4 ms·

Hey Numair, I agree with you on the negativity. It's not good for anyone. Path is exquisitely designed and the product team are top notch. That being said, web

by zmitri 13y ago

Hey Numair, I agree with you on the negativity. It's not good for anyone. Path is exquisitely designed and the product team are top notch. That being said, websites like App Annie provide reasonably detailed metrics on downloads and popularity in iOS and Android stores and what you've just said doesn't really tie out. Besides Indonesia, it's really not doing well. Important interactions can happen on almost any social network, Path isn't inherently bad, but that doesn't justify it being valued or hyped like it is. There is A LOT of money at play here - and a large portion of that money comes from things like retirement funds, pension funds, etc. I think that annoys a lot of technologists who work hard and get overlooked - you know, those who believe that meritocracy rules in SV instead of connections.

numair 13y ago
Hey Dmitri -- I agree with you, the stats don't add up... But my own (completely external, third-party) study of the social dynamics of the usage of the app paint a different picture. I should note that I had written off the app myself until very recently, when this interesting trend started to kick off. Although I don't have access to any inside data, and the charts don't seem to show what's going on, I was one of the first 5 people on Path, and I have one of the only usernames on the service (n), so my account tends to feel the effects of usage patterns before they become macro-patterns. What I'm seeing doesn't paint a picture of a dead network, just one that doesn't seem to have any usage in any Western countries. Once again, I'll note that this is different from what I saw 18 months ago. If you had talked to me at that time, I would have said Dave was screwed. And if he wastes his time focusing in the Western market (such as is evidenced by screenshots of users based in San Francisco), it might still be the case. Path is no longer a Western network, and that's totally okay -- it was never a Western network anyway. I didn't even use the product during the whole spam debacle, which I would blame on Dave's poor judgement in hiring douchey employees in decision-making roles (I think there's a Mother Jones article somewhere that might allude to what I'm talking about). I'm guessing a lot of the new users of Path didn't even know about the app during that time (again, keep in mind that the demographic waves for smartphone usage mean that there are entirely new groups of users who have zero knowledge of what went on a few years ago). Edit: Also, there is nothing non-meritocratic about Path/Dave raising money. He was in the game when most of you thought it was a joke. And unlike a lot of people who have made money, he actually did something for it. If you're bitter about this, the issues are your own.
- zmitri 13y ago
  Interesting. We'll have to see how it plays out. I know you are deeply interested in social apps, and have invaluable insight into their workings from early days at Facebook and personal in-depth research. I'm pretty sure you were username n on an app I built too... But in my experience, despite having very active and passionate users, the lowest form of interaction always wins out on a free social service. Lack of interactions means user churn - no matter how good or important the interactions that take place actually are. In that sense, social apps themselves are just vessels for human interaction - and great human interaction happens all over the place whether an app exists or not. Your goal as a venture backed social app is to focus those interactions and try to monetize them. Is Path going to be one of those handful of "lucky" networks where those interactions happen in large enough numbers to make it viable financially? Personally I wouldn't bet on it.

by zmitri 13y ago

numair 13y ago

Hey Dmitri -- I agree with you, the stats don't add up... But my own (completely external, third-party) study of the social dynamics of the usage of the app paint a different picture. I should note that I had written off the app myself until very recently, when this interesting trend started to kick off. Although I don't have access to any inside data, and the charts don't seem to show what's going on, I was one of the first 5 people on Path, and I have one of the only usernames on the service (n), so my account tends to feel the effects of usage patterns before they become macro-patterns. What I'm seeing doesn't paint a picture of a dead network, just one that doesn't seem to have any usage in any Western countries. Once again, I'll note that this is different from what I saw 18 months ago. If you had talked to me at that time, I would have said Dave was screwed. And if he wastes his time focusing in the Western market (such as is evidenced by screenshots of users based in San Francisco), it might still be the case. Path is no longer a Western network, and that's totally okay -- it was never a Western network anyway. I didn't even use the product during the whole spam debacle, which I would blame on Dave's poor judgement in hiring douchey employees in decision-making roles (I think there's a Mother Jones article somewhere that might allude to what I'm talking about). I'm guessing a lot of the new users of Path didn't even know about the app during that time (again, keep in mind that the demographic waves for smartphone usage mean that there are entirely new groups of users who have zero knowledge of what went on a few years ago). Edit: Also, there is nothing non-meritocratic about Path/Dave raising money. He was in the game when most of you thought it was a joke. And unlike a lot of people who have made money, he actually did something for it. If you're bitter about this, the issues are your own.

zmitri 13y ago
Interesting. We'll have to see how it plays out. I know you are deeply interested in social apps, and have invaluable insight into their workings from early days at Facebook and personal in-depth research. I'm pretty sure you were username n on an app I built too... But in my experience, despite having very active and passionate users, the lowest form of interaction always wins out on a free social service. Lack of interactions means user churn - no matter how good or important the interactions that take place actually are. In that sense, social apps themselves are just vessels for human interaction - and great human interaction happens all over the place whether an app exists or not. Your goal as a venture backed social app is to focus those interactions and try to monetize them. Is Path going to be one of those handful of "lucky" networks where those interactions happen in large enough numbers to make it viable financially? Personally I wouldn't bet on it.