|
|
|
|
|
by eropple
2921 days ago
|
|
Facebook and Instagram spend time building this stuff because buying it off-the-rack would cost more. That tends to be true for a lot of stuff at Facebook scale, but that's also true for much smaller companies that need (note: not "think they need") the feature, too. It's neither complicated nor complex as a feature--the hard part, and the meaningful part, is contextualizing that timer with regards to the application and the decisions being made with that application. Your "free" analytics tool actually costs them a lot of money (because developer time isn't free) and there's an inflection point at which building a tool, bringing the knowledge and ability to maintain it in-house, makes a lot more sense than buying. It's not that the feature isn't good, or the feature isn't worth $38 in a vacuum. It's that that $38 buys negative value for teams working on products that would derive value from the feature. You're trying to sidestep an existing metrics ingest pipeline and existing analytics tools. But the people who have metrics don't want you to sidestep it and the people who don't aren't the people who would materially benefit from this feature. |
|
How do you say that it buys negative value? Additionally, We're not trying to sidestep an existing metrics; yes, this metrics is already available but with poor accuracy and implementation issues. Check the numerous issues with Google Analytics here: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_enIN777IN782&ei=Gb... So, we try to fix & improve the well-known metrics so that our products benefit straight away with accuracy and metrics-reliability.
#analytics #GA #timeonsite