261–270 of 343 posts
Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I see a large dissonance between this message and the 'hello' presentation. He laments that "we stay with locals when we travel abroad but we don't even know our neighbours at home", yet the new social network seems to push more in that direction (it talks about connecting people based on their interests, not their proximity). He says "we are afraid of what we don't know [...] we are…
Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I see a large dissonance between this message and the 'hello' presentation. He laments that "we stay with locals when we travel abroad but we don't even know our neighbours at home", yet the new social network seems to push more in that direction (it talks about connecting people based on their interests, not their proximity). He says "we are afraid of what we don't know [...] we are…
Basically yet another one trying to jump on the social network bandwagon.
Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I see a large dissonance between this message and the 'hello' presentation. He laments that "we stay with locals when we travel abroad but we don't even know our neighbours at home", yet the new social network seems to push more in that direction (it talks about connecting people based on their interests, not their proximity). He says "we are afraid of what we don't know [...] we are…
No, I read it exactly the same way - I guess the problem is that we probably need something paradoxical - we want to connect to things we know, but also to new things, people, places and experiences. But when we want them - otherwise they're an inconvenience. I think just talking to people you meet at random will probably be a better solution. (until I get murdered by a stranger!)
It's much more likely that you'll be murdered by someone you have a close realtion with.
(Apart from being a bit snarky, it's also true, and leads (back) to:)
> I think just talking to people you meet at random will probably be a better solution.
It is. (Speaking from experience)
That said, one also get to know people online - from irc to games. I don't see any reason why a new "meet strangers" social network couldn't work. But if a majority of its users can't motivate themselves to talk to random people they meet - chances are the network will be coopted for some other agenda than "making new friends". Like "have more one night stands". And while sex is a healthy human activity, meeting people with the aim to become friends need a form of level playing field, and mutual intention.
Fighting off one unwelcome sexual advance every now and then is part of the human condition - but having to do it every time you "meet" someone, it gets old really fast.
Which is probably one reason people can meet in games: while people game for many aspects of gaming - most do it to relax and have fun.
I'm echoing what others are saying: no web version means I won't bother at all. My phone has access to multiple great browsers. Building a good lightweight web app means I can access the content from anywhere without having to deal with annoyances of push notifications or (as much) creepy tracking. My favorite example of a mobile web app is currently Twitter Mobile [0]. I even like using it from my desktop. It's very…
Edit: those other apps also made it way easier to get to interesting content quickly. On hello, I finally found a way to see profiles of other people with the same persona. However, looking at their profile, I feel like I'm just stalking some stranger rather than getting valuable content related to my interests.
Wasn't Orkut dominant in Brazil? I suppose they killed it to pump Google+? Anyway it makes you wonder if Google Cloud will really survive. Can the world's #2 public tech company by market cap really afford to be a distant third (fourth?) in a market?
I'm echoing what others are saying: no web version means I won't bother at all. My phone has access to multiple great browsers. Building a good lightweight web app means I can access the content from anywhere without having to deal with annoyances of push notifications or (as much) creepy tracking. My favorite example of a mobile web app is currently Twitter Mobile [0]. I even like using it from my desktop. It's very…
Not just that, it also requires a phone number just to get started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"They are building a web version, they're just doing mobile first" should be "They are building a web version, they're just doing native apps first" Doing mobile first can totally be web.
You're right, but "Mobile first" is the way they are describing themselves, it's the phrase used in the jobs link I posted. And I would personally interpret "mobile first" to imply native apps in just about any context, so I think it gets the point across.
You're part of a growing minority who interprets it that way. Google search results for "mobile first" are still very web-focused today, but I'm concerned the native app community will usurp that phrase, confusing everybody.
And while I'm speaking for the web community, apologies for usurping the word "responsive" and confusing everybody.