL with a limitation on using the software to provide
| a SaaS product. You don't even have to contribute unpublished
| changes, right?
|
| Before reading your comment I actually checked the licensing in
| the repo because I was thinking the exact opposite; using MIT
| would be a mistake because it's too easy to undermine the
| turnkey offering by selling a competing service without the
| cost of development.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| In this case, there is nothing at all wrong with a GPL
| license. Everyone is answering from the perspective of a
| software company. That isn't who this product seems to be
| targeting. It's targeting businesses that sell physical goods
| and need a virtual storefront to do that. They aren't looking
| to fork this and repackage it as a different product. The
| purpose of it being open source at all is so they can more
| easily self-host it. If you self-host an application you
| don't fork and modify, there is nothing for you to publish.
| The source was already published by the person you got the
| code from in the first place.
| shrimpx wrote:
| Thank you for adding practical sanity to this thread.
| boucher wrote:
| There's a lot of FUD out there about GPL licenses and they've
| become pretty unpopular over the last decade. There are
| trade-offs, but there's nothing wrong with using the AGPL if
| that aligns with your own goals and values.
| bloblaw wrote:
| Here's Google's stance on why they ban AGPL software: https:/
| /opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
|
| > The primary risk presented by AGPL is that any product or
| service that depends on AGPL-licensed code, or includes
| anything copied or derived from AGPL-licensed code, may be
| subject to the virality of the AGPL license.
|
| > This viral effect requires that the complete corresponding
| source code of the product or service be released to the
| world under the AGPL license. This is triggered if the
| product or service can be accessed over a remote network
| interface, so it does not even require that the product or
| service is actually distributed.
|
| > Because Google's core products are services that users
| interact with over a remote network interface (Search, Gmail,
| Maps, YouTube), the consequences of an engineer accidentally
| depending on AGPL for one of these services are so great that
| we maintain an aggressively-broad ban on all AGPL software to
| doubly-ensure that AGPL could never be incorporated in these
| services in any manner.
|
| FWIW, every company I've ever worked at bans AGPL products /
| code.
| jacooper wrote:
| > This viral effect requires that the complete
| corresponding source code of the product or service be
| released to the world under the AGPL license. This is
| triggered if the product or service can be accessed over a
| remote network interface, so it does not even require that
| the product or service is actually distributed..
|
| This is the entire point. The goal is to stop the SAAS
| loophole.
| bsaul wrote:
| My 2 cents :
|
| In an ecosystem like this you may want to have businesses
| build extensions or plugins that they'd sell. GPL has this
| reputation of spreading to everything it touches, and as such
| would scare them away.
| homarp wrote:
| like wordpress plugin marketplace?
| elkos wrote:
| I wish
| [deleted]
| tzs wrote:
| > What makes the AGPL unattractive? I thought it was
| basically just the GPL with a limitation on using the
| software to provide a SaaS product. You don't even have to
| contribute unpublished changes, right?
|
| The things AGPL adds to GPL don't just affect people trying
| to do a SaaS offering of the program. If you modify it and
| users interact with it over a computer network you have to
| make source for your modified version available to them.
|
| For example suppose it was software to add online ordering to
| restaurants. A restaurant modifies its copy so that it can be
| given the recipes of the items they sell and the modified
| software uses that information to allow customers to easily
| exclude items they might be allergic to or that violate their
| religious or ethical eating rules.
|
| If that restaurant wants to use that as a competitive
| advantage over other restaurants they aren't going to want to
| have to give away their modifications, so aren't going to
| want to use AGPL software. They'd probably be fine with GPL
| software.
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| AGPL is banned from every corporation I have ever seen.
|
| Because it's viral even when it is used internally, you might
| end up having to release things you never expected and that
| are very sensitive.
|
| It would be insane to allow anyone to use AGPL code in any
| corporate environment.
| boucher wrote:
| MongoDB is effectively licensed under the AGPL and seems to
| have no problem being used by corporations of all sizes.
| shagie wrote:
| MongoDB - the application is. MongoDB - the service
| isn't.
|
| You can use an Oracle database (however ugly its
| licensing is) without having an oracle license on every
| piece of data you expose. The same is true of Mongo
| license and the data it exposes as a service.
|
| The AGPL in this case is "you use MongoDB - someone wants
| to know about it, the source for MongoDB is over there."
| MongoDB AGPL doesn't 'infect' the application it is part
| of.
|
| Now, if you were to fork MongoDB and do something with
| that fork (FongoDB), and that deployed FongoDB would need
| to make _it 's_ source code available if it was
| accessible - not the entire application that it is part
| of or components that use the data that it provides.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| MongoDB no longer uses the AGPL licence.
| boucher wrote:
| Yes, that's the entire purpose of the AGPL. If that's the
| outcome this person wants for their project, they should
| consider the AGPL.
|
| I'm attempting to counter the narrative that no
| corporation would touch any AGPL software, because it's
| clear that how you are using the software is an important
| part of the equation.
| ZekeSulastin wrote:
| Wouldn't those corporations just purchase the commercial
| license MongoDB offers, though?
| boucher wrote:
| Maybe? The commercial version has some extra features,
| but if you don't need them then there's probably no need
| to. I imagine there is more value in paying for a support
| contract.
| PeterZaitsev wrote:
| MongoDB is licenses as SSPL which is non Open Source
| license all together
|
| BUT this is only if you are not paying for MongoDB. If
| you do chances are you're using MongoDB Enterprise which
| is licensed under commercial license or MongoDB Atlas all
| together
| boucher wrote:
| SSPL is a nearly verbatim copy of AGPL, except one
| section. It is more restrictive than the AGPL, in a way
| that many feel is anti-competitive, which is why it's not
| considered Open Source by many, but also in a way which
| doesn't really change the argument here IMO.
| jabo wrote:
| In fact, here's a diff of AGPL and SSPL, provided by
| MongoDB:
| https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-
| compare...
|
| They took AGPL and modified it a bit to arrive at SSPL
| (See Section 13).
| maxloh wrote:
| AGPL by default with a paid, non-copyleft license would be a
| good business model.
| clairity wrote:
| js has come a long way but i'm skeptical that it's maturing
| fast enough for this to be the right medium- to long-term
| language/platform choice for something that's meant to be more
| infrastructure than just web app. and while php[0] is long past
| the hype cycle, it's more proven in this role than js, but even
| that is usually superceded, or at least augmented, by more
| "industrial" languages when approaching amazon's scale. for
| instance even mid-market WMS systems are often written in
| compiled languages like C# because of the need for speed and
| robustness.
|
| [0]: nowadays i prefer ruby/rails, which can also get you
| pretty far before needing extra help.
| lolc wrote:
| Isn't this project mostly about interfaces for businesses to
| connect their guts? The language used to implement services
| behind common interfaces shouldn't matter all that much. It's
| just the reference implementation in js, no?
| johnorourke wrote:
| You are trying to solve a real-world problem experienced by a lot
| of profitable companies, so there is already a market of paying
| customers waiting for this. One of my clients is actively trying
| to reduce their dependence on Amazon and instead integrate with
| other marketplaces.
|
| I see it's just Shopify-to-Shopify for now - bravo for starting
| with probably one of the most costly integrations. I'm working
| with a client right now who had to build these integrations using
| a low-code drag-n-drop platform which allows a quick MVP but has
| slow job processing, so isn't great for high order volume.
|
| The "amazon" comparison is good for marketing - sure you're not
| doing all their marketing, or having their reach but you are
| connecting suppliers, buyers and fulfilment which is a genuine
| problem.
|
| The companies who would use this often have developers on board
| already, so providing open source, accepting contributions and
| turning this into a useful dev-friendly service will almost
| certainly find paying customers.
|
| Following :)
| imwillofficial wrote:
| You gotta take out that fade out effect. It's terrible for
| usability.
|
| Otherwise great work!
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| I instinctively like this idea a lot, and the website does a
| really good job of explaining the concept.
|
| Good luck with it!
| jahewson wrote:
| This is really high quality work, great job!
|
| > Let me know what you guys think of the idea and if you see any
| potential pitfalls.
|
| Yes, so I don't agree with this:
|
| > This model can be used to disrupt any marketplace from AirBNB
| to UberEats: building tech for home renters and restaurants and
| later, leveraging that to build a competing marketplace.
|
| Because the value in a marketplace is the people, not the tech.
| Here's a thought experiment: if Amazon were to open-source their
| entire marketplace tomorrow, what would change? My answer is:
| close to nothing.
|
| What makes marketplaces so hard is that you need people - on both
| the demand and supply sides.
|
| You seem to have a good handle on the tech and the way that
| businesses use it, so keep talking to people and I'm confident
| that you'll find a valuable niche! People will find the quality
| of your work very compelling.
| avereveard wrote:
| Everyone wants to be on Amazon not because of the software but
| because of the eyeballs that are on it searching for things to
| buy
|
| Anyway how does this compare to openerp + an open storefront?
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| The website is ... not the hard part.
| jbaczuk wrote:
| What is your motivation for doing this?
| cush wrote:
| Do companies want or need an open source Amazon? To me, Shopify
| fills this role. Buyers just want cheap and fast, and sellers
| just want more profits.
|
| Amazon isn't a software company - it's a logistics company that
| specializes in distribution of anything, anywhere, at the
| absolute minimum price to maintain profits.
|
| Most of what Amazon does software-wise Shopify covers - the
| storefront, sales, marketing, analytics, and even some of the
| distribution logistics.
|
| What Shopify doesn't do is analyze your businesses sales, create
| competing products and drive you out of business.
| sandeepeecs wrote:
| in india they are doing some thing called ONDC
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Network_for_Digital_Comme...
|
| ONDC is not an application, an intermediary, or software, but a
| set of specifications designed to foster open interchange and
| connections between shoppers, technology platforms, and
| retailers.[3] Technological self reliance, demand for level
| playing field mainly from small retailers, lower the barrier of
| entry and discovery online, adoption of open digital ecosystem
| across key sectors and fixing the non-competitive behavior of big
| ecommerce firms like Amazon and Flipkart to capture the US$810
| billion domestic retail market led to its creation.[4] Designed
| to keep check on Big Tech companies from violating Consumer
| Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2021 due to
| concentration of market power by integrating them into an open-
| source decentralised network where data portability will break
| data silos while data interoperability will allow innovation.
| randyrand wrote:
| Your pitch is really compelling.
|
| Haven't read the comments yet, but I just want to say that
| personally your pitch got me excited. Good job writing it.
| bmismyname wrote:
| Good luck and I hope you succeed, but the (unfortunate) reality
| check I'll give you is that money rules everything, and if you
| get even the slightest bit of traction, there is more than a
| trillion dollars in market cap behind ensuring you (and nobody
| else) will ever succeed.
|
| The only way to get ahead these days is to either 1) flout the
| laws or 2) have enough capital and political influence to force
| your way to success, such as with regulatory capture.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| That is a very pessimistic way of looking at things. While it
| is true that there are entrenched interests that do what they
| can to prevent any new entrants from disrupting their
| dominance, I feel obligated to point out that this has always
| been the case. Just to point to how bad things in US have been
| at one point, I would like to point out the oft-discussed
| robber barons and the origin of antitrust laws.
|
| Edit: I forgot to add a conclusion somehow.
|
| And yet, somehow we ended up with Googles, FBs, Amazons, Teslas
| and multiple other in tech sector alone over the past few
| decades. Neither of those started even close to existing
| dominant forces in the market.
| tobinfekkes wrote:
| This is a fantastic idea, and you're off to a great start.
|
| I've spent 6 years building a similar thing for local business in
| my area, just not quite this polished and expansive.
|
| I will be keeping an eye on this for sure, love it!
| what-imright wrote:
| Openship is wrong name.
| WesleyJohnson wrote:
| This seems like a reseller's dream. If you're lucky enough to
| find an untapped resource on Etsy, Shopify, eBay, etc and you
| think you can market it better and flip it for a profit - create
| your own stores, route the orders through OpenShip and have the
| lesser-known seller fulfill them for you.
|
| I didn't dig in, but in that above scenario, does the "supplier"
| dropship directly to my buyer or does it come to me and I reship
| it?
| theturtletalks wrote:
| It goes directly to your buyer. Once you start getting a lot of
| orders, you can private label, order in bulk, and ship it
| yourself by just changing the channel. You can become the
| supplier people dropship from.
| jollybean wrote:
| This looks really nice but it's really hard to tell 'what it is'
| from your website.
|
| I can't make heads or tails of it.
|
| You have:
|
| A powerful new standard for fulfillment Multi-channel fulfillment
| at scale
|
| And then kind of a complicated diagram.
|
| "Get Started!" <- with what?
|
| Who is this for? What problem does it solve? 'What is it' and
| roughly how does it work?
|
| Mid way through your landing page you have this UX experience
| where 1,2,3 etc fade in and out with some kind of relative
| diagram at the bottom - this is also confusing and counter-
| intuitive. I see why you'd want to do that, but don't. Just find
| a way to express the concept without that oddity.
|
| "Let me know what you guys think of the idea "
|
| 80% of makers fail to express their idea in digestible terms.
| It's shocking and uncanny but the reality is 1/2 of ideas fail
| because they are never communicated properly.
|
| I think from the comments here on HN this looks pretty neat -
| congrats - please work on communicating it.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| How many licenses have you sold?
| ledgerdev wrote:
| I've been thinking about a clone of amazon marketplace that can
| be run/operated by small cities/towns to support local commerce.
| Anyone have any thoughts on this or seen any other similar
| projects?
| jiggywiggy wrote:
| I really like the look of the site. And seems like wonderful
| work.
|
| I see no base for your claim however: "This model can be used to
| disrupt any marketplace from AirBNB to UberEats".
|
| A tech stack is hardly what makes platforms, it's the consumer
| side of things that disrupts.
|
| So just to make it more fair to the suppliers of the marketplace
| would not really lead to a disruption imo. Not saying it's not
| worth it.
| adavid17 wrote:
| So this is really a open-source Shopify replacement, right? An
| OMS that lets you sell on multiple channels (website, Amazon,
| Instagram, Etsy...) and manage/fulfill those orders in one
| location?
|
| I was confused at first by your title (open source Amazon) which
| seemed like it was going to be a e-commerce marketplace like
| Amazon.com - but it seems like that's the 2nd step.
|
| Why does a new e-commerce marketplace also require a new open-
| source OMS? OMS's have a lot of seller lock-in, but it seems like
| way less lift to have OpenSourceAmazon.com be a channel sellers
| using Shopify's OMS can sell on with a few simple steps on
| Shopify.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Saying that you're building an open source Amazon to complete
| with Amazon is like saying that you're working on an audio player
| skin to compete with Winamp.
|
| Amazon isn't a web site. It's the one of the most sophisticated
| supply chain systems on the planet. The website is what people
| interface with, but it's also one of the most inconsequential
| parts of the system with regards for why people use it.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| What's the first?
| qabqabaca wrote:
| On your deployment page[0], it says you can deploy the entire
| thing to Vercel or Netlify and pass in the postgres connection
| string to the frontend directly. Am I understanding this
| correctly? Is the connection string for the database readable
| from the front end?
|
| [0]https://docs.openship.org/deployment
| theturtletalks wrote:
| It uses Next.js API routes as the backend which is all server-
| side.
| marcodiego wrote:
| Make it not only open-source, but decentralized too. Also, maybe
| it is possible to use federation, so a system of reputation may
| work and buyers can know what they are really buying. This may
| prevent it from being taken over or becoming flooded with scams.
| zameericle wrote:
| Looking at the code, I'm not seeing how you're managaging the
| workflows/processes needed to manage ATS and ATP, along with
| reservations, within openship, the OMS.
| mtmail wrote:
| Quick note, the third submission was automatically blocked by the
| HN algorithms. Posting the same three times in 24h is too much.
|
| > Show HN: I'm building an open-source order management system
| and marketplace API
|
| > Show HN: I'm building an open-source Amazon
|
| > Using open-source to disrupt marketplaces
| theturtletalks wrote:
| Yes I saw that. The last one was a blog post I made in 2019
| describing the vision in detail.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| Nothing wrong with wanting to showcase what you're working on
| but don't spam HN when you're not pleased with the amount of
| eyeballs on it (At least not multiple times within 24 hours
| with varying titles like you're trying to AB test)
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > a blog post I made in 2019 describing the vision
|
| Hence I think you have, regrettably, answered your own
| question.
|
| Its all very well having a vision, but executing it is a
| different question.
|
| The sort of thing you propose requires a lot of time and a
| lot of money to develop. Let alone maintain. Let alone market
| and sell.
|
| Look, its like all those "Bloomberg killers" that come out of
| the woodwork as often as the seasons in the financial world.
| There is a reason why only Bloomberg and Reuters are at the
| top tier, why the second tier is so narrow and why everything
| else is junk. To replicate Bloomberg would take years in time
| and billions in cash.
|
| I admire your ambition, but perhaps rein it in a little ?
| mustache_kimono wrote:
| > I admire your ambition, but perhaps rein it in a little ?
|
| As much as people may say they hate salesmen, we still
| _want_ to be sold something. As a consumer, it 's your job
| to be skeptical. It's their job to sell.
|
| Engineers have this self regarding view of every other side
| of the tech business. That actually -- "Only the tech
| matters" while being incredulous as to why certain tech
| succeeds while others fail. It's because vision and sales
| and business acumen really matter.
| theturtletalks wrote:
| I think of it this way. Launching a marketplace today is
| very difficult, but what if we made the backend of a
| marketplace open-source and used that as leverage. One that
| could be your backend for all operations. You can choose to
| enable the integrated marketplace or not, but the system is
| yours. It's about bringing power back to the sellers.
|
| Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed
| citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing
| that ever has. - Margaret Mead
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > It's about bringing power back to the sellers.
|
| But let's be honest here. What sellers _really_ want are
| buyers.
|
| That's why sellers list on Apple, Amazon, Ebay etc.
| despite the fees.
|
| They are paying for the virtual equivalent of a shop-
| front in the premium mall. They get the payment handling.
| They get the anti-fraud technologies. And with Amazon
| they get the forward and reverse logistics.
|
| Its about _SO_ much more than how open the backend
| software is.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| > Its about SO much more than how open the backend
| software is.
|
| Wrong. I own a small shop in Vermont and I love
| recompiling my shop software every morning to get
| customers. I tweak a couple of things - - yesterday I
| lowered tcp_orphan_retries - - and, boom, more customers!
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Yes and no. What I want is buyers and reasonable fees.
|
| I stopped putting stuff on Ebay due to ridiculous fee
| schedule ( listing is free, but then you get hit with
| tons of seemingly random invoice, which is automatically
| deducted without a real way to challenge it ) and I was
| regularly thinking of putting a store up myself, but I
| don't sell often enough to justify it. I once played with
| an idea of a weird garage sale app that basically let
| your address list what you have available for sale, but
| it seemed like a lot more work than I was willing to put
| forth.
|
| This.. could work. I will admit I am tempted to try the
| self-hosted version.
|
| edit: changed sellers to buyers
| theturtletalks wrote:
| You're right, but sellers are realizing that they are
| helping Amazon, eBay, etc. more than those platforms are
| helping them. For example, if you use FBA to fulfill
| outside orders, Amazon charges a higher rate. You're
| locked into their pricing and their marketplace.
|
| I would say 85% of sellers on eBay and Amazon have their
| own storefront now to be in more control. They also
| funnel these orders into an OMS.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Its all very well having a vision, but executing it is a
| different question._
|
| This also relates to the clickbait-y "I'm building an open-
| source Amazon" positioning, which I don't think serves you
| well.
|
| You're building (I think) an e-commerce platform upon which
| someone can build online shops ("nano-Amazons"?). Where the
| "open-source Amazon" pitch is difficult to take seriously,
| I think there probably is space for new e-commerce
| platforms.
| theturtletalks wrote:
| This is just one piece of the puzzle. I explained it in
| another comment:
|
| > I think of it this way. Launching a marketplace today
| is very difficult, but what if we made the backend of a
| marketplace open-source and used that as leverage. One
| that could be your backend for all operations. You can
| choose to enable the integrated marketplace or not, but
| the system is yours. It's about bringing power back to
| the sellers.
| mikeiz404 wrote:
| Is my understanding correct that: The leverage comes from
| lowering the seller's switching cost to go to/add another
| market place by intermediating the seller/market place
| relationship with open-ship. That way when you release
| the open marketplace open-front you can get easy
| discoverability and a very low switching/adding cost from
| an existing set of sellers?
| theturtletalks wrote:
| You nailed it! Existing and future marketplaces would
| adapt to your system, not the other way around.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _This is just one piece of the puzzle._
|
| Yes! That is the point, which is why over-selling this as
| an "open-source Amazon" will backfire spectacularly with
| anyone who understands what they're talking about.
|
| It's important to know what you're building (from the POV
| of potential customers) and who your competitors are.
| https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/software/best-
| ecomme...
| lmpdev wrote:
| rglover wrote:
| > I admire your ambition, but perhaps rein it in a little ?
|
| Maaaan if we were in the same room. Don't belittle someone
| who's trying to accomplish something (and following through
| with it).
| WilTimSon wrote:
| I think this might have brought on more by the multiple
| submissions but I do agree that it's in HN's spirit to
| support ambitious endeavors.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Maaaan if we were in the same room. Don't belittle
| someone who's trying to accomplish something (and
| following through with it).
|
| I'm not belittling. I'm just saying set realistic goals.
| "Build an open-source Amazon" without the budget or the
| manpower ? Its simply not realistic unless you have very
| deep pockets and a team of hundreds of full-time staff.
|
| If you think I'm being unduly harsh, what sort of
| grilling do you think the OP will be subjected to when
| they rock up at a bank or VC fund looking for a few
| hundred million ?
| rglover wrote:
| No, you're setting limits on another human being, likely
| because you're intimidated by them even having the stones
| to go through with it (and you won't/can't). Folks like
| you are a dime-a-dozen and they are always hollow souls
| who can't accomplish a fraction of the people they push
| down.
|
| > what sort of grilling do you think the OP will be
| subjected to when they rock up at a bank or VC fund
| looking for a few hundred million ?
|
| Appropriate grilling (financial prospects, executive
| potential, etc), not being told to "lower your
| ambitions."
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Folks like you are a dime-a-dozen and they are always
| hollow souls who can't accomplish a fraction of the
| people they push down
|
| It's amazing how nasty people will get sometimes to
| defend someone else who doesn't need defending.
| rglover wrote:
| It's amazing how many people condescend to others on here
| and then are surprised when someone else defends them.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It's not the concept of defence I was commenting on. It's
| the nastiness.
| joshmanders wrote:
| I feel like I should bookmark this thread so I can come
| back in a few years when this dude is huge and say "Geez,
| I bet you wish you kept your yap shut" to all these
| people telling him to reel his ambitions in.
|
| I still smirk at the chucklehead who dismissed Drew
| Houston when he "Show HN: Dropbox"
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Just as a quick counter-argument. Amazon did not become
| today's behemoth overnight. It started as a source for
| books and then slowly expanded into other sectors as it
| perfected its execution.
|
| I might agree that the characterization is a little
| bombastic, but:
|
| 1) It is oddly good marketing if mildly misleading ( as
| discussed in other posts it is not exactly a 'replacement
| for Amazon store for seller' as I would have initially
| thought from the initial presentation )
|
| 2) Here we are discussing its merits or lack thereof
|
| In short, I agree with your general point, when compared
| to today's Amazon, but I think it was more of a
| rhetorical device rather than a 'factual statement'.
| jollybean wrote:
| You're 100% condescending and unduly harsh. Obviously the
| dude is not 'replacing amazon' that's a
| mischaracterization on their part, but they are doing
| something definitely legit, and within scope of what a
| small team can do to start with.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| Execution starts with vision. I don't see a problem with
| thinking big, it inspires others that want to help become
| part of something great.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Execution starts with vision.
|
| Yes I agree.
|
| But the OP had the vision in 2019.
|
| We are now at the tail-end of 2022.
|
| I still see a vision and not much execution.
|
| Meanwhile, the Amazon that the OP is pitching themselves
| against has continued to move onwards and upwards....
|
| As I said. The vision is fine. But the OP needs to
| realise that executing it will require a lot of time and
| a LOT more money !
| trinsic2 wrote:
| I think if you start with vision, and you have passion
| for something the logistics around making it happen will
| manifest, or it won't if its not ready/needed. It depends
| on where your idea takes you and sometimes ideas need to
| be iterated to figure out where you are going. IMHO is
| too early to be focusing on the negatives of what may or
| may not happen. That comes later and it should be made in
| a positive direction, "Where are we going to get the
| money to make this happen", rather than, "Yea man, that's
| going to cost you a lot money". When comming up with
| ideas, the latter doesn't really help, for me.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| > I admire your ambition, but perhaps rein it in a little ?
|
| Yeah, how _dare_ they have ambition.
|
| I bet they haven't even applied for their _Ambition
| Licence_ or submitted their "permission to try and make
| something cool" (PTTAMSC) paperwork.
|
| /s
| joshmanders wrote:
| > I admire your ambition, but perhaps rein it in a little ?
|
| I hope whatever happened to you to make you think like this
| is resolved, because it saddens me to see people tell
| others to pipe their ambitions, goals and visions down
| because THEY don't see it as a reality.
|
| If everyone believed this, we'd have never advanced at all
| as a society because nobody would push the boundaries.
| ganeshkrishnan wrote:
| We already do this via hypernile.com although we are not open
| source.
|
| The biggest challenge for you will be shipping from the 3pl.
| Amazon warehouses all talk to each other and it helps them keep
| the shipping costs bare minimum.
|
| We use machine learning at scale to replicate it and we have made
| good progress however we haven't been able to distribute
| inventory between warehouses. Amazon can do it because they have
| their own distribution trucks while we are surviving on eating
| ramen for dinner
|
| The hardest part is convincing warehouses to connect into our
| network
| trinsic2 wrote:
| I don't do any selling on Amazon, mostly purchase, but the
| interface and the tools for what I understand is to aggregate
| products for selling into one place is spot on.
| loquisgon wrote:
| Are you building it in AWS?
| xwdv wrote:
| Since this is an open source Amazon I'm curious to know how you
| are building out your product recommendations and suggestions for
| users?
| mdaniel wrote:
| My experience is that Amazon.com has never once recommended or
| suggested anything sane to me, beyond that it _loves_ to
| "recommend" the items that I just bought. It's worse than the
| YT recommendation algo, in that way. If flushing the Amazon
| browse history wasn't such a monster PITA, I'd do it daily
| aaroninsf wrote:
| The consumer experience is that unregulated "open" markets fall
| prey quickly to abuse of many kinds which bewilder, mislead, and
| defraud.
|
| Consider the now-standard criticism of Amazon wrt cookie-cutter
| phantom brands with identical products; false reviews; etc etc.
|
| or one of the "amusing(?) stories of the week" about the
| fraudulent 30TB SSD on Walmart (another open market).
|
| If you don't build protections for the customer in at the ground
| level, well...
| rocket_surgeron wrote:
| Those efforts look impressive but no service will be a version
| (open source or otherwise) of Amazon until it can place a single
| tube of toothpaste in my garage 18 hours after I ordered it,
| which it just did thirty minutes ago.
|
| Amazon's "tech" stack, both consumer- and seller-facing is
| horrible and borderline irrelevant.
|
| Their fleet of trucks and aircraft is not.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| You're right, amazon is a logistics company first and foremost.
| But if you can replace the website with something like this and
| then let all the other logistics providers (ups, USPS, FedEx,
| dhl unfortunately) handle the logistics you can re-enable
| competition in this space.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| 18 hours is a pretty stupid selling point IMO. You either need
| something immediately or you can wait. Rarely do I need
| anything 18 hours from now.
|
| I think many sellers would love to not be locked into Amazon
| and at least use something like this as an additional
| alternative. I'm on the other side of the table where I avoid
| buying from Amazon as much as possible.
| rocket_surgeron wrote:
| 18 hours is overnight.
|
| Last night "Hmm. Toothpaste almost gone. Let me check the
| linen closet. Nope. Excuse me while I whip this out. (gasp)
| Swipe, tap, tap, t-o-o-t-h (autocomplete), scroll, tap, tap,
| tap. Done."
|
| Used the last this morning, new toothpaste delivered at noon.
|
| I shop online exclusively because one of my first jobs was in
| retail and it is my solemn duty to do everything I can to
| annihilate the brick and mortar store, to erase it from
| existence to the point that it remembered only as a distant
| cultural echo by future generations.
|
| This is all I can do, and it is enough.
|
| I even get booze delivered so I don't have to stand in line
| as some tweaker tries to buy lottery tickets with handfuls of
| quarters at the liquor store.
|
| Despite what the internet might have you think, fulfillment
| centers for every single distributor or retailer are run the
| same so I choose amazon because they can get many things here
| in 4-6 hours, most of the rest the overnight, and weird stuff
| in two days.
| bamboozled wrote:
| You'd be fun at parties :)
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| Amazon.com is likely the most a/b tested piece of software on
| the planet. It is ugly and clunky because that's what _works_ -
| same with Alibaba and Yahoo JP.
| avgDev wrote:
| Amazon ios app is pretty trash. I keep getting blank white
| screens, it has been this way for months.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ios/comments/tto68z/anyone_else_get.
| ..
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It's ugly and clunky because a) Jeff used to guard it
| fiercely, b) because a/b testing is not guaranteed to get the
| best results, and c) you might just be on the "ugly" a/b
| test.
| abvdj2 wrote:
| That is not true, some parts might be clunky because that
| works, but there's also many parts that are clunky simply
| because it's hard to make a change without breaking anything.
| But amazon doesn't care due to their strong position in the
| market and because AWS is their cash-cow anyways.
| okyanusoz wrote:
| They could make the UI better if they wanted to, but they
| don't, because of reliability.
|
| For most enterprises, if it works, don't touch it.
| the_cat_kittles wrote:
| its not what works, its whats good enough, or not bad enough
| to cause an obvious problem. well maybe thats what you mean
| by "works" i dunno
| ikrenji wrote:
| i read somewhere that bezos personally controls the look and
| feel of amazon and thats why it looks like that. some amazon
| UX/UI director even quit over it
| thomasjudge wrote:
| Probably not so much anymore..
| franczesko wrote:
| "It is ugly and clunky because that's what _works_"
|
| It's a legacy code nightmare, but customers are used to it
| and this is #1 reason why it will not be changed anytime
| soon.
| hk__2 wrote:
| > Amazon.com is likely the most a/b tested piece of software
| on the planet. It is ugly and clunky because that's what
| _works_ - same with Alibaba and Yahoo JP.
|
| This was on the HN frontpage yesterday: "Be good-argument-
| driven, not data-driven"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32651763
|
| I've seen countless bad decisions being taken because the A/B
| test was badly done. You can't assume that some decision was
| good JUST because they A/B-tested it.
| the_cat_kittles wrote:
| getting stuff that fast is very stupid 98% of the time. people
| may like it and want it and sing its praises, but its mostly
| stupid. and i think stupid things generally tend to die out.
| that is all to say that maybe that edge that amazon has is not
| that important.
| busymom0 wrote:
| Even if it's stupid, the sad reality is that most people want
| things as fast as possible and will always gravitate towards
| it.
| desiarnezjr wrote:
| It's not stupid.
|
| Unnecessary most of the time but it becomes an expected
| processing and delivery standard, which makes the experience
| much more predictable for consumers.
|
| Very few can really compete effectively with Amazon on this
| front.
|
| Source: Used to run an e-commerce company that shipped up to
| 2 million packages annually. Once we optimised shipping and
| processing, customer service inquiries and complaints dropped
| dramatically, and customer trust / sentiment skyrocketed.
|
| My understanding is that in certain regions Amazon offers the
| option to consolidate orders to be delivered on a specific
| day. This is actually impressive as it's much harder to do at
| scale than you'd imagine.
| hk__2 wrote:
| > Source: Used to run an e-commerce company that shipped up
| to 2 million packages annually. Once we optimised shipping
| and processing, customer service inquiries and complaints
| dropped dramatically, and customer trust / sentiment
| skyrocketed.
|
| I used to work at company that shipped ~30k packages a day.
| I'd say 90% of customer complaints were about the delivery
| delays, and only 10% about the rest. It was really hard to
| optimize because we had 1M products and were using just-in-
| time logistics with very little inventory. This is a
| specific market that Amazon hasn't really entered yet, but
| when they'll do they'll crush everyone.
| hk__2 wrote:
| I'm pretty happy to live in world where it's difficult to build
| a business where you move trucks around cities to deliver a
| single tube of toothpaste to someone who ordered it the day
| before. Yes, it's hard to do this as fast as Amazon does. But
| should we really go that way, anyway?
| rocket_surgeron wrote:
| >But should we really go that way, anyway?
|
| Yes.
|
| It is more efficient from an energy, carbon, land usage, and
| labor perspective.
|
| The bluish-grey van that delivered my toothpaste had several
| hundred other deliveries on it, and the warehouse it came
| from stocks the products of hundreds of stores (if not more).
|
| How do you think a tube of toothpaste gets to "Ye Olde Mum
| and Pop's Auntie Emma's Down Home Crunchy Granola Authentic
| and Real Indie Small Business"? Trucks.
| XCSme wrote:
| https://bol.com in the Netherlands has delivery within a few
| hours (by bicycle) for some cities and select products. I got
| in this way an inflatable mattress (old one was punctured, so I
| needed one by the evening for my guests) and a few other
| electronic devices or household items.
| graderjs wrote:
| Well the mattress would have to be inflatable to be delivered
| by bicycle
| XCSme wrote:
| The bikes are stronk here [0]!
|
| [0]: https://rollingspoke.com/how-to-move-things-on-a-bike/
| kayson wrote:
| A lot (most?) of that is contractor based now, though. At least
| the last mile. And from the sounds of it, most of the
| contractors aren't huge fans of Amazon anyways. Seems like it
| would not be insurmountable to leverage that market for similar
| delivery times.
| xwdv wrote:
| Most contractors also don't care.
| marban wrote:
| _18 hours_ -- Or ~ 4 hours if you 're in Japan.
| itisit wrote:
| What's your USP compared to others in this crowded iPaaS+EDI
| space (ex. Celigo, Boomi, SPS, etc.)? Maintaining _reliable_
| integrations requires a lot of money, especially at scale and
| even more so when traversing borders. And EDI 850 is pretty well-
| entrenched. I guess I 'm mostly asking who is this for, like
| specifically what size and type of customer?
| turtlebits wrote:
| I don't think you should compare it to Amazon. What makes Amazon
| so popular isn't the that their store front / reseller portal /
| interface is great.
|
| What makes people buy from Amazon is the speed in which you get
| your product and their customer service.
| samstave wrote:
| UHM.... you need to buy ImportYeti....
| ryanobjc wrote:
| I used to work in Amazon Supply Chain Systems Software, many
| years ago. Yes a key component of what amazon does is software,
| but... that is not all what supply chain systems are. They are
| human processes, and physical things.
|
| There exists many systems that lets you take orders online and
| put them in the mail. There are not many systems that lets you
| cheaply ship things to users in like 1-2 days.
|
| Best of luck!
| toofy wrote:
| i haven't visited your site yet, but i've long thought something
| in this vein has been missing.
|
| imagine if taxi companies could make use of it, or a group of
| friends could start their own GNUber.
|
| or a group of high school kids who want to deliver
| groceries/items to the elderly as volunteer work.
|
| or a bunch of middle school friends wanted to do a lawn mowing
| service.
|
| or...
|
| of course, anyone in the industry knows how many unpredictable
| pitfalls reality will throw at it, but we also know very well
| these kinds of ideas, if followed through can be remarkable and
| truly can change the world.
|
| it's been like tiny little pinpricks at me for years that apps
| like Uber, Lyft, door-dash, etc... don't have a scaled down open-
| source alternative -- a decent Configure, Describe Services
| Offered, Spin-Up-An Instance and Go.
|
| i'll take a look later today when my schedule loosens up.
|
| edit: just reread your post and looked at the comments, i misread
| what you were doing, sorry bout that. still sounds interesting
| tho, good luck!
| swalsh wrote:
| People are going to hate on me, but web3 makes this absolutely
| trivial to build. If you try to build this as another
| centralized service, you just end up in the same place but a
| new dominant owner.
|
| Don't get me wrong, there IS a wrong way to build this in web3
| where it's just a web2 service on-chain. But designed
| correctly, it can avoid the pitfall.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > web3 makes this absolutely trivial to build
|
| So good to hear. Put differently: are you insane?
|
| ps. I built the original Amazon. On top of that, I have a
| brother who builds web-stuff related to decentralized
| coordinated activities and has done for many years. I didn't
| check in with him, but I'm pretty sure that we both think
| that you're insane.
| swalsh wrote:
| lol, do you end every technical argument with "I'm Paul
| Davis, don't even try to debate me!"
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I try not to. But when someone claims that building a
| platform for distributed, cooperative, coordinated action
| is "trivial", and it's in the context of "I'm building an
| open source Amazon", it is a little hard not to fail at
| this goal.
| swalsh wrote:
| I used to work in large scale eCommerce too, I would
| never claim distributed supply chains is trivial. But
| this was not in reply open source Amazon, this was a
| reply to the idea of a distributed Uber (the parent
| comment to mine).
|
| That to me, feels quite in line with Web3's capabilities.
| The hard problems to me don't seem to be technical in
| nature. I think the bigger hurdles will be business
| related. But this is a tech conversation, so here is my
| thoughts.
|
| The way I see it, Uber enables 3 primary capabilities,
| for which it takes a major cut, and commands total
| control over drivers:
|
| 1. Driver Ratings
|
| 2. Payments
|
| 3. Match Making
|
| I think web3 can solve 1 and 2 on-chain using smart
| contracts relatively simply. and if you use a chain like
| Avalanche, it can be done with low fees (cents) and with
| fast transaction finality (seconds).
|
| The match making capability should not be on chain. For
| that i'd design a simple rest API using traditional
| technologies that consumes configuration from the chain.
| This service can be deployed on Akash, and paid for by
| taking a small cut off each transaction or devaluing a
| utility token... i'd build a DAO to govern the whole
| thing, and i'd distributes votes based on activity in the
| drivers pool.
|
| Are there probably problems here? yeah, this is 3 minutes
| of thought. But i'm sure if I cared to, I could design a
| functional system in a weekend.
| sanroot99 wrote:
| Best of luck
| electric_mayhem wrote:
| Openbazaar is a thing.
|
| https://openbazaar.org/
| Ndymium wrote:
| Is it, really? The domain name doesn't resolve and Wikipedia
| talks about the project in past tense. Is it being developed?
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| You'll definitely need inventory (if it's not already a part of
| your other packages). Seems like great fun!
|
| My advice would be to _actually integrate with Amazon_ as much as
| possible. I 'm not sure what's involved there, if Amazon provides
| a bunch of proprietary tools or what. But you don't want people
| to make the hard choice between your project and Amazon. Help
| them do both!
| motoxpro wrote:
| Seems like there are two ideas here.
|
| 1. A way to keep your data/parts of your business after you've
| been kicked off a platform. I say parts because amazon is much
| more than just OMS, CMS, support platform. 2. Tools to build a
| marketplace. Which, besides being open source, how is this idea
| different than https://www.sharetribe.com/?
| awill wrote:
| your pricing doesn't make sense. $500/mo for unlimited
| everything? What happens if a company scales to the size of the
| amazon.com ?
| Something1234 wrote:
| Wouldn't it be more interesting if there was a federated way to
| take orders and see deals? Something like RSS for but for stores.
|
| I think the bigger issue is just how much work it is to deal with
| the spam on any marketplace.
| hosh wrote:
| I think this is a great idea. I am for moving closer to local-
| first infrastructure.
|
| For this to work, businesses would have to hire IT personnel or a
| consultant to implement and maintain it. There is also how much
| this can synergize with self-hosting.
|
| One of the things I'm looking at doing are distributed software
| forges and "community supported software" (that uses open-source
| and free software as its base).
|
| Also, there was an article posted here about the semantic web and
| a mention of something called the "data mesh". I think being able
| to interchange data will be important. Without that, then you're
| still locked into the software and possibly the vendor customized
| things for you.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-02 23:00 UTC)