retention

The key difference between the two, was retention.

I don't think scientists understand the "fact retention" mechanism as well as OP claims, for instance.

He doesn't deal with payroll, 401ks, employee vacations or benefits, he doesn't care about retention, he cares about code.

Large companies have to worry about compliance, document retention, etc.

LinkedIn has had so many security issues, so much scummy behaviour regarding spam, user retention etc... yet you are still blessing them with your presence.

In fact, the company has very high customer satisfaction ratings, including an NPS that is in the ballpark of Amazon, and a very high customer retention rate.

They prioritize launching early over everything else, including retention and engineering discipline and a bunch of other stuff that turns out to matter in the long run.

Messaging, clickthrough, A/B testing, new users/activation/retention/revenue/virality by channel.

Data retention was allowed in general by the court, but only with significant restrictions. The German government failed to pass a new law which fulfills both the EU data retention directive and the court's restrictions. The EU Commission therefore is currently sueing Germany to implement the EU data retention directive.

But that's a complaint about fb giving your information to apps, and while it's a lot harder to tease out the motivations there, I think they still derive a greater benefit from that in terms of retention and usage than they do in terms of advertising.

Lest any youngsters take seriously the value of shares a startup is offering you, take a look at how seriously the author takes it:> With retention structures and contracts, a buyer can make sure the money goes where they want it to go to a promising junior engineer they want to keep on, for example, instead of the office manager who technically owned 20% of the companys equity.