I bought Friendster for $30k – Here's what I'm doing with it

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

An entrepreneur has bought the defunct Friendster.com domain for about $30k and relaunched it as an iOS-only social network where users can only add friends by physically tapping phones, with “fading” connections if people don’t meet in person. Commenters are intrigued by the nostalgia and the anti‑algorithm, no‑ads ethos, but question the practicality of excluding Android and web users, as well as people whose close relationships are long‑distance or infrequent in‑person. The thread also probes whether a one‑person, closed-source, centralized network can be trusted long term, and debates the ethics and economics of domain squatting and App Store gatekeeping.

Tap-to-Connect and “Fading Connections”

  • Many like the “tap phones in person to become friends” constraint; they see it as:
    • A way to enforce real-world connections and combat bots, spam, and parasitic growth-hacking.
    • A differentiator from “enshittified” big platforms chasing engagement.
  • Others criticize it as:
    • Impractical for people whose close friends/family live far away, have limited mobility, or use non‑smartphones.
    • Potentially hurtful for edge cases (e.g., deceased friends, infrequent but meaningful relationships).
  • Several suggest alternatives or supplements:
    • Short‑lived QR codes, phone/email verification, or a hierarchy of intimacy levels.
    • Using proximity only for initial verification, not ongoing “maintenance” of friendships.

Platform Choice: iOS-Only, No Web

  • Strong pushback on being iOS‑only:
    • Excludes roughly half (or more) of potential users globally.
    • Feels wrong to require a specific brand of phone to join a “friend” network.
  • Lack of a web app is seen as odd for a social product and frustrating for desktop/laptop users.
  • Some defend the choice:
    • Solo developer constraints; focus on a small, pleasant network over growth.
    • iOS-only can reduce abuse and attack surface.

Native App vs PWA / Technical Mechanics

  • Debate over whether proximity features require native apps:
    • Some argue PWAs can use geolocation, BLE, NFC; others dislike giving browsers such hardware access.
    • NFC/Web NFC support is limited and inconsistent; Apple-specific APIs for card emulation are restrictive.
  • Many users prefer native apps over PWAs in practice, especially for social media, though a subset strongly prefers browser-based use for privacy and simplicity.

Business Model, Trust, and Domain Squatting

  • Concern that “no ads / pay for itself later” is a red flag:
    • Fear it will eventually pivot to ads, data harvesting, or get acquired and degraded.
    • Calls for nonprofit governance or open-source code to build long-term trust.
  • Mixed views on the founder’s domain-trading background:
    • Some see domain parking/squatting as parasitic; others as just operating within the current system.

App Store Policy and Control

  • Apple initially rejected the “invite-only / small niche” design under guideline 4.2.
  • This sparks broader criticism:
    • Apple’s power to block niche or private apps.
    • Lack of straightforward ways to ship small, limited-distribution apps.
    • Comparisons with alternative distribution models, enterprise programs, and EU regulations.

Do We Even Need New Social Networks?

  • Some argue modern “social” is already handled by private group chats (WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord, Matrix).
  • Others welcome an attempt at a “Facebook before it got bad” focused on real-life friends, symmetric relationships, and minimal algorithmic meddling.