I just thought of another possible explanation - apps and integrations are probably a big part of the revenue ecosystem so e.g. in case of react, if your product is built on it and your integrations/apps/whatever engine is also react-centered, it's kind of cheap to introduce new people to these concepts. I guess.
Yep, this is close to what I was thinking too. I was wondering if this doesn't have the drawback of core team having to constantly deal with people from outside coming with their use-cases that have nothing to do with what the team's vision is. You know, "i was thinking it would be nice to have bells and whistles when you click this button" type of people. I would really love to get some insight into the efficiency of this (developer-advocacy-in-general) - seems like it's really worth it for companies.
i am pretty certain that promoting react has little impact on people who do bring the most revenue to facebook (end users who simply eat up clickbait).
This is a valid argument but it does not answer my question which was about why do companies have developer advocates for products other that what they directly sell.
I'm specifically not asking about these people. Take facebook - they don't sell react. Why do they have developer advocates for that? In other words, if you sell cars, why have people who talk to other people about how ICEs are built?
Yes, that’s what I meant by “not directly related to the end product of the business”. Eg why does google have developer advocates for angular? Is it purely so that adoption is wide enough that the “talent pool” admits good engineers even purely statistically, ie it’s easier to hire a good coder out of 100k people that out of 1k? Not even mentioning that you don’t have to teach your internal frameworks.