Visitor.js is arguably not very innovative. The only "added value" that I would consider is having it all in one nice library.
The knowledge necessary to create visitor.js is almost at the level of a beginner. How many 'hello world' tutorials aren't there on the web that display how to use cookies in Javascript by showing the last time you visited the page?
The incentive behind creating something like visitor.js should be community, exposure and input from other developers. What was John's incentive behind releasing jQuery for free, a toolkit more useful, and harder, by far? *
I am not arguing against monetizing. I think monetization is most of the times appropriate, but when any Javascript coder worth his salt can copy your idea and implement it in 3 hours and you have no competitive edge, then monetization is not appropriate.
*: Addendum: John's incentive was probably not exposure, although it probably rocketed him towards being know as a Javascript authority.
The added value is running the whole thing as a service. They are responsible for running it, maintaining it and monitoring it. They track dependencies and provide the geolocation backend. This is added value. There's quite a few services that actually just take an open source component, provide a little glue code and a configuration backend and actually make money off that. (cloudant, redis2go,...).
Whether it's worth the price charged certainly depends on your point of view and your needs as well as your technical setup.
Personally I think that the idea of parsing HTTP response headers as a service is one aimed clearly at people who design websites but don't understand how they work on the server side. Otherwise you're paying someone to add extra script load to your site to give you data you already get.
Maybe there's a market for that, but I'd be surprised if HN or any serious tech site would cater to the same demographic.
What's left is the geolocation. At this point I'd think a major USP is relegated to a bullet point in a feature list. I've not seen much in the way of helpful geolocation APIs, and the data needed for this costs money if it's mission critical.
You've got to maintain the database after you've bought it, you've got to run a server for that database, you've got to write a script or an API that exposes it, in JSON format, to a client-side script...
If you're not up for that commitment, or it's not worth the time or money, then surely 'geolocation.js' (as opposed to 'visitor.js') can help you out. And your commitment to it lasts only for as long as you pay.
But for anything else? Well, I'd want a server to save that for analytics, and posting HTTP response data via an XMLHttpRequest is a bit convoluted.
I built similar functionality into sites I built back in 1997 in PHP (and later in ASP). I.e. all of the things that you can get from the request (OS, referrer etc) plus a crude geolocation based on an IP lookup and a few heuristics (which worked pretty well for everyone except AOL users).
Seems like a foolish business plan (or maybe a business plan designed to profit from the foolish).
Then again I had the same reaction when I heard about Groupon's business model.......
This reply is the Slashdot review of the Apple iPod when it was released. It is a great example of how some people (incl. many geeks) look at a product/service, and only look at the raw technical specs, and presume that it's very easy to replicate or not very innovative. Since the iPod was a massive success, it shows how sometimes raw technology doesn't make or break something
I did not presume anything. You only have to look at prior HN posts to see how it is reproducible in 3 hours, one definition of easy.
Note that my comment pertained to innovation, not usefulness. I don't doubt that there is a market for visitor.js. However, I am 100% sure that it is not innovative.
The knowledge necessary to create visitor.js is almost at the level of a beginner. How many 'hello world' tutorials aren't there on the web that display how to use cookies in Javascript by showing the last time you visited the page?
The incentive behind creating something like visitor.js should be community, exposure and input from other developers. What was John's incentive behind releasing jQuery for free, a toolkit more useful, and harder, by far? *
I am not arguing against monetizing. I think monetization is most of the times appropriate, but when any Javascript coder worth his salt can copy your idea and implement it in 3 hours and you have no competitive edge, then monetization is not appropriate.
*: Addendum: John's incentive was probably not exposure, although it probably rocketed him towards being know as a Javascript authority.