"Good Fast Cheap; Pick two" is so yesterday. Now users demand "Perfect, Free and Yesterday; No exceptions."
I've seen five or six articles about ello, and only one of them was neutral or positive. One was (ignoring that ello is in beta and has warnings that everything should be presumed public until advised otherwise) yelling about the shocking, horrifying lack of privacy controls. Another guy was in a snit because venture capital has been used, making all users into product. Another was unhappy that it's not open source. All of them wrote ello off as "not the facebook replacement we have been longing for" because it is in some way imperfect.
Oh. Well then. We should all keep using facebook? Because it's so much better?
No. Facebook is flaky, non-consultative, closed source, spammy, exploitative (I'd even say "abusive"), for-profit... and the most extensive online social network available. And the greatest value in such a network is in its completeness. When it comes to this sort of thing, almost everyone wants to be where everyone else is. ello doesn't yet have the vast numbers of users that facebook has, but by every other yardstick, ello is so. much. better.
And yet there seems to be a queue of people who can't wait to criticise, condemn and dismiss ello. Maybe it's fashionable to nitpick? Maybe rejecting something that's clearly vastly better than the status quo for falling short of one's ideals demonstrates one's sophisticated taste and fastidious high standards?
I'm not sure I see the advantage when such a condemnation dog-pile just leaves us using facebook indefinitely. It's like rejecting steak as undercooked because you pulled it off the grill prematurely, and rather than let the chef cook it longer, judging the chef to be incompetent. And then returning to your regular diet of tinned dog food.
It makes no sense. And I suspect it might be why we can't have nice things.