3 ms·
In the dot-com era, marketing types aspired to make their Web sites and apps "sticky" in the sense that readers and users would not just dip in for something in
by jccc 10y ago
In the dot-com era, marketing types aspired to make their Web sites and apps "sticky" in the sense that readers and users would not just dip in for something in particular, but would be motivated to come back again and again. Frequent, small, regular updates to content is one example of this strategy.
This is where the term "sticky" comes from. I realize that's not quite as satisfying as your villain-validating interpretation.
- anotheryou 10y agoThanks for the explanation. Personally I'm not looking for villains, I always think it's at least in part more systemic. They stick to what works, and tight integration of their services can be done in a purely positive intention that makes everything work better together. However they have the resources and reach to build "their ecosystem" and strengthening it will have the side effect of relieving pressure to do anything open. At most we get some legacy products like itunes on windows or a hidden ical export. Just compare it to a new player like slack with a minimal ecosystem, they build or make possible all the apis for all the services they don't offer. Furthermore apple will use proper apis for all their services, nicely documented, but just not open to the public. (I don't know apple too much, might be wrong here) Oh and by the way: psycho tricks that add no true benefit to the product, but make you stick are very common and widely accepted, but I sill dislike them (though maybe you have to play this game to stay in the game at all)