undefined | Better HN

0 pointstanjtanjtanj11mo ago0 comments

I am SO confused and have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you think you’re talking to someone else?

My post was Thesis: Photos is not new

Supporting evidence: everything else.

I am not OP, I am not saying anything you’re responding to (and when I look at the OP you responded to they didn’t say what you’re responding to either).

I’m not ignoring any numbers they just don’t have anything to do with my post.

Additionally, Photos was a relaunched app that’s why I’m saying the 2015 is a little misleading, I am aware Google had other photo apps before Photos and I’m not talking about that.

I can say “your examples are bad” without espousing “Google doesn’t do anything”

0 comments

SR2Z11mo ago

> My post was Thesis: Photos is not new

> Supporting evidence: everything else.

I am getting my number from Wikipedia, because that's when the actual "good" version of Photos launched. I don't know what the status quo was before the relaunch, because the app wasn't useful to me before it got the ML features that caused it to blow up and become a wild success.

The point I am trying to make is that Photos, on its own, would be a multibillion dollar startup. In the context of billion-user apps, even being 10 years old is still pretty recent.

My complaint with your take is that if you exclude anything younger than that, OBVIOUSLY there will not be as many (or any) wild successes. It takes time for a product to become successful.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse