[pathseeker]

With social the product is always the network. If nobody uses it, the product is not better at all. It just has some nice features that would be good if a real product was there (the people).

I know it seems pedantic, but you cannot grow a social network with just a platform, despite how amazing it is. This fails time and time and time again.

You need a story that sets it apart from existing stuff that brings in people. Whether it's some disruption narrative, paying shills (a.k.a influencers), or whatever, that's what's required.

[stdbrouw]

This feels like a deliberate misinterpretation of the parent comment and therefore, yep, pedantic. It's obvious from context that they're talking about the product qua UX and features, not about the product as a whole including its user base.

[nailer]

Sure, but FB had a smaller network than Myspace. Instagram once had a smaller network than Flickr. They grew the network through better UX (ok it's hard to say now with their MS-Word style shotgun blast of icons, but FB was once miles ahead of MySpace).

[pathseeker]

No, FB initially grew because of exclusivity of the network. I only signed up because it was for college people only at the time. I didn't care about the interface at all, just the content and who was posting that content. It was absolutely not "myspace with an improved interface".