4 ms·
Similar to the strategy for Google+ back in the day. It didn't work back then, big chances are it won't work now, either.
by paganel 3y ago
Similar to the strategy for Google+ back in the day. It didn't work back then, big chances are it won't work now, either.
- metalliqaz 3y agoI read a horror story on Slashdot about a user losing their Gmail account because of some issue on Google+ and that was it for me. I stayed away. My email account was too precious to risk.
- fswd 3y agomy OpenAI API account got nuked due to a missing organization error when I switched clients one night. I just got an email back from their support... took them 2 months. For reference, ChatGPT API has been out for only 3 months.
- dylan604 3y agoGoogle+ was a product trying to break into a market where the market didn't really need another product. Threads is obviously looking to take up the mantle for where Twitter is dying, and people are actively looking for a Twitter replacement. So comparing Threads to G+ is just not a good comparison.
- threeseed 3y agoThreads is being bootstrapped off an existing billion user social network and completely aligns to Meta's core values and business model. It's pretty much the complete opposite of Google+.
- paganel 3y agoI'm saying that FB wouldn't have needed to resort to this lousy strategy if that "alignment" that you mention would have given them enough numbers all by itself. As such, adding a dying social-media activity ("short" texting) to a fading social-media property (IG) is also less than ideal for Meta the company.