TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Andrew Chen: Why every Web 2.0 startup needs to think about Metcalfe's Law

39 点作者 andrew_null大约 17 年前

5 条评论

sanj大约 17 年前
The real thing that you should focus on is avoiding being <i>beholden</i> to the network effect.<p>Build something that is useful with for a single user, but <i>better</i> for a thousand users.
评论 #194502 未加载
评论 #194668 未加载
neilk大约 17 年前
Jakob Nielsen said precisely the same thing nine years ago, in an article called "Metcalfe's Law in Reverse".<p><a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990725.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990725.html</a>
ph0rque大约 17 年前
Last paragraph of the article: "A very interesting variation of this is when you apply Metcalfe's Law not to the entire network of users, but rather think of a social network as a loosely grouped set of connections. In that case, some local networks might have achieved critical mass, and if they are big enough, they will be retained. However, if the smaller networks around any given group start collapsing, then sometimes even the large networks will get pulled down with them."<p>This also explains why some people just "don't get" facebook, while others do; and these two groups have a hard time understanding each other. It all has to do with critical mass.
davidw大约 17 年前
I'm too lazy to look for it right now (this baby thing is exhausting), but I recall reading an article saying that N^2 is a bit over the top, and suggesting a better formula, since the number of other nodes you actually connect with is less than the total of all nodes. Although the ability to connect with those other nodes is still valuable, it doesn't quite justify the ^2.<p>Anyway, I'll trot out the 'Information Rules' book recommendation once again. Sorry for the repeat.
评论 #194345 未加载
abstractbill大约 17 年前
I found this confusing. At one point the author talks about exponential decay (in which something gets smaller more and more slowly), but at another point he describes something that sounds more like an auto-catalytic process (where something reaches a tipping-point and then explodes, or in this case implodes).