51–60 of 95 posts
It took an old idea and make it new and relevant again.
In the second movement, it went huge and was the new sensation.
The conclusion of the story will be bland and all over the place. With pundits failing to see that the emperor has no clothes.
Dusk approaches when Twitter sheds its desire to leave a mark on humanity Look, I understand the sentiment, but here's the thing. Twitter only exists as we know it today because a lot of people have poured a lot of money into it. Without that money, Twitter would be an impossibility. It simply would not exist, at least not at anywhere near the scale it exists at today. My guess is that, for the people who poured in a…
I think this "mark on humanity" talk is rubbish. I mean, what does that even mean ? Twitter is just a service that allows people to connect and publicly talk to each other on the Internet. That's it. There have been previous, less successful iterations of the same common idea. Twitter hit critical mass in terms of it's user base and has created neat and unique nuances that make it's version of human-human communicati…
Twitter was a utility. Now it's ABC. It could have changed the world in the way that, you know, the web changed the world. But instead it's changing the world in the way that cable news changes the world. That's what's so bizarre about Ev Williams to me. He's so damn talented but he doesn't give a shit about anything but the flip. It's true of so many founders these days; everyone worships Steve Jobs and not enough worship Tim Berners-Lee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I perceived inGen trying to re-create complex organisms and arrange them into a simple system, and not being prepared when the consequences of chaos unfolded. I love the movie but it leaves out much of the discussion of complexity and chaos found in the book. You ever read the books?
I actually just re-read the book with my son. It holds up really well considering it's age. The complexity and chaos stuff maps, I just don't see the parallel between the idealistic Zuck wanting to change the world and inGen trying to make a dinosaur theme park.
Twitter already said that most people access Twitter through their web ui and mobile apps. So even if they were shutting their whole API down, it wouldn't have such a negative effect on their usage growth. The only thing that's happening is that devs won't be able to build toys around Twitter, but Twitter doesn't care as most people don't use nor need these toys. Some of us devs just have to admit that we are not tha…
My problem with this stance is the same problem I have with so called "browser share".
I am not beholden to a single interface. I'm human. I'm dynamic. I move and change.
That means sometimes I use the website. Sometimes I use the mobile app. Sometimes I embed Tweets on a website. Sometimes I use a website's embedded tweets to follow them instead of following them on Twitter. I send photos and tweets from apps, and I consume tweets from multiple sources.
Twitter is almost as ubiquitous as water for me, the ways I consume and use it in my day to day. There is no single one size fits all interface to Twitter in my workflow, only Twitter the service. Because if there were, if I had to go to the website and only the website, or the app and only the app, I wouldn't use it. I don't use things that get in my way. You either fit into my workflow, or you don't.
And I'll miss the Mac OS desktop client if the rumors are true, because the website doesn't have a simple way to switch between multiple Twitter identities if I'm running a personal Twitter, a brand Twitter. And also because they bought Tweetie only to, eventually, kill it. But we've had this discussion before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this "mark on humanity" talk is rubbish. I mean, what does that even mean ? Twitter is just a service that allows people to connect and publicly talk to each other on the Internet. That's it. There have been previous, less successful iterations of the same common idea. Twitter hit critical mass in terms of it's user base and has created neat and unique nuances that make it's version of human-human communicati…
> How was Twitter changing the world, and how is it not anymore...? Twitter was a utility. Now it's ABC. It could have changed the world in the way that, you know, the web changed the world. But instead it's changing the world in the way that cable news changes the world. That's what's so bizarre about Ev Williams to me. He's so damn talented but he doesn't give a shit about anything but the flip. It's true of so man…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I very much doubt Twitter is interested in an acquisition.
A different question is, who would want to buy them? Twitter, who should know their network better than everyone else, is still trying to figure out how to best monetize it. Who would want to take that task on? In the old days, I'd guess Yahoo! would be in the running, but since they have a history of buying popular sites and then letting them wither, I hope Meyer isn't going to fall for that again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the problem with Twitter is they took too much money. You don't need to have $1Billion dollars in financing to offer a service like this -- this is what the likes of app.net are teaching us. A $50million Twitter could have "easily" sustained it's vision/objective without having to cannibalise it's entire ecosystem. However someone promised the moon to a bunch of financiers and now they have to deliver above…
> "You don't need to have $1Billion dollars in financing to offer a service like this" Sometimes you do. We've seen a dramatic amount of "overfunding" of social media startups, and I have a theory why. When your business model doesn't involve well, actually making money at its core, you end up in a position where you have to staff up massively so you can pursue an enormously vast range of monetization strategies in t…
Dusk approaches when Twitter sheds its desire to leave a mark on humanity Look, I understand the sentiment, but here's the thing. Twitter only exists as we know it today because a lot of people have poured a lot of money into it. Without that money, Twitter would be an impossibility. It simply would not exist, at least not at anywhere near the scale it exists at today. My guess is that, for the people who poured in a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook already has a social network. Google already has a social network. Apple's probably not interested in running one post-Ping. Who else is going to purchase them at a price their investors - who've sunk over a billion in VC $ - wouldn't balk at?
Have they really had over a billion in investment capital? I realize they may have had investment rounds valuing the company at 1bil+, that doesn't mean they were given a billion dollars.
From the comments on Google+: "Very true. Along the same lines, Google+ is the Major League Soccer of social networks. Other countries have very successful soccer leagues that happened organically. The US tried to manufacture a soccer league, and it spent a ton of money in doing so. It so happens that the most talented athletes in the country prefer sports that are already popular. The most interesting people in the…
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1290390-nba-and-nhl-get-t...