Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why did Twitter succeed?

news.ycombinator.com

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why did Twitter succeed?

#71
post #22

From: http://ycombinator.com/rfs3.html Twitter is important because it’s a new protocol. Fundamentally it’s a messaging protocol where you don’t specify the recipients. It’s really more of a discovery than an invention; that square was always there in the periodic table of protocols, but no one had quite hit it squarely. We could try to draw a small excerpt of this 'periodic table': LONG SHORT ONE:ONE email im/sms ON…

Blogs existed well before twitter. Blogging also sends messages to nowhere.

I assumed he was talking about tumblr, which is (I am told) a short, multimedia-rich blog service.

Re: Ask HN: Why did Twitter succeed?

#72
I started twitter only because of the commands it offered..

follow @nick / leave @nick / dm @nick hi etc.

But the ability it provides in sharing things quickly and shortly & reading stuff shared by like minded people actually got me stuck in.

Re: Ask HN: Why did Twitter succeed?

#73
My opinion on (3): I think you're overlooking the importance of sheer dumb luck. For entertainment products like Twitter, you have to somehow hook a core, influential audience. Then it takes marketing talent and more luck to expand into a mainstream audience. I don't think you can plan it, even with deep pockets (see Wave, Orkut, Buzz).

I don't use it nor understand the appeal, but I think of Twitter abstractly as an Internet-scale multicast message queue. You can blast any type of message out to a set of subscribers very quickly. That is a very interesting technology with potential value. It just happens to be used primarily as a chat application today. For example, you could trivially implement rssCloud on top of it.

Re: Ask HN: Why did Twitter succeed?

#74
post #6

Back when I used AOL/AIM in high school there was an explosive adoption of "always on" internet services such as DSL and cable. During this time, it became fashionable for teens to express their current emotions/actions/likes as their "Away Messages" on AIM, which was something new compared with the limitations their previous dial-up connections. I'd go as far to say these messages were the precursor to services like…

"Personally, I dislike Twitter for my personal use. I think it is a fascinating way for brands to sell products to unsuspecting consumers, but there is no value as a standalone "Away Message" platform... that would be the job of something like Facebook status updates, since all of my friends are already connected on there."

Twitter seems better for personal use. Advertising/commercial use is everywhere, and it's nice to have a tool that's relatively uncluttered where I'm not being "targeted".

There are several advantages of twitter being "a standalone 'away message' platform" over Facebook:

•It's simpler (both in its look and its goal). I don't have to worry about applications, games, polls, or whatever else people do on Facebook that isn't communicating a single, focused idea, link, or observation. To me all that stuff isn't added value, it's just more baggage.

•Following can be one-sided, whereas friending is an agreement and is based on a real-life identity. I don't need to have a pre-existing connection to follow or be followed on twitter. Because Facebook is based on who you actually are, it doesn't have a "shit my dad says" or a "yelling bird" or whatever else that's silly and entertaining unless you have that one hilarious friend.

Re: Ask HN: Why did Twitter succeed?

#75
So i worked at Odeo and was involved in the initial product exploration and creation of Twitter.

It was not created accidentally. We were experimenting with and thinking about the way people communicate. What if it were casual and open. In the same time as we did the first prototype of twitter, we also built hellodeo, very similar to stickem/dailyboot, a kind of social voicemail, a mocked out groupware 2.0, etc...

We looked a lot at SMS, interviewed teens who used lots of sms, played with txtmob.org and UPOC as examples of something similar with explicit groups. At one point i remember, Ev i think, saying "what if we just made a clone of UPOC, but without explicit groups." Or something to that effect.

We started using it, and with a couple hundred users who liked it, we were sending hundreds of thousands of tweets a month. Few people used the first versions, but those who did, became hugely addictive. The half a dozen other prototypes we built, didn't have passion. Twitter, people loved or hated, or both.

Evan Williams then took his resources from selling Blogger.com to google pre-ipo, and was able to buy the VC's out. His original idea was to do Obvious Corp, continue the prototyping and process which had created twitter. Unfortunately Twitter overwhelmed Obvious, and they spent the next couple of years just playing catchup.

It's not hard to do good new product work. Spend time really getting to know a space, look at practices people are engaging in. Then start thinking about variations. Are people doing something in their social practices, by using technology NOT how it was intended. What if you shaped tech for those intentions.

Twitter's lesson is you can do prototypes until you find something which is compelling, then keep doing what people want, based on their actions (not what they say they want.) If you do that, then you'll eventually figure out a business model.

Re: Ask HN: Why did Twitter succeed?

#76
Twitter worked because of psychology and marketing. It is essentially a game and reputation system in which the users add content to increase their followership. People use it for other things, of course, but it's this dynamic which drove famous people to adopt the platform, which then efficiently drove masses of others to adopt it as well. Twitter harnessed the marketing power of the world's celebrities by giving them an utterly simple and focused infrastructure for developing, communicating with, and measuring their public.

Twitter is a game in which score is follower count. All the actions a user can take to boost this score work to further enhance the value of the platform. Invite your friends, add useful content, publicize your twitter feed. Twitter brilliantly incentivizes its users to market the platform as they add to its value.

Facebook's basic structure is based on an undirected social graph which mirrors relationships between ordinary people. Twitter developed the undirected social graph which mirrors hierarchical relationships. This small change in structure generates the celebrity psychology. This is why CNN anchors and other media jumped on the platform - it gave them the ability to develop their audience, in the process they mentioned twitter every 5 minutes to their audience. It is fame-seeking psychology which creates a virtuous cycle (from Twitter's perspective, that is) that draws people into the platform.

Engineers will look at Twitter and think it worked because it offered a "fundamental new protocol", but that is only a tiny necessary condition for success. The road is littered with seemingly basic new ideas that never caught on. Remember when people were saying Google Wave was "fundamental" ... How'd that work out?

Re: Ask HN: Why did Twitter succeed?

#77
I think Twitter succeeded because it gave user only one action. All user has to do is type some text and press enter. Users essentially didn't have to think or even work to get comfortable with the system.

Re: Ask HN: Why did Twitter succeed?

#78
I think one reason it succeeded is that it fills a gap that was missing before in the online world: a simple way to communicate what was important to you no matter how trivial it is to everyone else. It also makes it easy to check what is going on without slogging through tons of pages.

I also think it was the extensible nature of Twitter. I wrote an article that highlights this: http://accentuate.me/blog/?p=46

Re: Ask HN: Why did Twitter succeed?

#79
post #22

From: http://ycombinator.com/rfs3.html Twitter is important because it’s a new protocol. Fundamentally it’s a messaging protocol where you don’t specify the recipients. It’s really more of a discovery than an invention; that square was always there in the periodic table of protocols, but no one had quite hit it squarely. We could try to draw a small excerpt of this 'periodic table': LONG SHORT ONE:ONE email im/sms ON…

You got it!

twitter seems to be in just the correct niche (blog/email/sms) AND timeframe (a.k.a. Smartphones & mobile flatrates)

Post reply on HN