3 ms·

Because if you were in the space you'd know that 330m monthlies is a worthless metric. This isn't a website, if those people are popping in once a month, they a

Because if you were in the space you'd know that 330m monthlies is a worthless metric. This isn't a website, if those people are popping in once a month, they aren't really using it. MSN Messenger was never a success, and never really fit any strategic need or user need. They offered nothing to the market, and died when more useful products took their place with lower numbers but a more active, and valuable user base. (Skype). For all their work, I believe MSN messenger robbed themselves of the opportunity to discover their own value by trying to bootstrap someone elses success. Try to at least hear me out on this, because if think this is a good strategy to apply to a startup you are kidding yourself -- as a startup MSN messenger would have failed, and as an internal product it was also a significant failure (but one that took too long to be realized as such)

notahacker 11y ago
The 330m user stat might not have been that impressive; Facebook was well on course to surpass it by then, but even as late as 2010 MSN/Live Messenger was apparently sending 9Bn daily messages from 1.5bn daily conversations. Which - I must admit I was surprised by this - is a lot more than Twitter boasts today. If those stats are evidence of failure to offer anything to the market I can only assume you don't regard the next generation of consumer startups that highly either. I'm not sure what additional value pioneering MSN users would have discovered from not being able to communicate with people using AIM, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. At the time I found it a perfectly adequate chat client which my friends and I used exclusively, but I reiterate that I am open to suggestions of better ways for MS to have kickstarted the process of acquiring 230 million users in two years straddling the turn of the century. They robbed themselves of the chance of success because they didn't really have many ideas of what to do with all those users beyond try to drive them to their web portal or sell them emoticons, but for the time they managed seriously impressive growth and totally dominated the market.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

notahacker 11y ago

The 330m user stat might not have been that impressive; Facebook was well on course to surpass it by then, but even as late as 2010 MSN/Live Messenger was apparently sending 9Bn daily messages from 1.5bn daily conversations. Which - I must admit I was surprised by this - is a lot more than Twitter boasts today. If those stats are evidence of failure to offer anything to the market I can only assume you don't regard the next generation of consumer startups that highly either. I'm not sure what additional value pioneering MSN users would have discovered from not being able to communicate with people using AIM, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. At the time I found it a perfectly adequate chat client which my friends and I used exclusively, but I reiterate that I am open to suggestions of better ways for MS to have kickstarted the process of acquiring 230 million users in two years straddling the turn of the century. They robbed themselves of the chance of success because they didn't really have many ideas of what to do with all those users beyond try to drive them to their web portal or sell them emoticons, but for the time they managed seriously impressive growth and totally dominated the market.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]