8 ms·

If no one's using it, how cool can it be? I signed up for friendfeed when it launched. It solves zero problems in my life. It can't help me build an audience

If no one's using it, how cool can it be? I signed up for friendfeed when it launched. It solves zero problems in my life. It can't help me build an audience for my startup like Twitter can. It can't keep me in touch with my friends like Facebook can. I think Friendfeed's problem was that it banked on the assumption that people would be using 30 plus services on the web and needed one place to store it all....but really people are just using 2, Facebook and Twitter, making Friendfeed unnecessary.

amichail 18y ago
A meta service can be very successful, but generally only temporarily until something non-meta eclipses it along some dimension and/or is a superset of all the combined services.
nir 18y ago
>but really people are just using 2, Facebook and Twitter, making Friendfeed unnecessary. Make that one, since Twitter has only 5-6 million users (about 4 million of whom seem to be "internet marketing" consultants) I think you're right about people just using Facebook for everything, making Friendfeed unnecessary. In my opinion the same will happen with Twitter - if microblogging hits mainstream it will be on FB's Twitter-like functionality rather than Twitter itself.
- Brushfire 18y ago
  Really? I guess I use facebook and twitter in different ways than you. For me, facebook is about connecting with people from high school, sharing photos, and keeping tabs on random family members. Twitter, on the other hand, is about communication with core friends and keeping track of companies/services I'm interested in. The two are very distinct for me, and I really appreciate the separation.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - nir 18y ago
    I agree, but I think that you and me and other HN users are a niche. Twitter serves that niche well (6 million users after 3 years of constant hype proves it is a niche IMHO), but I think for an FB size audience the usage patterns will be different.
    - Brushfire 18y ago
      I think we are on the same page, but to be fair, twitter is just starting to ramp up growth wise. And facebook has an easier growth path -- college students. That said, I think twitter could see tremendous growth in 2-3 years -- leaving its niche as companies, groups, and close friends use it more regularly.
    - catch23 18y ago
      Not necessarily. The core of twitter allows anyone to "follow" anyone else. Whereas for facebook, you need to first become a friend of that person before you start getting updates. People on twitter easily have thousands of followers even though most of those aren't "real" friends. You could probably do that with facebook, but it would defeat the purpose of having friends & family on there if 95% of your friends were random people on the internet that just wanted to follow your status updates.
  - mcdowall 18y ago
    I think I would have to agree, though I use a couple more, for example Like yourself I use Facebook for breifly chatting to friends and family, though I predominantly use it for Photos and Events. Twitter on the other hand I use as a tool for promotion, especially the search function and following users in my niche. Other than that I use LinkedIn for my professional profile and Posterous for uploading photos to my Facebook & Flickr photo albums from my Iphone. Im still holding out for a central repository for all my usernames and passwords, I must have about 30 active sites I visit on a daily basis and really struggle to keep up with them
- johns 18y ago
  I disagree. I think the most popular use case for Twitter involves following a bunch of people you don't know, or barely know. For tech people, this works great because you can follow people in your field (may or may not be friends). For plain ol' Jane and John Doe, they can follow celebrities or people that align with their interests (may or may not be friends). Unless Facebook allows a more one-way relationship, it won't really compete more with Twitter. Until then, they'll overlap in a few places, but I think they'll each keep succeeding at what they're best at already.
  - rs 18y ago
    You are spot on . Twitter has an asymmetric follow model, whereas Facebook tends to be guided towards smaller closed networks. Here's where I learnt about "asymmetric follow" : http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2008/12/05/assymetrical-follow-a-core-web-20-pattern/ http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2008/12/05/assymetrical-fol...
    - amvp 18y ago
      Yes. That's what fan pages allow - asymmetric follow. I think we'll see facebook pushing the fan page model for certain users (facebook.com/person_name)
      - johns 18y ago
        Asymmetric follow is just part of it. Asymmetric conversation is the other. Fan pages let companies/celebs/etc broadcast, but they don't facilitate conversations the way Twitter does.
- Alex3917 18y ago
  Twitter is also growing at 1350% year over year.
  - dschobel 18y ago
    which is clearly a sustainable rate...
pxlpshr 18y ago
I've said this before but I think they also suffer from a branding and design/usability issue. I think FriendFeed is a great tool, there's obviously a lot of smart engineering driving it, packs a lot of utility for marketers/writers/research (strong rev channel), but I think it needs to strengthen it's design aesthetics to compete with the now-consumer web. Their design and presentation just doesn't justify the code; the bar has been raised.
jcapote 18y ago
I also signed up for friend feed (and go check it out every now and then), and it's non-support for openid logins is still a show stopper for me.
omouse 18y ago
People do use 30 plus services. It's just that there are usually Facebook applications that can show that activity on Facebook.
indiejade 18y ago
Most people don't understand dissemination of information; in their "world" they're the most important factor in the equation. News turn homogeneous. I think the value of Friendfeed is that it exposes the exact non-value of Facebook. This, in turn, exposes the exact opposite of the "exposing" motives on Twitter. Value exists on both sides of the equation, but Facebook wants to hold everybody captive.
MrGunn 18y ago
You're dead wrong here. People DO use a variety of services, just to name a few, twitter, flickr, facebook, last.fm, del.icio.us, blogs, and youtube. Not everyone uses Facebook. Facebook, being a walled garden, can't and shouldn't replace the open-to-everyone network that Friendfeed provides. Friendfeed is necessary, because Facebook takes in content, but doesn't share it back out, and that's bad for the web as a whole.
- brandnewlow 18y ago
  My comments were based on market observations: the fact that Friendfeed just isn't growing. What is your comment based on? Personal conviction? I'd like to think Friendfeed is necessary, too. But the facts are proving us both wrong.
  - MrGunn 18y ago
    How big does something have to be and how fast does it have to grow to be deemed a success? I and the rest of the 700 members of the Life Scientists room think Friendfeed is already a success. Don't confuse growth rate with absolute size.
beza1e1 18y ago
Friendfeed solves my problem that my friends use services i don't use. For example several of my friends use flickr, but i don't. Friendfeed aggregates all their actions and gives me a nice overview. The sad thing is that i have to manage my "imaginary friends" as friendfeed calls it, since those friends don't use friendfeed themselves or they do and i don't know about it. Friendfeed leads me to a very private usage. My stuff isn't public, so friends can find me easily. This dampens the viral effect. Friendfeed doesn't encourage people to get their friends into the system as well.
- rythie 18y ago
  It sounds like you would do better on my site, friendbinder.com (invite code: HN) We get your friends list from Flickr, Facebook, flickr etc. so managing of your "imaginary friends" is minimal. Your friends don't need to join or even know that you use friendbinder. P.S. Any feedback about the site is useful.
justindz 18y ago
I was in the same boat. With the exception of Facebook's walled garden, RSS pretty much tracks everything else that I need. Twitter updates that I actually care about aside from casual browsing (for which I don't need FriendFeed) go to my phone. FriendFeed also felt like a tech echo chamber of self-marketing people who just use whatever comes along to expand their social stats. I didn't get anything fresh there.
jonursenbach 18y ago
Just because not whole lot of people are using it, does not mean in any way that it's not "cool". There are plenty of "cool" services out there that nobody uses. You've got to start somewhere.
- thwarted 18y ago
  And I'm pretty sure that the definition of cool is that not everyone is using. If everyone is using something, it ceases to be mildly exclusive. I've never heard of a school where all the kids consider everyone to be in the cool group.

amichail 18y ago

A meta service can be very successful, but generally only temporarily until something non-meta eclipses it along some dimension and/or is a superset of all the combined services.

nir 18y ago

>but really people are just using 2, Facebook and Twitter, making Friendfeed unnecessary. Make that one, since Twitter has only 5-6 million users (about 4 million of whom seem to be "internet marketing" consultants) I think you're right about people just using Facebook for everything, making Friendfeed unnecessary. In my opinion the same will happen with Twitter - if microblogging hits mainstream it will be on FB's Twitter-like functionality rather than Twitter itself.

Brushfire 18y ago
Really? I guess I use facebook and twitter in different ways than you. For me, facebook is about connecting with people from high school, sharing photos, and keeping tabs on random family members. Twitter, on the other hand, is about communication with core friends and keeping track of companies/services I'm interested in. The two are very distinct for me, and I really appreciate the separation.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- nir 18y ago
  I agree, but I think that you and me and other HN users are a niche. Twitter serves that niche well (6 million users after 3 years of constant hype proves it is a niche IMHO), but I think for an FB size audience the usage patterns will be different.
  - Brushfire 18y ago
    I think we are on the same page, but to be fair, twitter is just starting to ramp up growth wise. And facebook has an easier growth path -- college students. That said, I think twitter could see tremendous growth in 2-3 years -- leaving its niche as companies, groups, and close friends use it more regularly.
  - catch23 18y ago
    Not necessarily. The core of twitter allows anyone to "follow" anyone else. Whereas for facebook, you need to first become a friend of that person before you start getting updates. People on twitter easily have thousands of followers even though most of those aren't "real" friends. You could probably do that with facebook, but it would defeat the purpose of having friends & family on there if 95% of your friends were random people on the internet that just wanted to follow your status updates.
- mcdowall 18y ago
  I think I would have to agree, though I use a couple more, for example Like yourself I use Facebook for breifly chatting to friends and family, though I predominantly use it for Photos and Events. Twitter on the other hand I use as a tool for promotion, especially the search function and following users in my niche. Other than that I use LinkedIn for my professional profile and Posterous for uploading photos to my Facebook & Flickr photo albums from my Iphone. Im still holding out for a central repository for all my usernames and passwords, I must have about 30 active sites I visit on a daily basis and really struggle to keep up with them
johns 18y ago
I disagree. I think the most popular use case for Twitter involves following a bunch of people you don't know, or barely know. For tech people, this works great because you can follow people in your field (may or may not be friends). For plain ol' Jane and John Doe, they can follow celebrities or people that align with their interests (may or may not be friends). Unless Facebook allows a more one-way relationship, it won't really compete more with Twitter. Until then, they'll overlap in a few places, but I think they'll each keep succeeding at what they're best at already.
- rs 18y ago
  You are spot on . Twitter has an asymmetric follow model, whereas Facebook tends to be guided towards smaller closed networks. Here's where I learnt about "asymmetric follow" : http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2008/12/05/assymetrical-follow-a-core-web-20-pattern/ http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2008/12/05/assymetrical-fol...
  - amvp 18y ago
    Yes. That's what fan pages allow - asymmetric follow. I think we'll see facebook pushing the fan page model for certain users (facebook.com/person_name)
    - johns 18y ago
      Asymmetric follow is just part of it. Asymmetric conversation is the other. Fan pages let companies/celebs/etc broadcast, but they don't facilitate conversations the way Twitter does.
Alex3917 18y ago
Twitter is also growing at 1350% year over year.
- dschobel 18y ago
  which is clearly a sustainable rate...

pxlpshr 18y ago

I've said this before but I think they also suffer from a branding and design/usability issue. I think FriendFeed is a great tool, there's obviously a lot of smart engineering driving it, packs a lot of utility for marketers/writers/research (strong rev channel), but I think it needs to strengthen it's design aesthetics to compete with the now-consumer web. Their design and presentation just doesn't justify the code; the bar has been raised.

jcapote 18y ago

I also signed up for friend feed (and go check it out every now and then), and it's non-support for openid logins is still a show stopper for me.

omouse 18y ago

People do use 30 plus services. It's just that there are usually Facebook applications that can show that activity on Facebook.

indiejade 18y ago

Most people don't understand dissemination of information; in their "world" they're the most important factor in the equation. News turn homogeneous. I think the value of Friendfeed is that it exposes the exact non-value of Facebook. This, in turn, exposes the exact opposite of the "exposing" motives on Twitter. Value exists on both sides of the equation, but Facebook wants to hold everybody captive.

MrGunn 18y ago

You're dead wrong here. People DO use a variety of services, just to name a few, twitter, flickr, facebook, last.fm, del.icio.us, blogs, and youtube. Not everyone uses Facebook. Facebook, being a walled garden, can't and shouldn't replace the open-to-everyone network that Friendfeed provides. Friendfeed is necessary, because Facebook takes in content, but doesn't share it back out, and that's bad for the web as a whole.

brandnewlow 18y ago
My comments were based on market observations: the fact that Friendfeed just isn't growing. What is your comment based on? Personal conviction? I'd like to think Friendfeed is necessary, too. But the facts are proving us both wrong.
- MrGunn 18y ago
  How big does something have to be and how fast does it have to grow to be deemed a success? I and the rest of the 700 members of the Life Scientists room think Friendfeed is already a success. Don't confuse growth rate with absolute size.

beza1e1 18y ago

Friendfeed solves my problem that my friends use services i don't use. For example several of my friends use flickr, but i don't. Friendfeed aggregates all their actions and gives me a nice overview. The sad thing is that i have to manage my "imaginary friends" as friendfeed calls it, since those friends don't use friendfeed themselves or they do and i don't know about it. Friendfeed leads me to a very private usage. My stuff isn't public, so friends can find me easily. This dampens the viral effect. Friendfeed doesn't encourage people to get their friends into the system as well.

rythie 18y ago
It sounds like you would do better on my site, friendbinder.com (invite code: HN) We get your friends list from Flickr, Facebook, flickr etc. so managing of your "imaginary friends" is minimal. Your friends don't need to join or even know that you use friendbinder. P.S. Any feedback about the site is useful.

justindz 18y ago

I was in the same boat. With the exception of Facebook's walled garden, RSS pretty much tracks everything else that I need. Twitter updates that I actually care about aside from casual browsing (for which I don't need FriendFeed) go to my phone. FriendFeed also felt like a tech echo chamber of self-marketing people who just use whatever comes along to expand their social stats. I didn't get anything fresh there.

jonursenbach 18y ago

Just because not whole lot of people are using it, does not mean in any way that it's not "cool". There are plenty of "cool" services out there that nobody uses. You've got to start somewhere.

thwarted 18y ago
And I'm pretty sure that the definition of cool is that not everyone is using. If everyone is using something, it ceases to be mildly exclusive. I've never heard of a school where all the kids consider everyone to be in the cool group.