161–170 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Google should figure out how to get this for Google Plus. Spoiler alert - the answer is 'be as popular as Twitter and Facebook'. T & F didn't become so popular because of product placement. They got the product placement because they were so popular.
> the answer is 'be as popular as Twitter and Facebook' Also, proper URLs. "Add your voice to the conversation! Just go to plus dot google dot com slash 114124849657167573853".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not nearly enough, by all accounts.
Zynga accounted for 15% of Facebook's revenue in Q1. Although Zynga's contribution declined compared to last year, payments and fees revenue (mostly from apps) doubled over last year to $186 million. That's not an insignificant amount. Source: http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/23/zynga-made-up-15-of-faceboo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did MySpace fail? Users are known to be sticky - they tend to stay with the same newspaper, brand of chocolate, chewing gum, household cleaning products and so on. But they are only sticky up to a point. If something is better by a sufficiently significant margin, then they will switch (or some will). You can keep those customers just by just matching your competitor's improvements. For many things, the pace of c…
MySpace grew from music. Every single band was MySpace—all of them. This is what they leveraged to go from Friendster-level early adopter popularity, to mainstream youth popularity. This was huge, but they never got past this because MySpace always felt like an Internet underbelly sight. For the same reason that 50 years ago, grownups did not spend hours gabbing away on the telephone like teenagers, MySpace could nev…
I wouldn't have as much immediate issue with this if Twitter's own clients were acceptable - they are not. And this is an asinine move either way.
Twitter's own clients are fine. You can read tweets and send tweets. That's the basis of the service. It's supposed to be simple. Why don't you like it?
However, there's another area that has gotten me wondering, non-app, non-client based websites using the API, in reference to the Display Guidelines..er Rules.
This is the bit specifically.
"Users must have a consistent experience wherever they interact with Tweets, whether on Twitter.com, a mobile client, website, or in an application developed with the Twitter API"
So lets say that I go to GitHub and grab a little jQuery plugin to pull in my tweets on my personal portfolio. Does that also mean I have to make sure I include my own avatar, my username, Tweet actions, and twitter branding, among other things? What if those elements are unnecessary to the design or intention of what I'm doing on the site?
And then there's the fact that all of these jQuery plugins are going to have to start implementing authenticated access (if they weren't already, which many seem to not be.) I don't have access to data on the matter, but I would surmise that there's a significant number of personal and portfolio sites out there pulling in tweets that are either not authenticated, or are modifying the tweet display in some way. All the ones I've interacted with have settings for turning avatar display on or off, or unlinking hash tags or links, etc.
Thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> MySpace sold to News Ltd, and then went downhill. Maybe Twitter won't sell itself to a company that is actively internet-hostile. But yes, you are correct: potentially any company could fail. I don't think that's it. I don't remember the acquisition disrupting their strategy much. Rather I think the quality of their code base and inability to keep up with Facebook's agility is what drove the nails in the coffin.
quality of their codebase?
I don't know to what extent that is fair, but I can only imagine that at the very least highering the best and the brightest to work on a coldfusion project could be.. tough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Twitter is ultimately infrastructure and infrastructure seems doomed to commoditization. Twitter has eyeballs too but social platforms seem fickle at best. There is nothing preventing Twitter from becoming the next Myspace." Like others I tire of the dragging out Myspace as that guy who started on weed and ended up an incontinent meth addict in the gutter but the core of this premise is correct, the 'useful' part of…
There is one thing that twitter and facebook have that no one else in the history of... well... anything i can think of. > They have an unlimited product placement budget. Every TV Show, News program, Commercial, Website, Company... places the "Go to facebook.com/ford" or "tweet us @nbcnews". This results in billions of dollars of advertising and they need to pay nothing. This helped build both twitter and facebook.…
This is what I mean by "figuring out their (Twitter's) value."
Imagine that their API is really a bunch of method calls into the Twitter 'object'. They could, as an example, make their simple API 'free' and as you tried to do more complex things charge for those things. Presumably they would structure it so that folks could make 'useful' twitter clients for free, but they would have to pay some price for making more full featured clients.
Of course the challenge there is that you can't really charge for features that can be built out of the free protocol stubs, because people will just scrape those free ones and get around your code.
Are people missing the fact that existing Twitter clients can keep their token allocation and double it ? And new ones are limited to 100K only by default (they can ask for more)? Since when did people consider unlimited access to Twitter's API an unalienable right? It is their platform, and their API. It's also completely free. Twitter is absolutely free to limit usage of their own API however they wish. If it means…
No one is arguing they aren't in their rights to do this. I mean sure a lot of people are indignant about the fact that Twitter became what it was through the ingenuity of the developer community, and without them Twitter would never have grown to its current size, but that's neither here nor there. The bottom line is that Twitter's communications make it clear that they are grasping at straws for their profitability…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is one thing that twitter and facebook have that no one else in the history of... well... anything i can think of. > They have an unlimited product placement budget. Every TV Show, News program, Commercial, Website, Company... places the "Go to facebook.com/ford" or "tweet us @nbcnews". This results in billions of dollars of advertising and they need to pay nothing. This helped build both twitter and facebook.…
But aren't those "free ads" a result of their large userbase, not a cause? I think FB and Twitter were already very big and influential before those started popping up.