Difference between revisions of "Barriers for adoption"

From diaspora* project wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "This document focuses on some reasons why users haven't yet adopted Diaspora. There are several barriers that can prevent a person from migrating to a different social network...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This document focuses on some reasons why users haven't yet adopted Diaspora. There are several barriers that can prevent a person from migrating to a different social network, as such they are divided up into different sections.
 
This document focuses on some reasons why users haven't yet adopted Diaspora. There are several barriers that can prevent a person from migrating to a different social network, as such they are divided up into different sections.
 +
 +
 +
== Arguments not specific to decentralized social networks ==
 +
=== Switching is inconvenient ===
 +
Although many users voice complaints over their existing social networks of choice, a majority of users are comfortable in being right where they are. Google+ alone is a testament to the reality that building a feature-for-feature clone of Facebook doesn't automatically give users a reason to switch.
 +
 +
=== All of my friends are on Social Network X ===
 +
Another common convenience of large networks such as Twitter or Facebook are that they are ubiquitous. Many people use those networks, and therefore they can entrench themselves in active social circles of friends. Moving to a new service leaves those friends behind, and effectively cuts off communication.
 +
 +
=== Social Network X has more features than Social Network Y ===
 +
Facebook is a prime example of this situation in that it is laden with features.
 +
Facebook alone has the following features:
 +
* status updates
 +
* photo albums
 +
* check-ins
 +
* groups
 +
* pages
 +
* authentication for websites
 +
* image previews and styling for links
 +
* the ability to like comments
 +
* Private messages that also double as instant messages.
 +
* video chat for Windows, MacOS, and mobile platforms
 +
* emoticons
 +
* polls
 +
* user profiles
 +
* timeline (semantic social web objects intertwined with user posts)
 +
* many more features
 +
 +
The point is, a platform such has Facebook has a relatively high list of features that users of the service may expect, and leaving Facebook may seem comparable to sacrificing some features that a user may enjoy.
 +
 +
=== All of my posts are on Network X ===
 +
Some users value their social content, and are frustrated with the idea that moving to a new network is effectively "starting over".
 +
 +
== Arguments Specific to Decentralized Social Networks ==
 +
 +
=== Difficult to Install ===
 +
=== Difficult to Maintain ===
 +
=== Decentralized Social Networks are hard to use ===
 +
=== Lack of understanding around concepts of decentralization ===
 +
=== Lack of standard protocol ===
  
 
[[Category: Outreach]]
 
[[Category: Outreach]]

Revision as of 19:03, 19 May 2013

This document focuses on some reasons why users haven't yet adopted Diaspora. There are several barriers that can prevent a person from migrating to a different social network, as such they are divided up into different sections.


Arguments not specific to decentralized social networks

Switching is inconvenient

Although many users voice complaints over their existing social networks of choice, a majority of users are comfortable in being right where they are. Google+ alone is a testament to the reality that building a feature-for-feature clone of Facebook doesn't automatically give users a reason to switch.

All of my friends are on Social Network X

Another common convenience of large networks such as Twitter or Facebook are that they are ubiquitous. Many people use those networks, and therefore they can entrench themselves in active social circles of friends. Moving to a new service leaves those friends behind, and effectively cuts off communication.

Social Network X has more features than Social Network Y

Facebook is a prime example of this situation in that it is laden with features. Facebook alone has the following features:

  • status updates
  • photo albums
  • check-ins
  • groups
  • pages
  • authentication for websites
  • image previews and styling for links
  • the ability to like comments
  • Private messages that also double as instant messages.
  • video chat for Windows, MacOS, and mobile platforms
  • emoticons
  • polls
  • user profiles
  • timeline (semantic social web objects intertwined with user posts)
  • many more features

The point is, a platform such has Facebook has a relatively high list of features that users of the service may expect, and leaving Facebook may seem comparable to sacrificing some features that a user may enjoy.

All of my posts are on Network X

Some users value their social content, and are frustrated with the idea that moving to a new network is effectively "starting over".

Arguments Specific to Decentralized Social Networks

Difficult to Install

Difficult to Maintain

Decentralized Social Networks are hard to use

Lack of understanding around concepts of decentralization

Lack of standard protocol