FAILDEX失樂園
中文

storytlr

The business, the turning points, and the decisions behind them.

Event year2009

01 / WHAT IT BUILT

What the company did

Storytlr was a lifestreaming web application built by Laurent Eschenauer and Alard Weisscher that aggregated a user's online activity - blog posts, photos, tweets, and other feeds - into a single chronological life stream. Launched around 2008, it was a side project rather than a venture-backed company. On October 10, 2009 the two builders announced they would stop operating Storytlr on December 31, 2009, offering users a data-export tool before wiping everything.

02 / storytlr FAILURE REASONS

Failure reasons

Storytlr died because its creators walked away. In their farewell blog post, Laurent Eschenauer and Alard Weisscher were explicit: they had lost interest after deciding the project could not be turned into a full-fledged company, they had spent months looking for alternatives and potential partners without success, and above all they lacked time - 'our lives have moved on, kids were born, house were bought, new projects appeared and we don't have time anymore to operate this service properly.'

03 / EVENT HISTORY

Events in the structured record

  1. Operations ended

    Storytlr's founders announced that the lifestreaming service would stop operating on 31 December 2009.

04 / CONTEMPORARY REBUILD ASSESSMENT

Difficulty of rebuilding this project today

Material for this section is being gathered and checked. It will appear here once ready.

Rebuild difficultyPending assessmentNot completed
Scoring basisNot completed
ScalabilityPending assessmentNot completed
Scoring basisNot completed

Overall assessment: Not completed

05 / CAUSAL CHAIN

How the factors connect

  1. 01

    On October 10, 2009 the co-developers announced Storytlr would cease to exist on December 31, 2009; users were given about ten weeks to back up their data.

  2. 02

    An export tool was provided so users could download their data, with a zip archive of binary files (images) promised.

  3. 03

    The developers said they would try to open-source the code, but warned it needed significant refactoring and gave no ETA.

  4. 04

    No bankruptcy, debts, or financial figures were involved - it was a side project, not a funded company.