In the midst of rapid change in the technology community, the Garden seems to have failed to keep pace. From the attempt of .NET on Linux to the obsession with the blogging era, Garden's decisions always seem to go against the market trend. Facing the rise of WeChat's subscription number and the loss of mobile traffic, Garden appeared to be slow to react and missed the golden period of transformation.
Garden's ambiguity in user positioning has led to a wavering product strategy. What developers need is a platform that can provide in-depth technical communication and resource sharing, not a simple content publishing tool. Whether Garden truly understands this need deserves our deep thoughts.
The lack of clarity in brand value has made the garden's image in the tech community increasingly blurred. Under the impact of AI products and * and other platforms, the expected sharp decrease in the number of users reading articles in the garden and the decrease in advertising revenue have further emphasized the garden's inadequacy in brand building.
Short-sighted investment strategies, such as the launch of the crowdsourcing platform, not only failed to capture the imagination of investors, but also exposed Garden's shortcomings in its ability to innovate. With technology changing rapidly, Garden needs a more forward-looking investment strategy to adapt to the ever-changing market environment.
In order to achieve breakeven, Garden had to learn the hard way to close down products and features that no longer met market demand. This was not only a process of self-renewal, but also an opportunity for Garden to reposition and rebrand itself.
The plight of the garden is a challenge that every technology community needs to face. Only through profound self-criticism and continuous self-renewal can the Garden find its own way of survival in the wave of technology communities. Let's expect the garden to step out of its predicament and meet new challenges with a more determined and wiser pace.