The thing is you need to compare friendfeed's growth curve to twitter's a year ago. Why? twitter is an older service. friendfeed is actually growing a lot faster than twitter did. we all forget that. And, if this curve really mattered than what we should be doing is comparing twitter to facebook.
stoweboyd
· 11 months ago
I don't think so, for a few reasons. 1/ The world is a different place than a year ago. For example, Twitter has grown dramatically, and other interesting things -- the econolypse, obama, iPhone -- have happened. FF has to compete in that space, not where Twitter did +13 months ago. 2/ As others (Winer, for example) have pointed out, FF has done *zip* marketing, which twitter and others have done/are doing. 3/ I don't think FF and FB overlap as much as FB and Twitter do.
Scobleizer
· 11 months ago
By the way, how did your item get all the comments and likes over on friendfeed? You don't have many followers there. How did that happen? I guess you don't see that as utility for non followers. You might check this page out: http://friendfeed.com/scobleizer/likes -- there's a lot more activity on friendfeed than you might think.
stoweboyd
· 11 months ago
Probably because I was dissing friendfeed. I know there is a lot of activity around you on Friendfeed, Robert.
Chris Charabaruk
· 11 months ago
Claiming that Louis is saying that FriendFeed will fail is a bit off the mark. Personally, I see it as a laundry list of suggestions that the FriendFeed developers should try and fulfil. As well, even if FriendFeed should fail, there will no doubt be other services to pick up the slack; the purpose of FF and the job it does is a very necessary one on today's social internet.
Lastly, it's Louis, not Lewis. You might want to correct that throughout the post. You did get his last name right, though!
elliottng
· 11 months ago
maybe the easy answer is: Morph Friend into the best Twitter client: and add lifestream aggregation and other media types as an add-in. Don't try to appeal to a different audience. Just launch off of Twitter.
Rachel Luxemburg
· 11 months ago
It's possible that FF is simply too far ahead of the curve. Outside the Valley, there's very few people who participate in so much lifestreaming that they need a tool (FF or otherwise) to aggregate it all. A few years from now, it might be a different scenario.
stoweboyd
· 11 months ago
I think it is also a feature set issue at the social architecture level.
Rachel Luxemburg
· 11 months ago
I don't disagree, actually. Just trying to think through some other angles.
k1v1n
· 11 months ago
FriendFeed does so much that it easily confuses new users. The marketing message is simple: FriendFeed is the easiest aggregation and filtering application to be found. This is the only reason people need it. Filtering and aggregation is not a space where Twitter is competing.
GrowMap
· 11 months ago
Everyone I subscribe to on FriendFeed uses Twitter and eventually many current Twitter users will start using it too. All FF has to do is provide easier ways for new users to learn the service - and I have no doubt that they will. As for finding friends, Louis Gray and Mike Fruchter provided some great lists which we added to at http://www.growmap.com/friendfeed-challenge/. All you need to find is ONE great FF user to be off and running. You can also use FFholic to find the most active discussions and users. P.S. Like others I found YOUR blog and THIS post BECAUSE of FF.
Derrick Kwa
· 11 months ago
I haven't really got into FriendFeed much myself, been wanting to, but just haven't really been able to "get it".
The issue FriendFeed has, in my opinion, is that it's still a lifestream aggregator. Yes, it can be used for conversations and all, but at it's core it's still about lifestreaming. And the thing is, most mainstream users don't have that many streams that they need an aggregator like that (not yet, anyway). Could have a future, but as of now, I don't think it'll become mainstream.
BellTinkR
· 11 months ago
For me, the whole point of FriendFeed is all of MY content, all in one place. That's the "there" there. Secondary, if there is someone in particular that I like following, I like being able to have all of THEIR content, all in one place. I'm not seeing why this is so hard to "get", unless it's just not being communicated well by TPTB at FriendFeed. Since the service is useful to me, I'll keep using it as long as it is being offered. But I'm not following Scoble, Gray, or any of the other more prolific bloggers out there. I'm using it primarily for ME.
stoweboyd
· 11 months ago
I am a more 'in context' person. It's the reason I don't like RSS Readers. I would rather experience people's work in place -- on their blogs, website, in various streaming apps -- than aggregating 'everything' into one place.
jeber
· 11 months ago
I find the value in Friendfeed is not so much what I can contribute as it is what I can learn from the conversations going on there. Friendfeed is like a meetup of interesting, informed people. I can learn a lot by listening to the conversations going on around me. It's not much different than if I were invited to a board meeting at Microsoft or Google. I'd hardly presume that what I had to say would be of interest to anyone there. But let me sit in the back and take notes and I'll emerge a wiser and more informed individual.
I don't expect Friendfeed to meet all my information or conversation needs. I still chat, I still read blogs and comment on them. But Friendfeed does provide a unique way to listen in to the thoughts and opinions of those I'm not likely to meet meet in the real world. Seriously, can I expect to sit down over coffee with Scoble to discuss the use of blogs in business? I've been a friend of Chris Pirillo for years, but I've never met him in person. Friendfeed allows me to keep up with the interests and opinions of these guys in one place with a threaded conversation. Friendfeed isn't perfect, there are a few changes to their interface and functionality I'd like to see improved. But until I find an alternative that provides the same opportunity with the same easy-to-use GUI, I'll be hanging out at Friendfeed and learning more every day.
stoweboyd
· 11 months ago
My point is *not* that no one gets value from Friendfeed, on the contrary. And you sound like one of the people who has glommed onto the benefits of being a follower of mega-users like Scoble or Pirillo.
reechard
· 11 months ago
Great job twisting Louis' post into a FF hit piece! And, to everyone who so publicly and proudly decry they don't "get" FF, have they subscribed to people and then liked or commented? Perhaps not.
You are welcome to participate and join the community. It's only then a post like this would have any merit.
davemc500hats
· 11 months ago
actually, i think most people would be pretty friggin' ecstatic to have half-a-million regular users in just a year.
lots of things they may not do perfect, but a lot of things they do well.
if they get acquired, it likely won't be because they're failing.
stoweboyd
· 11 months ago
I think it's one of those niches where there is still a lot of innovation, and is missing a *big* something or somethings... which is what motivated Louis to write the post.
Aaron Strout
· 11 months ago
Chiming in late here but one of the biggest issues I see with Friendfeed (which I still love btw) is the fact that the content of at least 75% of the people I follow is still Twitter-based. I turned my Twitter stream off in FF a few months ago because it made it too noisy. If that's the way others view it, they're probably throwing up their hands and saying, "why not just follow this person on Twitter." Again, I see the advantage of FF so this isn't my personal opinion. Just a thought.
Aaron | @astrout
stoweboyd
· 11 months ago
I see FF in a direct competition with Twitter, which is one of the major reasons I think it is headed south. Divorcing the service from Twitter -- on an individual basis -- might turn down the 'noise' but when that 'noise' is coming from Twitter, people would lose the benefits of being involved in Twitter.
In a sense, one of the questions is whether people will participate deeply in more than one of these apps. I don't think so.
DBL
· 11 months ago
"We want steep or sharp learning curves, where in a short period of time (horizontal axis) a great deal of learning takes place (vertical axis)."
You appear to have a predisposition to interpreting popular phrases such that their common usage is wrong. For example, all I have to do make the popular view 'steep learning curve' correct is to insert the following into your (made up) definition...
"in a short period of time (horizontal axis) a great deal of learning [needs to] take place (vertical axis)."
There isn't only one curve that can be plotted here. Why choose the one that makes everybody on the planet appear wrong? I think it's way more likely your axis definition has been wrong. I'll continue to use 'steep learning curve' in the way you say is wrong, because you just pulled that and your definition out of nowhere. Thx. P.S. FriendFeed's problem is that it is a syndication tool for people who generate content, which can easily recombinate and repurpose that content and massage it for other other services -- only it's disguised as a standalone social network. Instead of 'FriendFeed' it should be called 'ReFeed' or something. It's an image problem, nothing more -- once again, like the learning curve, step *around* the problem instead of banging your forehead against it.
"Another specific context of the term "learning curve" involves the effort required to acquire a new skill (e.g., expertise with a new tool) over a specific period of time. In this context, expressions such as "fast learning curve", "short learning curve", and "steep learning curve" are used. This context involves a different interpretation of fast initial progress vs. time—namely, the amount of progress required at each stage of learning. In this sense, "steep learning curve" represents the need to make significant progress in the initial stages so that a person may start using the new skill with reasonable efficiency, a need often associated with increased efforts in learning. Conversely, the expressions "gradual" or "flat learning curve" imply that the acquisition of a skill may be gradual, so that a reasonable use of the new skill is possible at early stages with a relatively light amount of training."
It's not random, it's just that people in general do not use it in the sense that learning theorists intended.
I am not banging my forehead against anything, really. In general, people would like to learn something quickly even if they have to put in more effort to do so, which is a 'steep learning curve'. But as generally used, when people say 'steep learning curve' they mean that the skill is not being learned, which would be a "flat learning curve."
All Comments
Lastly, it's Louis, not Lewis. You might want to correct that throughout the post. You did get his last name right, though!
Morph Friend into the best Twitter client: and add lifestream aggregation and other media types as an add-in. Don't try to appeal to a different audience. Just launch off of Twitter.
The issue FriendFeed has, in my opinion, is that it's still a lifestream aggregator. Yes, it can be used for conversations and all, but at it's core it's still about lifestreaming. And the thing is, most mainstream users don't have that many streams that they need an aggregator like that (not yet, anyway). Could have a future, but as of now, I don't think it'll become mainstream.
I don't expect Friendfeed to meet all my information or conversation needs. I still chat, I still read blogs and comment on them. But Friendfeed does provide a unique way to listen in to the thoughts and opinions of those I'm not likely to meet meet in the real world. Seriously, can I expect to sit down over coffee with Scoble to discuss the use of blogs in business? I've been a friend of Chris Pirillo for years, but I've never met him in person. Friendfeed allows me to keep up with the interests and opinions of these guys in one place with a threaded conversation. Friendfeed isn't perfect, there are a few changes to their interface and functionality I'd like to see improved. But until I find an alternative that provides the same opportunity with the same easy-to-use GUI, I'll be hanging out at Friendfeed and learning more every day.
You are welcome to participate and join the community. It's only then a post like this would have any merit.
lots of things they may not do perfect, but a lot of things they do well.
if they get acquired, it likely won't be because they're failing.
Aaron | @astrout
In a sense, one of the questions is whether people will participate deeply in more than one of these apps. I don't think so.
You appear to have a predisposition to interpreting popular phrases such that their common usage is wrong. For example, all I have to do make the popular view 'steep learning curve' correct is to insert the following into your (made up) definition...
"in a short period of time (horizontal axis) a great deal of learning [needs to] take place (vertical axis)."
There isn't only one curve that can be plotted here. Why choose the one that makes everybody on the planet appear wrong? I think it's way more likely your axis definition has been wrong. I'll continue to use 'steep learning curve' in the way you say is wrong, because you just pulled that and your definition out of nowhere. Thx. P.S. FriendFeed's problem is that it is a syndication tool for people who generate content, which can easily recombinate and repurpose that content and massage it for other other services -- only it's disguised as a standalone social network. Instead of 'FriendFeed' it should be called 'ReFeed' or something. It's an image problem, nothing more -- once again, like the learning curve, step *around* the problem instead of banging your forehead against it.
"Another specific context of the term "learning curve" involves the effort required to acquire a new skill (e.g., expertise with a new tool) over a specific period of time. In this context, expressions such as "fast learning curve", "short learning curve", and "steep learning curve" are used. This context involves a different interpretation of fast initial progress vs. time—namely, the amount of progress required at each stage of learning. In this sense, "steep learning curve" represents the need to make significant progress in the initial stages so that a person may start using the new skill with reasonable efficiency, a need often associated with increased efforts in learning. Conversely, the expressions "gradual" or "flat learning curve" imply that the acquisition of a skill may be gradual, so that a reasonable use of the new skill is possible at early stages with a relatively light amount of training."
It's not random, it's just that people in general do not use it in the sense that learning theorists intended.
I am not banging my forehead against anything, really. In general, people would like to learn something quickly even if they have to put in more effort to do so, which is a 'steep learning curve'. But as generally used, when people say 'steep learning curve' they mean that the skill is not being learned, which would be a "flat learning curve."