Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Chief Executive

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 211 posts

Re: Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Chief Executive

#131

Post by SandB0x »

killwhitey wrote: post #117
inthewoods wrote: post #113

I keep wondering if this is going to be like Marissa Mayer joining Yahoo - much fanfare, some movement, but at the end of the day she's been unable to significantly move the needle. I just wonder if Twitter fundamentally isn't as scalable an idea/product as Facebook et al. It's obviously Jack's job to make it that - but what if the basic form of Twitter just isn't as compelling, no matter how you change it or dress i…

Then his job is find something else for Twitter to make. Facebook has launched a lot of experimental apps like Paper, Rooms, Slingshot, Messenger. And they bought Instagram which is very successful. Under Costolo Twitter bought vine and periscope, but they haven't tried to experiment with new app ideas internally.

Don't forget WhatsApp!

Re: Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Chief Executive

#132

Post by CPLX »

Karunamon wrote: post #120
CPLX wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or order a limo with @uber "2 people in one hour to jfk airport"? Why would typing out a generic request to a several square mile area without any identifying information be better than a GPS enabled app with real time communications, mapping, and integrated payment? I see this kind of comment all the time (eg that ridiculous "magic" SMS startup) and always wonder how otherwise rational, linear thinkers develop thi…

You describe a tech problem, and not a really intractable one. It already has "real time communications (as, yknow, the main purpose of the service)", it can already do GPS coords, and expect payment integration soon. I'd love to see Twitter become a "command line of the web". Add voice integration on top of it via siri/google/etc, and it come become the plaintext glue between a lot of services. What we have here is…

But this is nonsensical. As far as I can see there are two parties to this hypothetical transaction, me the smartphone owner, and Uber the company. I open the Uber app and use it.

Why do I want to insert Twitter in the middle of this transaction? What problem is it that you're trying to solve?

Re: Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Chief Executive

#133

Post by tajano »

meatysnapper wrote: post #119
inthewoods wrote: post #113

I keep wondering if this is going to be like Marissa Mayer joining Yahoo - much fanfare, some movement, but at the end of the day she's been unable to significantly move the needle. I just wonder if Twitter fundamentally isn't as scalable an idea/product as Facebook et al. It's obviously Jack's job to make it that - but what if the basic form of Twitter just isn't as compelling, no matter how you change it or dress i…

Almost certainly. Twitter's user base is not growing, and their product basically hasn't changed in 5 years. They have a valuable brand, but they need to figure out how to fundamentally improve the ease of use of the whole thing and make a decent value proposition. Photos, messages, videos, search... make the app not suck. Snapchat and Instagram are very quickly taking over the celebrity/new/sports one-to-many angle…

> they need to figure out how to fundamentally improve the ease of use of the whole thing

I've frequently heard this theory, that Twitter's problem is that it's too complicated. I don't buy it. It has a simpler UI than Facebook or Snapchat, and it's not significantly more complicated than Instagram or Vine or Periscope or any other media sharing platform.

If you personally enjoy Twitter and derive value from it, it's easy to believe that people who don't get into Twitter just don't understand it it. My experience is that many people sign up, send their first tweet, and then say, "OK, I get it, and I have no use for this." I've helped my friends follow news sources and celebrities they like, but then they look at the wall of Tweets and say, "OK, I get it, but I don't want to read things in this format." It's not about ease-of-use for them, it's about the basic value proposition of tweeting and the Twitter feed.

Re: Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Chief Executive

#134

Post by giarc »

ethanbond wrote: post #129
killwhitey wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then his job is find something else for Twitter to make. Facebook has launched a lot of experimental apps like Paper, Rooms, Slingshot, Messenger. And they bought Instagram which is very successful. Under Costolo Twitter bought vine and periscope, but they haven't tried to experiment with new app ideas internally.

In what world is Paper, Rooms, or Slingshot even remotely successful? And obviously the messaging service attached to an already massive social network would be compelling, that's not really an "experimental app" by any definition.

I don't think the commenter implied, or meant to imply they were successful.

Re: Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Chief Executive

#135

Post by nkohari »

talmand wrote: post #124
nkohari wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could create something that looks like Twitter, but you couldn't create Twitter. Ignoring the network effects and scale that Twitter has is ignoring its primary value.

That's my point.

It's hard for me to get that from what you wrote. It seemed that your point was more that the existence of Twitter means it's easy to reproduce it, but before Twitter, it was difficult to envision a site like Twitter.

My counterpoint is that it's not actually the idea that's interesting, it's the fact that they've convinced lots of people to use it, and have built a system powerful enough to support that scale.

Re: Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Chief Executive

#137

Post by jrometty »

criddell wrote: post #25
code4tee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally unreadable. This sums up a lot of what's wrong with Twitter. If even the CEO struggles to communicate effectively using the platform then...

Dave Winer mocked up how a fat tweet could look and I think he has it right: http://scripting.com/2015/10/02/whatWouldAFatTweetLookLike.h... Obviously, they've thought of this internally too. I wonder what the point of the 140 character limit is today (I think it made sense originally).

that looks terrible.

my favorite part of tweetstorms is the compartmentalization of ideas and arguments. if a point in the story is 50 chars, its 50 chars with a break point. if its 100, let it be 100. making the story one string feel like reading long text, whereas breaking it down feels more comfortable to me.

but this is all subjective, and that website's design is pretty sleek :)

Re: Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Chief Executive

#138

Post by calinet6 »

tootie wrote: post #105
code4tee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally unreadable. This sums up a lot of what's wrong with Twitter. If even the CEO struggles to communicate effectively using the platform then...

The entire concept of Twitter still makes no sense regardless of how many people are using it. It's coasting on momentum at this point and might give out any second.

Their core strength is on the Individual -> Broadcast communication angle. Facebook tried to pick it up, but their mental model is still firmly Individual -> Group & Individual -> Individual.

Twitter's "Follow" function being the core method of interaction, and defaulting to public feeds that you can easily interact with is actually fairly different even from a blog or say tumblr, whose core method of interacting is content-first. The balance of power (you can tweet, I can tweet back, I can retweet you, you can retweet me—and they all look the same and have the same weight in the UI) is the main advantage, and if they can play that well then they have a chance.

Re: Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Chief Executive

#139

Post by joncooper »

paulpauper wrote: post #97
kylebgorman wrote: post #44

I'm short Twitter. The fact of the matter is it that Twitter should never have become a multibillion-dollar company. There is no barrier to entry into this space---any competent web developer could make a non-scaling Twitter in an afternoon---except network effects, and those have proved weak due to poor user experience, particularly for new users. Twitter should have treated itself like a utility, and focused less o…

You got to have balls of steel to short a company like Twitter. I would rather short oil, gas, or commodity companies . Facebook stock, for example, is up 200% since 2012, leaving a lot of shorts burned in the process who thought it was overvalued.

Are you a professional investor?

Re: Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Chief Executive

#140

Post by code4tee »

meatysnapper wrote: post #119
inthewoods wrote: post #113

I keep wondering if this is going to be like Marissa Mayer joining Yahoo - much fanfare, some movement, but at the end of the day she's been unable to significantly move the needle. I just wonder if Twitter fundamentally isn't as scalable an idea/product as Facebook et al. It's obviously Jack's job to make it that - but what if the basic form of Twitter just isn't as compelling, no matter how you change it or dress i…

Almost certainly. Twitter's user base is not growing, and their product basically hasn't changed in 5 years. They have a valuable brand, but they need to figure out how to fundamentally improve the ease of use of the whole thing and make a decent value proposition. Photos, messages, videos, search... make the app not suck. Snapchat and Instagram are very quickly taking over the celebrity/new/sports one-to-many angle…

One of the big challenges is that Twitter is largely geared towards people looking to engage on topical issues in a public forum. If you're an expert in a particular area and consistently engage with other experts in a public forum where the occasional random user chimes in then Twitter has a value proposition for you. I mean it's right there in the platform... people "follow" you, they're not your "friend" or "linked" to you. You need to say something that people are interested in following.

The problem is that most Internet users don't fit into this bucket. They have things to discuss and share with a small group of family/friends but beyond that don't have much to say, to the broader world. These are the users that flock to Facebook, Snapchat, et al.

Until Twitter finds a way to engage the everyday average Internet user then they'll struggle to grow or create a meaningful value proposition (the $$$ is in advertising to the masses, not the engaged thought leaders).

The data on users indicates Twitter has likely peaked in terms of attracting these engaged users (data also indicates a lot of these "active accounts" are fake / bots / spam). Until that changes Twitter will be in trouble as it has no viable long term business model.

Post reply on HN