3 ms·
To take on Facebook they would have had to implement something that worked. They didn't, and couldn't, because they were way out of their depth. These were just
by flatline3 14y ago
To take on Facebook they would have had to implement something that worked. They didn't, and couldn't, because they were way out of their depth. These were just recent graduates with almost no experience.
The blame lies in small part on them, for setting naively optimistic expectations, but in large part on the mainstream media and technology media that trumpeted them, for validating those ridiculously optimistic expectations.
It also lies on people like you, speaking in ridiculously epic proportions about them "taking on Facebook" and giving serious credence to the idea that a few extremely junior programmers had the skills and wherewithal to produce a distributed social network, much less take on Facebook.
- nostromo 14y agoFacebook itself was started by a "few extremely junior programmers."
- 18pfsmt 14y agoI think we are going to need some seasoned vets because idiots like me won't be able to follow along otherwise. The only problem is that there isn't enough revenue in these systems currently.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- saraid216 14y agoFacebook was not taking on Facebook.
- noblethrasher 14y agoZuckerberg was pretty far from "extremely junior" when he started facebook. He had already produced a product that had the interest of both AOL and Microsoft before he had even graduated highschool [1]. [1] https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=synapse+zuckerberg+microsoft+AOL&oq=synapse+zuckerberg+microsoft+AOL&gs_l=serp.3...4049.4791.0.5259.4.4.0.0.0.0.112.418.2j2.4.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.paeXbth1PPw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=279f0a5cecb4a65a&biw=1033&bih=580 https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=synap...
- trafficlight 14y agoWhat Facebook needed to be in 2004 is a far cry from what Diaspora needed to be in 2012.