121–130 of 354 posts
I can’t wait to read the tell all book about Bluesky during this three day period when Threads hits a hundred million users and Bluesky makes the most important strategic decision of its existence.
I'm surely bikeshedding, but isn't Bluesky a terrible name for a social network?
I must say, the number of people in here saying bluesky is dead because of Threads' overnight growth is surprising and upsetting. Believing all that matters is how fast they get users is hugely missing the point. Bluesky has been taking their time in order to get things right--and getting certain things right is very important. Twitter already exists; we need alternatives because things were handled wrong. For exampl…
The dirty little secret about Bluesky is that it's actually pretty goddamn great on the inside. I have never in my life had normals asking for a social media invite, but I currently have a list of fourteen people waiting for a code. It works, feels, tastes, shares, and functions like Classic Twitter without the waves of repugnant users or miserably overbaked features. Collaborative mute lists make screening out horse…
What are "normals"?
Cool.... This is the type of feature / partnership you build in year 5, not pre-launch. Wouldn't it be better to focus on features and scalability needed for opening up the network to more users to build the network beyond a beta phase or adding core features to the app?
Seems like identity management is at the core of what Bluesky is trying to change. Twitter managing verification of accounts makes it harder to not be seen as an endorsement of some degree. With this system, Bluesky doesn’t need to verify @iphone, when Apple can just create @iphone.apple.com. It’s pretty central to their identity management and verification. Having it in year 5 is like not having it at all.
Why? The high sensitivity domains that are most likely to want to be verified via the (mildly confusing) domain-to-user mapping on Bluesky already exist. To take your example, Apple is not likely to try and register iphone.apple.com on Namecheap.
On the other hand, "normal" users who just want to chat with their friends are not going to care, and might actually be a little confused by this announcement. "Wait, I need to buy a domain to use Bluesky?"
Now, I could be wrong, and Bluesky might be trying to get a bunch of high-flying corporate accounts on board first. In that case, they are doing the right thing, and I look forward to when large media orgs start posting on Bluesky.
I must say, the number of people in here saying bluesky is dead because of Threads' overnight growth is surprising and upsetting. Believing all that matters is how fast they get users is hugely missing the point. Bluesky has been taking their time in order to get things right--and getting certain things right is very important. Twitter already exists; we need alternatives because things were handled wrong. For exampl…
Unnecessary, pointless, expensive features are precisely how you define the inverse of the original Twitter vision. Bare minimum but fast message passing as a social communication layer. If all of these new platforms are trying to become a better or more bloated version of what Twitter has become , then they will never catch on like the viral tool that Twitter originally was. None of them learned the lesson of google…
The domain feature hasn't blocked dev on more important things. In fact this deal is (according to bluesky) their first attempt at something to generate some revenue, with the goal being to never have to use advertising, something that the users would in fact be grateful for and consider to be important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if Threads is crap, it’s pretty obvious it’s gonna steal all of Twitter’s advertisers the moment they start showing ads, because the ad money generating users are moving onto Threads. Heck, Threads doesn’t even need to show ads and the displacement of ad money away from Twitter will benefit Meta as much of that Twitter ad money will get redirected to Meta properties like FB and IG instead.
There is a related problem for Twitter which reminds me of the Altavista/Google days. Zuckerberg has said that they won't run ads until there is a credible path to 1 billion users. So for a year or more it will be Threads with no ads. And Twitter with according to their newly hired CEO "full-screen, sound-on" ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like identity management is at the core of what Bluesky is trying to change. Twitter managing verification of accounts makes it harder to not be seen as an endorsement of some degree. With this system, Bluesky doesn’t need to verify @iphone, when Apple can just create @iphone.apple.com. It’s pretty central to their identity management and verification. Having it in year 5 is like not having it at all.
What you say is true, but the Namecheap partnership is premature even taking that into account. Why? The high sensitivity domains that are most likely to want to be verified via the (mildly confusing) domain-to-user mapping on Bluesky already exist . To take your example, Apple is not likely to try and register iphone.apple.com on Namecheap. On the other hand, "normal" users who just want to chat with their friends a…
Unnecessary, pointless, expensive features are precisely how you define the inverse of the original Twitter vision. Bare minimum but fast message passing as a social communication layer. If all of these new platforms are trying to become a better or more bloated version of what Twitter has become , then they will never catch on like the viral tool that Twitter originally was. None of them learned the lesson of google…
Actually, bluesky has supported custom domains since the very beginning (the Namecheap deal is the part of this story that is actually new/noteworthy) and it is very widely-used. I am unsure what % of active users are using their own domain, but it is not insignificant. The domain feature hasn't blocked dev on more important things. In fact this deal is (according to bluesky) their first attempt at something to gener…
I’m not positive this is a winner for normie users. The exclusivity of a user name is important, I want @mark, not @mark.abcdef while I know there is an @mark.abcdęf out there.