Comments on: Pownce is dead

By: Abby

Abby — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:27:26 +0000

I think you are right that you cannot shut down a product or a service and lose that customer base, then come back brightly, months later, and expect to reclaim those customers.
Abby

By: Wayne Smallman

Wayne Smallman — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:58:31 +0000

Foomandoonian, you’re right. Pownce really didn’t help themselves. Certainly not when they really needed to.

Scott, I loved the different options, which is why I can’t understand the complexity argument, since a lot of people who use Twitter also use FriendFeed, and look at the options there.

Mark, I think the question has been asked, but it’s worth asking again until Kevin gives us an answer…

By: Mark Dykeman

Mark Dykeman — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:39:03 +0000

I know this has been said elsewhere, but I’ll say it as well: why didn’t Kevin Rose do more to promote his own product?

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:40:09 +0000

As a platform, I much preferred Pownce. The group features (which Twitter is still looking to implement) were excellent, as was its ability to handle images and other files.

For me the issue was audience. As much as I tried, I just couldn’t get the folks I knew there to use it.
SB

By: Foomandoonian

Foomandoonian — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:03:59 +0000

I used Pownce briefly, and actually ended up prefering the simplicity of Twitter. I even *like* the lack of features - just look at how many small services have popped up to fill the gaps: Twitterfeed, TwitPic, TweetLater, TweetCube, (the former) Summize … the list goes on. Most of it’s rubbish, but some of it is really handy - and none of it clutters up the simplicity of Twitter.

Anyway, to the point, Pownce has no-one else to blame for its faliure. It’s either a side-effect of people largely not wanting what it offered, not knowing about it in the first place, or it’s another victim of the economy.