71–80 of 361 posts
The social graph is nice, but between Chrome and Gmail, Google already knows quite a bit about everyone.
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 learnt from its mistakes with Google+ and is eager to not repeat them Google has learned nothing from their mistakes. As evidence their real name policy is still active. Contrast with Twitter where a lot of users have fake names. And yes, you can find hateful users on Twitter and I know of some folks that have been harassed, but the community I'm active in is very professional and civilized and the conversat…
Now contrast Twitter's earnings per share with Facebook's, which does have a real name policy. This policy is 1 percent about harassment, and 99 percent about building an advertising market to sustain the thing once built.
Same logic applies to the read-only APIs. Unless you know a way to embed ads into the APIs, apps like Tweetdeck directly reduce income. This is why Twitter tried to lock down and revoke API access.
If anyone has been making mistakes here, it's been Twitter, who is now in such a poor financial position that, despite laying off a huge number of engineers, their best hope of avoiding Google Reader's fate is to be acquired.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google learnt from its mistakes with Google+ and is eager to not repeat them Google has learned nothing from their mistakes. As evidence their real name policy is still active. Contrast with Twitter where a lot of users have fake names. And yes, you can find hateful users on Twitter and I know of some folks that have been harassed, but the community I'm active in is very professional and civilized and the conversat…
> Also the Google+ API is still read-only. Which means you can only use Google's official tools for posting content. There's no way for example to cross-post on both Twitter and Google+. Apps like TweetDeck aren't possible for Google+. Is this true? Buffer allows you to cross-post to Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
The Google+ API is read-only, it says so in their own docs: https://developers.google.com/+/web/api/rest/
And if you want a service that has integration with everything except for Google+, there's IFTTT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? The only thing twitter does better than basically anything is: Has a giant userbase containing many influential Internet celebrities. Except for that it is inferior in almost every single way, starting with the ridiculously low character limit, continuing with the spam everyone all the time etc the list goes on. Hey, even google+ is better in several ways, except for the part about Internet celebrities.
That ridiculously low character limit is one of the reasons I'm active on Twitter much more than anywhere else, as it forces people to be concise. And for everything else, like complex thoughts that can't be expressed as tweets, there are always blogs, whose URLs you can also distribute via Twitter. Twitter basically works like your personal aggregator of interesting stuff. And I freaking hate people using Facebook o…
It's an interesting form of spam, which isn't trackable by observing Twitter message traffic as it lives entirely in account metadata.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's copious evidence that's public, look for how it's talked about externally. 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.
I would have said that the de-integration of Google+ from YouTube was a good example of them learning from their mistakes, except fucking Allo shows that they're still rather clueless about a lot of things related to people communicating online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Wave.
Wave was too ahead of its time. Bots in channels that could translate and issue arbitrary actions? In 2009? Nonsense.
Spereately, I think it's hilarious that many websites pester hard for emails, making them effectively pamphlets for their email content. If only there was a way that I could subscribe (and unsubscribe) to a stream of short notifications from content creators and be confident that I see all of them in a timeline order. Like what Twitter used to be before they screwed with the timeline. They're going to lose to email, and not for being ahead of their time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google learnt from its mistakes with Google+ and is eager to not repeat them Google has learned nothing from their mistakes. As evidence their real name policy is still active. Contrast with Twitter where a lot of users have fake names. And yes, you can find hateful users on Twitter and I know of some folks that have been harassed, but the community I'm active in is very professional and civilized and the conversat…
> As evidence their real name policy is still active. Contrast with Twitter where a lot of users have fake names. Now contrast Twitter's earnings per share with Facebook's, which does have a real name policy. This policy is 1 percent about harassment, and 99 percent about building an advertising market to sustain the thing once built. Same logic applies to the read-only APIs. Unless you know a way to embed ads into t…
I've worked on an advertising platform. This idea that those real names have value is basically a myth.
And speaking of Twitter's API, trying to revoke access is one of those decisions that irrevocably hurt them. The big reason for why Facebook succeeded while Google+ miserably failed is that Facebook is a platform.
Amazon or Facebook . It would make sense for the latter as it is its only real competitor.
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…
Twitter is not for everybody and never will be. Twitter is for those who publish information and for those who are interested in shaping their own information consumption beyond the daily headlines plus family and friends spam.
If Google buys Twitter in the hope of creating a realtime Google for everybody they will fail.
I hope they decide to reverse their "no niches" strategy, because that strategy has been very damaging indeed.