It reminds me of google plus. Technically better than the existing top dog, but the forced migration and trying to bootstrap with a huge but only semi involved userbase let it fizzle soon after the start.

Has there ever been a successful case of bootstrapping a new social media product with an existing userbase? Like not just added features or merging two together.

Google+ was wildly successful in certain circles. Tabletop RPG design still hasn’t entirely recovered from its loss.

Google+ was successful from any real metric but it didn’t replace Facebook so it was axed.

I definitely preferred it to Facebook, even before the feed became 100% inflammatory political stuff or ads and 0% my friends

The TTRPG community demonstrated how G+ circles solved how people segment different parts of their social lives by limiting the scope to a specific community and cause. Most people in that space were heavily invested in that community but also didn't want it being their primary public identity.

But the community is so minuscule that I'm not sure Google even knew it existed. If it had taken off to the same degree among something closer to critical mass, like today's parasocial celebrity communities or mainstream sports, it might've survived.

IMO most of that TTRPG community migrated to Discord, but the invite requirements make discovery horrible, search is terrible, real-time chat is miserable for discussion, and its "forum" features are just threaded chats. The vibe is way worse, it breeds and feeds drama, and the audience that survives it can correspondingly be either less appealing or require more moderation.

Bluesky doesn't solve the same problems as G+ circles, but between feeds and follow/moderation lists, it has a similar vibe of being able to focus the lens on a topic better than Twitter or Threads, and without the overhead and UX gaps of Fediverse.

By which metrics was Google+ successful? I don’t doubt you, I just never heard that before.

I can't say user metrics but Google Photos came out of Google+ and it is a massively successful product.

Hangouts (now Meet?) was also a product out of Google+ but considering GChat (the xmpp version) existed before, it was kind of a step backwards.

I think Google Local Guide also has some parts of Google+, not sure.

IMHO Google Photos was also just brand/infra-churn because it replaced Picasa Web Albums.

Yes. WeChat bootstrapped off of QQ accounts, which were basically like Yahoo or MSN messenger + pages for desktop users.

It's not exactly new social media product, but Facebook did add messaging to their then Facebook app, build up usage of messaging itself (network effect within the user's friend list), and then split it off into its own Messenger app. They are sharing the same Facebook login through.

Not sure how you define "technically better" but in any way I'd add "citation needed". G+ was kinda horrible with a couple good ideas and I think the lack of widespread adoption spoke for that.

I remember it has having a horrible page layout with the left half of the screen being basically white space and a few messages off to the right somewhere. I lasted about five minutes on it.

Well Facebook bootstrapped using the MySpace userbase.

When MySpace essentially died. There was no such void to fill for Google+.

When Facebook deployed a tool that notified your MySpace friendslist that you had moved, where you moved, how to sign up, and even IIRC temporarily gathered your MySpace feed and added it to your facebook feed so you didnt feel out of touch.

Touch of genius really.

I never used and would never use Threads for the same reason I never even considered Google+. It was DoA and I guess everyone could see it, even the people who were trying it. Such is the case with Threads.

I mean that morning when Zuck woke up and decided that a Threads a/c would need an Instagram a/c he must have seen on his daily astronomy calendar "Day of self-sabotage".

No they don’t. That’s untrue. The fact that so many replies are speaking as if it’s true is quite telling. Instagram continually pesters me to create a Threads account, but doesn’t just “make one for me”. Threads’ user growth would look very very different if this were true. It’s another app. Instagram won’t even let you expand one of the stupid Threads posts it shows you until you install the app.

What we learned from the IE & Chrome periods of historical browser dominance is that defaults matter, and tying (specifically an anti-competitive move) works.

Facebook is doing the same with Threads. Sure you don't have a default account, but the pestering works, and it is "tying".

For the most part the types of people who find Instagram interesting (and would have a Threads account created automatically) are simply not the audience for a tool like Bluesky (or Twitter).

This is dripping with personal bias. Bluesky gets the stamp of being a “tool”. It can be just as much of a mind-numbing fuckaround as Threads. Most replies in this thread are just starting from “Bluesky is where my people are” and trying to turn it into something self-righteous. Why are HN users so afraid of admitting that they’re dumb humans like everyone else? Christ.

Absolutely.

But I still think there is a difference with Bluesky and the other big social medias with full customization of how the feed(s) works, third party servers, custom labelers, etc. To me it seems plausible that they actually want to create more of an empowering tool that the users can control.

That will of course not stop users from using ”dumb” feeds. But the users doesn’t have the incitament of Facebook to always produce higher engagement and show more ads.

It is of course also troublesome that we do not know how Bluesky will act down the road to get their ROI.

Yes, this! I wanted to join Threads as an alternative to Twitter, but I changed my mind when it tried to force me to create an Instagram account. I don't want an Instagram account because I think posting or looking at people's pictures is idiotic. So as long as Threads requires me to touch Instagram in any way, it's a hard pass.

Threads is so confusing. I have no idea who's replying to who when I click into a discussion.

100%.

i wouldn’t say falsely created, but i would say “padded statistics”

threads is beholden to KPIs unlike every other activity pub implementation

their team obviously wants to be successful to continue developing against activity pub

their metrics are akin to a company bragging about how much software they’ve written with the assistance of AI

threads was able to approximate how many instagram users wished they had twitter in the same way intellisense is able to provide auto complete for dot notation; as a magician, i spot the misdirection for investors

That's false. I've tried their app once and they certainly did not made an account automatically.

Same thing happened to TikTok and Lemon8 recently, though the move had to do more with US banning.

> Instagram just added it on and made an account for everyone.

They didn't.

I agree. But then a big premise of Bluesky (hence AT Proto) is that it is not centralised however when we say BlueSky we just mean Bluesky i.e https://bsky.app and that is, frankly, very concerning. It might not sustain.

While Threads is just forced Instagram users, bsky is a decentralised social network which is not decentralised. Comparing bsky with Threads is anything but a compliment.

You know, they stopped Amazon from buying iRobot because of I guess unfair robot vacuum competition (why does that sound hilarious?). It's almost luck that Threads isn't that successful, because then they'd have to deal with monopoly concerns. At least now they can just say it's a shitty twitter knock off, don't bother us.