> Well, for the record, the idea was: If you're going to have so many users - > and (implicitly) if enough of them are *new* users (so that they don't know > enough to miss del), and probably also, if the user base *grows* quickly > enough (so the benefits of the social model kick in sooner rather than > later) - what do you need del for?...
You need del and flickr and usemod and typepad and etc to *get* to that userbase. Starting from scratch *sucks*, and Flock is using the lure of easy integration with existing popular services to jump-start that, or to try. They are likely to fail, of course, but that failure would be even more certain if they tried to depose not only the existing browsers but the existing services that people use browsers to get to. Then there would really be no leverage. Costs no money, large and growing user base, free marketing, keeps them from getting into the server business. What's not to like? > Actually, this helps me see that really, Flock is "just another browser." > It'll integrate these social things better than others - at least > theoretically, and at least for a while - but at the end of the day, when > you look at their business, it's actually no different than the other > browsers'. I wasn't as clear on this before reading your e-mail. Right. They want downloads, and they want those users who download it to show up in log files. That's the win; everything else is a distraction. > This seems to cast even more doubt on Flock. Why won't FF, e.g., be able to > do whatever Flock does via extensions?... If you can take del and Flickr, > etc. with you wherever you go, what's to keep you with Flock when it fails > you in this way or that?... Its UI is going to have to be *awfully* good. ...or, in their model, the "We include it all for you, so you don't have to install extensions" premise has to be awfully alluring. > I guess I still wonder: If you were going to set out to do Flock, then why > *wouldn't* you roll all your own social software? so that you could "trap" > users just like we're all trapped in del. And I guess the answer is that > you've probably then got to win *every* war, don't you? The Flickr war as > well as the del war, etc. And this is just too much risk to bear. Something > like that..... Right -- there is no one piece of social software (or other service-like tools they might go after, like Kayak.com) that will make them succeed. They want to be the interface of choice for Web2.0, without having to get into the server business. Gutsy move, in a way, though the value to the average user seems slim, given that I could integrate a bunch of good FF extensions and advertise it as "FF optimized for W2.0" and get much of the same effect. -c > I guess this is a third "counter-argument" to add to the list above. > > Matthew _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.del.icio.us/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
