Guaranteed anti-features from Facebook's playbook:<p>- Non-chronological home feed (to force-feed ads & gate-keep influence)<p>- Nerf users' reach to force them into buying ads<p>- Perpetual PII data-gobbling<p>- Draconian account control rules (to pad user numbers?...hmmn)
It's got a lot of things to work out and improve on, but I assume that will come in time. It feels like the launch was rushed by a month or two to take advantage of the horrific start to July that Twitter has had.<p>Brands seem incredibly enthusiastic to be there though, signifying they were just waiting for something like this to jump onto and away from Musk.
I have tried it here is my experience:
I am new user, I login and begin to search for content:<p>Whatever I search for does not match the content on any tweet equivalent either the text or meta information - like hashtags. Only the content of the users name and words in their Bio.<p>This I can understand for instagram where the concept is based on a stream of pictures that will be released over time. But how do I find within content ? - like breaking news items?<p>Beyond duplicating the accounts you follow in instagram.
This only serves to find and follow accounts built around a single concept.
Or a named celebrity.<p>But it does not work at the moment as a tool to find anything based on the content within a thread (happening now, or around me, or an upcoming event or a specific programming code example) - isn't this the main value of these kind of tools?
Find content that is important or interesting to you and then follow them to hear more.<p>Am I missing something fundamental?
Can anyone spell out exactly what it means to ‘sign up’ to Threads? Are these users who heard about Threads (from a friend or the news) and actively sought it out, or are they users who just tapped “OK” on a dialog that popped up when they opened Instagram, or what exactly? The answer to this is important because it would give an indication of how likely these users are to stick, which is everything.<p>Google once introduced a social network called Google+, and guess what, billions of users were ‘signed up’ overnight by virtue of already having Google accounts. And it meant nothing. That’s the extreme end of the scale, where the user doesn’t even know they signed up. I’m guessing Meta’s 10m figure is not that meaningless (otherwise it would be “2.35bn users in 1 ms”) but what is it exactly?
What's their DAU in a week going to be?<p>A junior dev could build a working twitter clone in a couple weeks; tech was never Twitter's moat.<p>Twitter had a first mover advantage and got the community of microbloggers. Mastodon and now threads aren't going to fully coopt that community -- And they need to fully coopt it to win.<p>There are too many people who won't touch a Facebook product with a 10-foot pole(Myself included), so there's a whole group of users, especially academics and technologists, who will never seriously use threads
"Users" of Threads are basically ones with Instagram account. So, having a 2B+ user base, this number means about 0.5% of the Insta users installed a new app.<p>Still, is that the fastest yet? Instagram took 2.5 months for reaching 1M users while it was 5 days for ChatGPT.<p>Somebody called it out on HN already that Twitter is going away because of Threads. Monopoly is never good, especially not in social media business. There <i>should</i> never be one social network to rule them all.
While the new app isn't perfect the pent up demand for something else that is easy to sign up for and use is real. If only my local weather service and meteorologists move over thar is good enough for me. It's gonna hit 100 MM in less than a month.
-Main page is some Three.js example (that you can break if you find the controls)
-Android app isn't available on Android 10 ?
-The one-thread link (this link) is minimalistic but takes literally 10 seconds to load and looks to just continue the "zuck is surely a real human not a robot" theme with the branded replies. Also manages to have a horizontal scrollbar<p>If this is USA-only they could at least mention on the webpage. But now this looks like a really weird failure mode of a launch.
Threads may not even get 10% of twitter's users to switch platforms.<p>But if they can get 50% of Twitter's (remaining) BRANDS to switch where they spend ad dollars, that's a win for FB!
10M in less than 12 hours and it is early days.<p>This is exactly what a serious Twitter alternative is supposed to be. We don't need to wait long for this to surpass the entire population of the 'Fediverse', but again this growth is not a surprise but excepted.<p>At the point, Threads <i>is</i> the Fediverse, and it cannot be stopped. Either federate with Threads or stay irrelevant. But either way, LLaMa is going to get trained on Threads and the smaller fediverse.
Earlier posts said that there was no way to see Threads on the web but I was able to see this in the browser (don’t even have Threads yet because I’m in Europe).
I presume Instagram could make a "share pictures of your poop in the toilet" and get 10M users in a few hours. My Threads initial experience was a bunch of apparent influencers and brands I haven't heard of, with no way to see only my friends' posts. Fairly miserable. I get that they want it to feel instantly busy for new users, but yuck.<p>Interested to see what numbers (and stickiness) is like in a few months.
Yeah, we get it. Stop posting these, at least stop posting the official announcement from threads.net<p>Previous submissions: <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=last24h&page=0&prefix=true&query=threads%20hours&sort=byDate&type=story" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=last24h&page=0&prefix=true...</a>
The iOS app requires you to share an astonishing amount of data with Meta. Why do they need access to my health data for me to see others shitposting and dunking on Twitter?<p>Until they offer an option for people not willing to share their daily step count with Meta — and let's face it, in the age of surveillance capitalism and Meta going down the tubes, that's not likely, — it's a hard no from me.