I sometimes see references to the question of “Cattle or Pets” when it comes to computer hardware. I first saw this in discussions about how server farms were administrated.
Hardware
“Pets” was the older practice: each server had its own purpose, some were unique, administrators often gave the servers names. They were cared for like pets, meaning they were treated with care and allowed to die of old age. So, there might be several different types and vintages of servers in the same location.
“Cattle” was the new hot idea. Cows don’t get named, their own personal quirks aren’t catered to. Cows don’t get babied, especially when a cow has clearly gone lame or outlived its purpose. It gets sold or put down and a new cow is brought in.* There’s a schedule and it’s better to clean out everything old and replace with new, on a schedule.
The Cattle mentality depends on a lot of assumptions. One of those assumptions is that whatever is brought in on the schedule will be at least as capable and reliable as the thing it replaces. Another assumption is computer hardware will be relatively cheap compared to the labor to administer that hardware. If labor is cheap than hardware, then it makes sense to keep whatever is still working and train people on how to work with different systems of different types.
I am not certain the “Cattle” viewpoint is as effiicient as it was portrayed. At least, it’s not as efficient when it comes to hardware and software that a business or household might depend on. “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it” is a rule most large software companies no longer follow, and some hardware manufacturers ignore it too.
Social Media
I think social media is in a mirror position. The social media companies want their users to see them as “Pets”: very individual, irreplaceable, dearly loved Pets.
Yet, the arc of most social media platforms seems to be the same. There’s an initial growth phase where the social media company is trying to find something which differentiates it. Growing users is more important than how the users are grown. There’s an intermediate phase, where the social media company starts trying to make some money off of their platform. If they don’t charge users a subscription fee, then it becomes trickier. Usually ads and the information harvesting for targeted ads are somewhere in the mix.
It’s also during this intermediate phase, if the social media company gets there, that “regular” users start showing up. After that there’s a long slow managed decline. Enough “regular” users are showing up that some of the quirkier things get a lot more scrutiny. Maybe the quirkier things get some legal and regulatory scrutiny too. Meanwhile, advertisers are paying more, but also expecting more responsiveness to their complaints. And the social media company will start copying rivals’ ideas.
At which point, a new social media company or two will show up with their own quirky thing which differentiates them. The die hard fans of the old social media company aren’t as loyal. Why be loyal when the old platform is no longer what it once was? The newer members of the old social media company are there because it’s useful. They will leave when it’s not; the large established social media companies all have similar features.
Conclusion: It’s All Backwards
So, social media companies are the “Cattle,” even though they are trying desperately not to be. And the hardware and programs which work and work well are the “Pets,” even though hardware and software companies desperately want them to be seen as Cattle which get replaced regularly and provide a revenue stream regularly.
The world runs on irony.
*Never mind that in the age-old tradition of the world running on irony, most of the people applying “Cattle” to various server management practices had never been on commercial ranches themselves. There are ways in which cattle are all treated the same, but there are also ways in which cattle have their own definite personalities. I’ve yet to meet a person who works with cows professionally who doesn’t acknowledge this, but I don’t think the computer programmers thought to ask.