Path never had a friend limit consistent with a personal social network. As far as I know, Robin Dunbar's research suggests a person's inner circle is up to 15 people. Path's goal for a user's friend number of 50 - this put it in a murky spot that's not quite intimate and not quite open.

There a lot of UI nuances (such as not showing the number of likes or views, and not having a feed as the main screen) between the apps. These make big differences in how people use products. (Consider that you can basically post the exact same stuff on Facebook, twitter, and instagram, yet they are used in very different ways.) We really tried to create an experience that is as low pressure as possible, so people can feel comfortable sharing even seemingly mundane moments with loved ones. The goal is to make people feel closer to their loved ones. I feel that's a more important venture than letting people share funny videos or keep up with the Kardashians, which is seemingly what every social network with a broad social graph (d)evolves into.

Considering external factors as well, the way in which people use prominent social networks has changed a lot from 4 years ago. No one shares live status-style posts of what they're doing anymore.

Much of our underlying philosophy is shared with the original Path concept. I think their founding theory is super cool. The personal social network is a great goal, but it's a really tough nut to crack. I don't know if we cracked it either. We'll see!

Life360 and eFamily are more heavy duty family management or VPN-style tools. Ourglass is a very quick and simple experience in comparison.