3 ms·

Was it ever relevant? Popular, sure. But relevant?

• minimaxir 11y ago
  Angry Birds was the franchise that a) first proved that you could make a media empire from a single app and b) you can sell apps for $0.99 and still get mega-rich. Incidentally, b) is no longer the case.
• jonnathanson 11y ago
  How are you distinguishing between the two? Relevancy is a relative quality. We don't say that something simply is or is not "relevant." It needs to be relevant in relation to something else. Usually some standard or topic. Recency and popular culture are common guideposts to which we peg relevancy. If we choose to peg relevancy to 'current pop culture,' then we could say Angry Birds is less relevant today than it used to be in its prime. And we'd probably say that Angry Birds was quite relevant in its prime, being the premiere game in the breakthrough period of mainstream mobile gaming. If we choose to peg relevancy to an industry standard -- say, 'current best practices in the gaming business' -- then we reach a similar conclusion. Angry Birds was hyperrelevant in its heyday, but less so today.
  • braythwayt 11y ago
    Relevance is measured by influence, popularity by reach at one moment in time. Lots of boy bands are popular, but very few are relevant. I’m not saying that Angry Birds is or isn’t relevant, but there is a distinction between the two ideas that is fairly easy to observe in the wild.
    • dpark 11y ago
      > Lots of boy bands are popular, but very few are relevant. Relevant to what? Relevant to their fans? Obviously. Relevant to the economy? Probably, since popular boy bands would have a great deal of influence over a lot of spenders. Relevant to culture? Definitely. A popular anything impacts culture. Popularity pretty much implies some sort of relevance.