I expect it to fail because it’s utter dogshit. Since the feed is algorithmic, you see a bunch of crap you aren’t following rather than the people you are following. Who wants that?
I have no idea about the specifics. But what you describe, is kind of the thing I’d expect.
He would take a concept and make it worse, because he thinks he is smart.
Maybe it’s to get people to scroll more, so they see more adverts. IDK. Facebook has a lot of behavioral data to use in such a design. But Zuckerberg might be arrogant enough to disregard it.
Erm, are you aware how much money he has wasted on his “brilliant” idea about the metaverse? Have you seen the results of that? He even named the company after that complete failure of an idea. lol
As a consumer why would you care about a corporations finances? That is their problem to figure out. As a consumer you are trying to find value for you personally. Does this solve a problem in my life? Am I better off with this thing than without it? Is the cost worth it, be it monetary or privacy?
Okay. Let’s take a step back and try to see what is the problem statement and the market opportunity here.
Opportunity: Twitter has gone down. People are looking for alternatives. At one hand, you have Mastadon but it is not easy to use. On the other, you have Threads - seamless to use as long as you already had Instagram.
Need: Was there one? Not really. The opportunity above created the need.
Moat: Instagram is very YOU presence oriented. Let’s agree that it was not supposed to be a communication platform. Then influencers came in, influencer marketing became a thing, live video chats came in. All of this requires YOU to put your face forward on a camera.
Now comes Thread - no need to do anything. Put down a thread. Start a conversation. That’s all. If you want, there is an easy cross share to Instagram. Influencers are going to milk it. Ads impressions combined over both the apps will increase thus
Result: Increasing the revenue for Meta and as a result, benefiting the shareholders.
It is not about I caring about it. It’s about how they ensure that you develop just a habit of checking - that is all. You sticking does everything for them, and not it does not even have to add that much of a value.
Cost? Privacy matters to you then yes. The problem now a days is that FOMO gets the best of people.
Sorry for the long message. Thanks in case you stayed with me until the end. 😅
I’m not seeing the connection between someone deciding to use Threads or not and caring if it makes more money than Twitter. The financial success of it isn’t a consideration in whether or not someone would use it. It’s user count and perceived longevity might, but those are only tangentially related to its financial situation.
But this is not for the user to worry about in the first place. Why do you think that would the case? It’s a free to use platform for everyone.
More than the user count, you would looking at user retention. More retention would automatically mean more impressions for everything that already is on Instagram - this is the corporation POV.
Isn’t that what this thread is talking about and suggesting? We have this news article on the BBC asking whether or not Threads can make more money than Twitter as if the consumer cares about the answer to that question.
Your average Joe may not. But if you look at the basics - this was launched to make money, so of course, there would be discussions around the revenue it generates.
I mean, you would pay like a Spotify/Apple Music/Youtube Music a subscription amount to use it, but you still won’t care how much money they make. But the market does that’s all. 😅
I disagree, unprofitable sites becoming popular then being destroyed by aggressive monetization ultimately resulting in their failure and the loss of loads of useful information isn’t something to strive for.
These sites need to not hemorrhage money, they shouldn’t be milk cows either. The problem is unnecessary overhead, for example reddit having 1,400 employees.
Tech companies keep getting funding by selling pipe dreams to clueless investors and then strip mining it out of everything people liked from it.
There needs to be a better, sustainable and scalable growth model for social platforms. The difficulty is that a not a lot of people will pay for it, and to be fair it wouldn’t be good to restrict it to only those that do.
Tatar- is correct. “growth” is the problem inherent in publicly traded corporations. Growth sounds good. Living things grow!
But growth in this case means expansion,literally unlimited (in theory) which is how you take something quite viable (coffee, food, net service) and turn it into a monster that needs to endlessly grow, cut corners, cut salaroes, etc.
Growth has little to do with profit. Public corps are sold (shares) and to maintain/increase value of those shares, get monetarily bigger.
The whole “IPO” thing is a model based on this expectation of future growth.
Not profit salaries and goods, like a corner store. THAT could be sustainable.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
From the evidence I’ve seen, I made more money than Twitter. Just today. At my crappy job
I expect Threads to fail, because honestly Zuckerberg isn’t a very smart guy.
I don’t like zuck, I still think it’s shortsighted to not call him smart.
I expect it to fail because it’s utter dogshit. Since the feed is algorithmic, you see a bunch of crap you aren’t following rather than the people you are following. Who wants that?
deleted by creator
I have no idea about the specifics. But what you describe, is kind of the thing I’d expect.
He would take a concept and make it worse, because he thinks he is smart.
Maybe it’s to get people to scroll more, so they see more adverts. IDK. Facebook has a lot of behavioral data to use in such a design. But Zuckerberg might be arrogant enough to disregard it.
deleted by creator
Erm, are you aware how much money he has wasted on his “brilliant” idea about the metaverse? Have you seen the results of that? He even named the company after that complete failure of an idea. lol
deleted by creator
Threads won’t be a social network. It will be social advertising.
That’s the reason the product exists for. They have to increase the value for their shareholders.
As a consumer why would you care about a corporations finances? That is their problem to figure out. As a consumer you are trying to find value for you personally. Does this solve a problem in my life? Am I better off with this thing than without it? Is the cost worth it, be it monetary or privacy?
Maybe not for you.
Okay. Let’s take a step back and try to see what is the problem statement and the market opportunity here.
Opportunity: Twitter has gone down. People are looking for alternatives. At one hand, you have Mastadon but it is not easy to use. On the other, you have Threads - seamless to use as long as you already had Instagram.
Need: Was there one? Not really. The opportunity above created the need.
Moat: Instagram is very YOU presence oriented. Let’s agree that it was not supposed to be a communication platform. Then influencers came in, influencer marketing became a thing, live video chats came in. All of this requires YOU to put your face forward on a camera.
Now comes Thread - no need to do anything. Put down a thread. Start a conversation. That’s all. If you want, there is an easy cross share to Instagram. Influencers are going to milk it. Ads impressions combined over both the apps will increase thus
Result: Increasing the revenue for Meta and as a result, benefiting the shareholders.
It is not about I caring about it. It’s about how they ensure that you develop just a habit of checking - that is all. You sticking does everything for them, and not it does not even have to add that much of a value.
Cost? Privacy matters to you then yes. The problem now a days is that FOMO gets the best of people.
Sorry for the long message. Thanks in case you stayed with me until the end. 😅
I’m not seeing the connection between someone deciding to use Threads or not and caring if it makes more money than Twitter. The financial success of it isn’t a consideration in whether or not someone would use it. It’s user count and perceived longevity might, but those are only tangentially related to its financial situation.
But this is not for the user to worry about in the first place. Why do you think that would the case? It’s a free to use platform for everyone.
More than the user count, you would looking at user retention. More retention would automatically mean more impressions for everything that already is on Instagram - this is the corporation POV.
Isn’t that what this thread is talking about and suggesting? We have this news article on the BBC asking whether or not Threads can make more money than Twitter as if the consumer cares about the answer to that question.
Your average Joe may not. But if you look at the basics - this was launched to make money, so of course, there would be discussions around the revenue it generates.
I mean, you would pay like a Spotify/Apple Music/Youtube Music a subscription amount to use it, but you still won’t care how much money they make. But the market does that’s all. 😅
Meta it’s a company and a big one, they need to make money in order to keep working, that’s how business works
I disagree, unprofitable sites becoming popular then being destroyed by aggressive monetization ultimately resulting in their failure and the loss of loads of useful information isn’t something to strive for.
These sites need to not hemorrhage money, they shouldn’t be milk cows either. The problem is unnecessary overhead, for example reddit having 1,400 employees.
We’re not arguing against profitability. However, making growth and profit central to social platforms is the culprit.
Tech companies keep getting funding by selling pipe dreams to clueless investors and then strip mining it out of everything people liked from it.
There needs to be a better, sustainable and scalable growth model for social platforms. The difficulty is that a not a lot of people will pay for it, and to be fair it wouldn’t be good to restrict it to only those that do.
Tatar- is correct. “growth” is the problem inherent in publicly traded corporations. Growth sounds good. Living things grow!
But growth in this case means expansion,literally unlimited (in theory) which is how you take something quite viable (coffee, food, net service) and turn it into a monster that needs to endlessly grow, cut corners, cut salaroes, etc.
Growth has little to do with profit. Public corps are sold (shares) and to maintain/increase value of those shares, get monetarily bigger.
The whole “IPO” thing is a model based on this expectation of future growth.
Not profit salaries and goods, like a corner store. THAT could be sustainable.
Who gives a fuck?
Yes, it will and zuck will feel fulfilled and stop thinking about more money.
May be not.
Nah. Something tells me, Threads exists solely to deliver some lame ass corporate-friendly “fullfillment” of that shitty Elon/Mark cage match.
One week. I’m curious to see what people will tell of the platform after just one week.
deleted by creator