4 ms·
Form and no function is the essence of social media apps though, so they nailed that. 300 million monthly and 100m daily users is also pretty decent, so I don't
by WJW 2y ago
Form and no function is the essence of social media apps though, so they nailed that. 300 million monthly and 100m daily users is also pretty decent, so I don't think "nobody" cares. For comparison, that's approximately the same number of MAU as twitter.
- titzer 2y agoZero of whom pay for the product. They are the product. What this leaves out is that the real customers, advertisers, already have a fully-functional hyperscale system creeping on users and pushing ads in their face. It's akin to crowing about how fast you can put up new billboard ads when the billboards are already built--someone else has already put in the power/network lines, poles, screens, routing, etc, and you just hooked up your existing ad feeds to it. Facebook doesn't give two shits if the billboards were in the middle of nowhere, as long as they can charge their advertisers some $$, they'd deliver seizure-inducing hallucinogenic drugs right into users' veins.
- WJW 2y agoIf you can put up new billboard ads ten times as fast as your competitors, that's still a competitive advantage. Whether you like Meta or not, two days to provide sufficient infra for a new service with 100m users is a technical achievement that not many organizations on the planet could match.
- throwaway894345 2y agoIn fairness, that successful is probably less to do with the merits of the product and more to do with the timely exodus of users from Twitter and aggressive marketing from Meta’s other properties. I’m not saying Threads is bad—I haven’t used it—only that the success or failure of social media offerings is rarely attributable to the platform itself as opposed to the network of users.