So they invested in other models too, but didn't win big. Why?
-
-
Replying to @deaneckles @zeynep
I think saying messaging was "ignored" or only Soc 101 was needed is not much of an explanation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @deaneckles
They lagged on messaging—so did Google and Twitter—in an inexplicable fashion while espousing bizarre theory of human behavior.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
What does "lagged" mean here? I think it is important to revisit the actual timelines of "Big Silicon Valley" and others actions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @deaneckles
Twitter DM: languishes for years. Gchat: they force Facebook style anti-privacy upgrade with hangouts—now after all that "allo".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @deaneckles
FB: pushes one-size "context collapse" feed for years but then realizes (earlier than most)+pivots. WhatsApp+develops messenger.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I think you're ignoring longer history of FB investing in group messaging. Your theory "explains too much".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @deaneckles @zeynep
Maybe you can argue they got that wrong in Soc 101 ways, but theory should handle history prior to WhatsApp acquisition.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @deaneckles
My theory is simplified—sure—but main argument is they held on to a bizarre conception of human social interaction for too long.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @deaneckles
Then people had started looking for alternatives but Facebook has huge network effects and acquiring power so can/did recover.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But, my theory (based on talking/surveying people since 2006 or so) is why I kept saying newsfeed may lure but is alienating.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.