31–40 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a public utility.
it's a "private" utility. But I take your point. If they remove all the fat making a tweet page 5mb it could be hosted for nearly nothing by some FOSS org.
Unclear is what kind of "deal" they are talking about. A considerable buy in? A full acquisition? And, assuming a full acquisition... what would be the gain? Google has a bad story with attempts at social media, apart from YouTube. (Bought Orkut, killed it, tried Google Plus, went nowhere). Twitter is hard to make profitable without alienating the users with too many ads. For Google, it would probably be an acquisiti…
How is a company which "might never be profitable" considered a "significant asset"?!
Google being the ad monster that it is, could significantly boost Twitter's business and they could slash the operating costs very considerably. Twitter should be solidly profitable at $3-$4 billion in sales (which Google could deliver).
Google acquiring Twitter is actually the best end result here. Salesforce is probably the worst. Lots of people hate the idea of a Google acquisition, but I think it's well suited because: - Google learnt from its mistakes with Google+ and is eager to not repeat them - The company is a very different one now from years ago - Google doesn't want to mess up identity again, so that wouldn't be an issue - Google mostly j…
Also, Twitter is unprofitable, but my understanding was that they were heavily trusted by the public.
Twitter should be a public utility.
That would be nice but who would pay for servers? I would love an "Open Twitter" built on standard protocols and implementable by anyone, however if SMTP and NNTP are any indication, most people prefer convenient silos over open solutions. And the reality of a hostile internet mean that there is a need for active resources devoted to protecting any service from abuse.
Google acquiring Twitter is actually the best end result here. Salesforce is probably the worst. Lots of people hate the idea of a Google acquisition, but I think it's well suited because: - Google learnt from its mistakes with Google+ and is eager to not repeat them - The company is a very different one now from years ago - Google doesn't want to mess up identity again, so that wouldn't be an issue - Google mostly j…
Google learned from Google+? Where is the evidence? Also, Twitter is unprofitable, but my understanding was that they were heavily trusted by the public.
I think you're substituting a particular group of Twitter users for the public - the general perception is Twitter is full of hateful trolls and management can't be bothered to control them.
There are better alternatives to Twitter out there. It’s time for everybody to move on.
Such as?
Unfortunately, while I like it, it's definitely not going in the same direction as Twitter and is not likely to match everybody's idea of a social network. While its current members, myself included, like it for its simplicity and lack of embellishment, it is precisely because it comes with fewer features and deliberate design choices against janky embedded media, it does not and likely will not represent a Twitter alternative for the vast majority of Twitter users.
Sublevel could however be made into an interesting, social-first alternative to Pinboard.
If Sublevel were for sale, that's likely what I'd do with it, offering an archive utility to save HTML where duplicate content is only saved once and blindly shared among users to conserve space. Then stick an incrementally increasing price tag on membership like Pinboard. Maybe membership tiers.
I remember as well numerous decentralised alternatives to Twitter like Diaspora and Twister IIRC.
Twitter is horrible to use and would benefit from a complete rethink in terms of UI, maybe something along the lines of Opera Coast.
There are better alternatives to Twitter out there. It’s time for everybody to move on.
There are better alternatives to Twitter out there. It’s time for everybody to move on.
Such as?
There is a set of standartized web protocols called Webfinger, ActivityStreams, Salmon and PubSubHubbub which allow websites to interact with each other as a sort of decentralized/federated Twitter (this is called the "fediverse").
[1]: https://gnu.io/social [2]: https://github.com/Gargron/mastodon
Disclaimer: I'm working on Mastodon, it's a new open source implementation, I'm trying to make it more approachable to people who value UX and maintainability
Unclear is what kind of "deal" they are talking about. A considerable buy in? A full acquisition? And, assuming a full acquisition... what would be the gain? Google has a bad story with attempts at social media, apart from YouTube. (Bought Orkut, killed it, tried Google Plus, went nowhere). Twitter is hard to make profitable without alienating the users with too many ads. For Google, it would probably be an acquisiti…
Although its the biggest video platform in the world attracting 1/3 of the worlds population to it. I think the data itself that can be gathered via youtube are profitable for google and google's purpose really (AI).
If they buy twitter it won't be because they can turn it into being sustainable itself but because they can make it profitable for them and not in money. Personally I don't think that google has a money issue and I think for them its easier to value data more as a currency.
Unclear is what kind of "deal" they are talking about. A considerable buy in? A full acquisition? And, assuming a full acquisition... what would be the gain? Google has a bad story with attempts at social media, apart from YouTube. (Bought Orkut, killed it, tried Google Plus, went nowhere). Twitter is hard to make profitable without alienating the users with too many ads. For Google, it would probably be an acquisiti…
Bought Orkut, killed it, tried Google Plus, went nowhere > Don't forget Buzz! That time when they default opted-in Gmail users into publishing a list of frequently contacted users on their google profile. Auto-follow was a terrible terrible idea.