Technology

37801 readers

462 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

586

Twitter's lost 13% of its daily users and its rebrand has failed (www.bigtechnology.com)

submitted 1 year ago by sculd@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

167 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The new data — comprehensive and definitive — should put to rest the countervailing narratives over Musk’s management of the app. Under his stewardship, X’s daily user base has declined from an estimated 140 million users to 121 million, with a widening gap between people who check the app daily vs. monthly. X’s remaining daily users are engaged similarly as before. But the pool is shrinking. Apptopia pulls its data from more than 100,000 apps on iOS and Android, along with publicly available sources.

So apparently it lost only 13% of daily users? Thats a smaller number than I thought. Still bad news for Twitter though.

On the other hand, it shows the power of content creators and niche communities. I used less Twitter but cannot delete it because it is literally how I connect with my niche community on there.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are better value options if you're looking to play games on it. There are cheaper options if budget is a huge concern and you're OK with low quality plastic builds.

For all metal construction their value is really good, and there still isn't anything out there that balances the power and battery life they offer. For most professional use cases (which usually mean working with video/photos, in terms of what's demanding on a laptop), they're at minimum competitive on raw power. The biggest difference is that can use that power all day on battery, while the stuff that can be argued to be competitive will chew through the battery at high loads (and, compared to Apple, at idle, too).

[–] yoz@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You actually have no idea what you're taking about. Don't you?

[–] Helvedeshunden@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

It's pretty spot on.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

There is nothing on the market at any price that provides both of the performance on battery and battery life the MacBook Air has, let alone higher tiers. Apple Silicon is sincerely insanely impressive.

Apple has also always been perfectly fine performance per dollar in the class they've actually been in. Their build quality isn't perfect, but it blows everything meaningfully cheaper out of the water. You can't compare an aluminum shell with trashy plastic and be surprised the plastic is cheaper. The actually well built stuff like thinkpads were never meaningfully different pricing than Apple. That's what it costs.