241–250 of 566 posts
I can’t see how threads can be “launched” without a desktop client. That’s not even an MVP, it’s non existent. Some of these supposed genius tech leaders are really showing themselves to have very questionable decision making capability. It was also extremely off putting that it was so tightly linked to instagram. They also made a mistake by not leveraging peoples desire to get their own Twitter handle on threads. Fa…
Threads will be alright in the end. They launched it at a very opportune time when Twitter was having massive technical issues. That was enough to get millions of people to kick the tires and more importantly, create awareness. The next time Twitter goes down, and it will any day now, people will again flock to Threads and notice that it got a little better. Twitter will get fixed again, and a lower percentage of Thr…
> The next time Twitter goes down, and it will any day now People have been saying this since the day Elon took over... but has it really gone down that much? More than other tech products? E.g. how many outages have the big cloud providers had in the last year? When I hear people say 'any day now' it reads like they are looking for any excuse to say 'mars man bad'.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/01/tech/twitter-rate-limit-excee...
rather than cloud providers it would probably be more useful to compare to eg Instagram or TikTok
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your original position was "We don't typically write about startups gaining initial signups and then compare them to the active users". I've given multiple examples of just such a comparison being made over a decade ago. In both cases, the new launch was by an existing giant in the sector, with claimed performance being not entirely credible. Google of a decade ago had launched [edit: or aquired, but in either event,…
>Google of a decade ago had launched Orkut, Friendster, Wayze, Reader, and YouTube. Several of those were modest hits, one remains a giant (YT), and one is much missed by its small but quite significant fan base (Reader). Google didn't "launch" youtube. They purchased it. It was big before they purchased it. Regarding Reader, calling something "small but quite significant" is nonsensical. Additionally you're propping…
The idea that forgetting that Google failed horribly with Google Video before buying YouTube is a "smell" of bad faith is weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Way too much conflation with labels, timelines, types of project, recollections from 12 years ago, etc. for me. Also we're comparing Meta, a company with experience running two successful social networks against Google of ten plus years ago, with none.
Your original position was "We don't typically write about startups gaining initial signups and then compare them to the active users". I've given multiple examples of just such a comparison being made over a decade ago. In both cases, the new launch was by an existing giant in the sector, with claimed performance being not entirely credible. Google of a decade ago had launched [edit: or aquired, but in either event,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your original position was "We don't typically write about startups gaining initial signups and then compare them to the active users". I've given multiple examples of just such a comparison being made over a decade ago. In both cases, the new launch was by an existing giant in the sector, with claimed performance being not entirely credible. Google of a decade ago had launched [edit: or aquired, but in either event,…
>Google of a decade ago had launched Orkut, Friendster, Wayze, Reader, and YouTube. Several of those were modest hits, one remains a giant (YT), and one is much missed by its small but quite significant fan base (Reader). Google didn't "launch" youtube. They purchased it. It was big before they purchased it. Regarding Reader, calling something "small but quite significant" is nonsensical. Additionally you're propping…
We have now:
- Long standing critical takes on new social media launches and claimed performance.
- Google as "running ... successful social networks".
You're litigating pedantry in a counterfactual manner. It's tedious.
I've shown this twice, which is sufficient for my tastes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You don't make a new account for Threads, you just use your Instagram account. If I implement Google oauth into my app, it doesn't make my app an extention of Google. It just reduces the friction of people making a new account for my app.
Google login does not give you a social graph.
It’s super funny to see people framing that as Threads failing. They totally may fail. But even after that initial drop (which is expected, for something that managed to get so much hype) they’re likely still the biggest app in the history in terms of DAU in few weeks after the launch. And if there’s one thing Meta knows how to do is to copy successful idea and slowly grind the growth till it dominates market.
There seems to be a desire to watch Meta fail, and that's reflected in the media coverage around Threads. This is broadly true of many large tech companies, but particularly Meta/Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
87.6% of Twitter active-seconds are mobile, according to Elon's most recent data. Would've expected closer to 70/30 personally.
And do you actually believe this statistic? I don't know a single person who willingly prefers a limited, bogged-down experience of any product (social media or otherwise) over a full-fledged desktop client.