Companies frequently defend themselves against shareholder lawsuits, and naturally that money would otherwise provide value for the shareholders. Also, if the SEC fines them the (current) investors will basically be punished!
Sounds to me more like a justification for presenting useless statistics and allowing 'outpacers' to give themselves more confirmation bias (which those communities already provide in spades).
And if you grow the user-base fast you've won, right? Lock-in and network effects matter enormously. Saying you can't lock-in the social graph neither guarantees a company won't lock-in elsewhere nor guarantees this is an appealing platform on which to develop.
This isn't a morality tale, I'm just pointing out what kind of decisions would be made around App.net and that the Vine/Instagram example doesn't really make sense.
Seems like bad business strategy to build on top of those if it means it's easy to steal away your userbase. Sounds fine for mid-size apps who can't justify rolling their own though.
Except even this doesn't make sense. Presumably Vine handles the videos on its own backend, and you only get your social graph when you move over to Instagram.
Unless you're going to provide free infrastructure for every component (not just the social graph) there will be an element of lock-in to virtually any social product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination#I...
Also, I find that the OP is actually more confusing on this topic than Wikipedia.
Not sure how else I can support that this is a basic fact about this metric. I'm not in the mood to find quotes in intro textbooks, etc.