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. 😅
And how do you increase retention? Induce addiction and FOMO, promote rage bait, fake news… anything that creates engagement, no matter the side effects to the users.
We have seen how this all works, so yes, it is something to worry about.
We know how Meta has run. We have all been raging Facebook user at one point in time. They need you to come back and re- activate you. Another interesting thing to see would be how many dormant Facebook users get re- activated for Meta now that Threads is here.
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.
So we’re not all here because of a corporations decisions on how to make money?
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. 😅
And how do you increase retention? Induce addiction and FOMO, promote rage bait, fake news… anything that creates engagement, no matter the side effects to the users.
We have seen how this all works, so yes, it is something to worry about.
That’s it.
We know how Meta has run. We have all been raging Facebook user at one point in time. They need you to come back and re- activate you. Another interesting thing to see would be how many dormant Facebook users get re- activated for Meta now that Threads is here.