Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewstuart | Hacker News Reader

They could also have grown threads by owning the domain name.

Also by actually having a desktop website for threads.

Also by having a standalone user registration system, not the same one as instagram.

Also perhaps by spending some of those billions doing actual advertising. I’ve never seen a single ad for threads. Compare that to any new movie which is on every media channel, on YouTube, on billboards, on the side of buses, on bus stops.

Things that seem to me to be absolute minimums required.

View on HN

Threads.com is owned by an ex-Facebook employee who launched a Slack alternative in 2017. I would be surprised if they were to give up a strong domain name (and brand that they surely have trademarks for) that easily!

So if you’re saying Facebook can’t get the .com then frankly it’s the wrong product name.

Who cares? threads.net works totally fine, and most users are on Mobile anyways. They started with thefacebook.com, and they turned out fine.

People keep saying that the domain doesn’t matter.

That desktop doesn’t matter.

And yet so far threads has sunk even with its initial huge interest.

Maybe those things matter.

people keep talking about threads like it's failing, but i use it every day and it seems alive to me. most of the people i followed on twitter are there, and there's enough content to keep me generally interested every time i open the app and to keep me coming back.

i think something like knowing whether or not they have a desktop app should be a prerequisite for having an opinion on whether they're failing or not.

I tried it when it first came out and it didn’t have a desktop.

I’m not making any further effort to jump on every two weeks and see if Facebook did the absolute minimum in building one.

Multi hundred billion dollar company can spend money advertising if it wants to get a message to me whilst I’m going about my life.

The Desktop version has been out for months.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com