6 ms·

It's such a shame, really; arguably Twitter, much more so than their competitors, tries to stick as close to the original form of their product as they can. I a

by niftich 10y ago

It's such a shame, really; arguably Twitter, much more so than their competitors, tries to stick as close to the original form of their product as they can. I admire that. Facebook (and Instagram) and Snapchat have both transformed from their original incarnations, in ways that have improved the companies' valuation, but have not always improved the experience of users. It seems every single social network is trending towards feature parity with each other -- Facebook now has streaming video, Snapchat now has a decent text chat with messages that need not disappear, Instagram has an algorithmic no-longer-timeline wall and private messaging, they all have ads, even Tumblr now has IM and livestreaming. Some (important) differences remain, but from an observer time-travelling forward from 2012, the social networks of today would appear nearly interchangeable. But there's Twitter. All these years, it has stayed remarkably close to the original concept of microblogging. Instead, it developed (or acquired) other formats and cultivated them as separate services, separate communities. It's unfortunate that not even wide societal impact can make a service profitable, or at least quell the pressure to feature-creep outside of your original scope.

s3r3nity 10y ago
Shouldn't this data be a validation of Facebook's/Instagram's/Snapchat's growth model? Maybe you _need_ to iterate and change up the game a bit if you're to continue growing, expanding into new markets, etc. ("There are no sacred cows.")
- niftich 10y ago
  Oh absolutely it validates their business model (or so it seems), but I can't help but feel that value is paradoxically lost (for the user) once everyone iterates themselves into equivalence. Network effect advantages become almost irrelevant when everyone maintains an equally split presence. And if value is lost for the user, their platform loyalty will plummet. Facebook and Snapchat will begin to be perceived as a 'utility' (something that has already happened to Twitter), meaning, we as a society all expect these functions of social networking and messaging to be fulfilled by a provider, but the exact provider is no longer relevant. Pressures to maintain a positive balance sheet will lead to a proliferation of ads. This will leave room for new upstarts to target a niche they can serve better than the incumbents, and lure engagement away. They will use VC money to fund their effort and offer ad-free, carefully-focused refuges away from the big networks. But the incumbents have so much money, they will all get bought out in the end. (Snapchat refused to be bought out by Facebook for $3,000,000,000, at a time when it was still known as a sexting app) I see analogues to the churn of free image hosts -- new one starts up because all the old ones are full of ads; introduces ads a few years later because they can't pay the bills. The cycle continues.
jakelarkin 10y ago
"But there's Twitter. All these years, it has stayed remarkably close to the original concept of microblogging." right, they only added photos, video, FB style profile pages, link shortening, location metadata, algorithmic timeline, moments, messaging, and extensively developed mobile apps but otherwise yes exactly the same as when they were an 140 char SMS broadcast service.
- niftich 10y ago
  I knew this was going to be challenged, and you're not wrong. But Twitter still feels closest to the original incarnation of 'here be a (roughly) reverse-chronological list of text-message length posts'. They had the timeline, the "friend feed" first, and most enhancements affected only the payload of their messages. Moments was a big innovation, and it's presented as a separate offering on their website. Whereas Facebook's primary function went from a carefully-curated yearbook-style personal and interest page to an... algorithmic timeline of friend's status updates and tumble-blog reposts. Snapchat went from an app that sends disappearing photos to a general-purpose multimedia messaging app that happens to still put a timer on photos. Instagram went from a photo and selfie-sharing app to a general-purpose social network with an algorithmic timeline, sponsored posts, and private messaging.
  - udkl 10y ago
    Why are we putting a premium on 'retaining it's original features' ? This looks like a logical fallacy.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Because a lot of radical changeovers in other services are not user needs driven and look more like bait and switch.
  - sneak 10y ago
    > (roughly) reverse-chronological list of text-message length posts'. Twitter went algorithmic timeline not too long ago, sadly. Fortunately, it can still be turned off - but is on by default.
beagle3 10y ago
Twitter just doesn't have an idea about where to evolve. They've tried small changes, and nothing helped their bottom line. Rumors are that part of the reason is that they are not sure what their "secret sauce" is, so they are reluctant to change anything in fear of harming it. Also, they are dying. They have never turned a profit. Facebook or Google or Microsoft will eventually buy them, because of the users - but they have so far given no indication they can survive independently. And they have had a few billion dollars in funding and ten years to give that indication.
- manigandham 10y ago
  > Facebook or Google or Microsoft will eventually buy them, because of the users Those companies already have those same users.
  - godzillabrennus 10y ago
    Maybe Rupert Murdoch is feeling adventurous again. I mean he did buy MySpace once.
  - beagle3 10y ago
    Facebook had essentially all of WhatsApp's users, and they still paid $20B for it. I should have said "users and the time the spend on it".
    - scholia 10y ago
      On Device Research said the overlap was only 24% in the USA. 45% only used Facebook and 31% only used WhatsApp. Also, WhatsApp was strong in some parts of the globe where Facebook was weaker. In particular, WhatsApp was used in mainland China where Facebook was banned.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  >> It's such a shame, really; arguably Twitter, much more so than their competitors, tries to stick as close to the original form of their product as they can. > Twitter just doesn't have an idea about where to evolve. My feeling is the secret sauce was "being cool and disruptive". /s To secure that position they have, IMO, spent the last few years painting themselves into a corner.
tlrobinson 10y ago
Consider that two major newsworthy events in the US in the past week (Philando Castillo killing and Dallas attack) were live-streamed on Facebook rather than Periscope. Facebook already has a huge advantage with 10x the active users of Twitter, AND they integrated live video directly into the app that many of those users already have, rather than a separate app most of them don't. "App constellations" may be a better user experience... if you bother to download the whole constellation... but I think a similar principle to "the best camera is one you have with you" applies.
- function_seven 10y ago
  > AND they integrated live video directly into the app that many of those users already have, rather than a separate app most of them don't. > "App constellations" may be a better user experience... if you bother to download the whole constellation... but I think a similar principle to "the best camera is one you have with you" applies. I agree. Why does Facebook insist on Messages being a separate app then? They should re-integrate it into the main app for all the reasons you wrote.
  - maherbeg 10y ago
    I imagine it's because Facebook has a huge amount of existing penetration and active usage with Facebook Messenger which allows them to have a separate app. They already have the stickiness with the platform. I imagine, once live streaming gets a sufficient enough user base, it'll have its own application experience.
  - chmars 10y ago
    Messenger is the new Facebook – there won't be a re-integration, it will more and more replace today's Facebook as we know it.
    - udkl 10y ago
      I don't understand the reasoning behind your conjecture but I don't see that happening because of the different modes of interaction. Messenger is more of a 1-1 channel that focuses on the immediate. Facebook is more of a broadcast channel focusing on passive, asynchronous, entertaining items. WeChat has been successful with the model that you talk though .... Never say never ...
WWKong 10y ago
You state that these social networks haven't improved experience for user. But user count has steadily gone up and so has engagement. I'm sure the evolution is also inline with their internal metrics. Why is not evolving based on data a good thing?
justinator 10y ago
> It's such a shame, really; arguably Twitter, much more so > than their competitors, tries to stick as close to the > original form of their product as they can. I admire that. Except for that time they blocked third party access to their API. That was kinda big. [0]. I guess you could also say that this move supports your point of view, but those third parties were partly responsible for the popularity of the platform. [0] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/03/twitter-tells-third-party-devs-to-stop-making-twitter-client-apps/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/03/twitte...
- niftich 10y ago
  Agreed, blocking API access was an overconfident move on their part, likely in the anticipation of display ads, and they never recovered.
genericpseudo 10y ago
Twitter isn't a product. It's, at best, a product-construction command line; every product they've had (photo-sharing before murderized by Instagram, for instance) has been accidental. How not to product manage 101.
unchaotic 10y ago
> Twitter, much more so than their competitors, tries to stick as close to the original form of their product And I hope they stay that way. Despite reports on twitter's dropping valuation, I find it as an immensely valuable tool for staying up to date. I'd pay to use twitter.
Bromskloss 10y ago
> arguably Twitter, much more so than their competitors, tries to stick as close to the original form of their product as they can. I thought the original point of Twitter – it's entire raison d'être – was that you could broadcast messages via SMS.
rtpg 10y ago
I remember way back when a lot of stuff was forums. I think the communities are the most important part of these networks, and even if they all have feature parity, it's 100% fine for them to still exist independently. I think Facebook and LinkedIn are a good example. You could basically do everything you do on LinkedIn on FB, but the communities are different so they stay different. Of course, LinkedIn accentuates different features, but both are mainly "Walls" with some messaging features and community building. Though, I think you're very right in that Twitter is its own beast. Namely for the semi-public nature of it all.
Jordrok 10y ago
I think this is a fundamental truth that is rarely acknowledged by the creators of "free" services. Delivering value to your users and increasing profit for the company are almost always in direct conflict. Large groups of users are drawn in by a free product which will ultimately be unsustainable. The companies which succeed after this initial period are the ones who are willing to degrade their original product, and manage to do so gradually enough that it doesn't draw too much backlash from their existing users.
- dbot 10y ago
  One major social network that rarely gets mentioned is NextDoor. Unfortunately, they've just begun doing ads, too, and I already hate it. It's disappointing because they have such a natural starting base for generating revenue: collecting neighborhood dues. It provides a useful service, would likely increase dues participation, fits within the value-proposition of the product. Lots of opportunities for premium features paid for by neighborhood associations, too. That's why it's sad to see NextDoor chasing the same ad revenue of every other social network.
partiallypro 10y ago
I don't think that's true. Twitter has stuck to the original 140 character format...true. Honestly I think they should stick to that. The reason why Twitter has took a turn over the years is because of their treatment of developers and their murdering of top apps instead of letting them flourish. Look at TweetDeck, it hasn't improved in years, and you could argue it has gotten much worse. They dropped the Windows client support for one. Their services didn't change much, but their philosophy changed drastically. Then you have them temp banning people for political speech (and I'm not talking about harassment here, which is different.) As for Vine, that is one that they should have evolved. Vine could have easily been more like SnapChat is now, but instead Jack and company sat on their thumbs. Twitter is a remarkable case of mismanagement. I think in about 5 years hopefully someone write a book about how Twitter has constantly shot itself in the foot.
- rpgmaker 10y ago
  > The reason why Twitter has took a turn over the years is because of their treatment of developers and their murdering of top apps instead of letting them flourish. Oh how I wish this was true but sadly this is usually never the case. If it was Facebook would be long dead by now.
beefsack 10y ago
As a casual observer and non-user I'm actually quite happy to see them all reach feature parity. I'm hopeful that layman users will start to rue having the community so fragmented and we may start seeing faster progress towards common protocols and interoperability. Part of me is seeing shades of the browser wars in these social network wars, and even though there were years of pain in the middle, we're all better off nowadays.

by niftich 10y ago

s3r3nity 10y ago

Shouldn't this data be a validation of Facebook's/Instagram's/Snapchat's growth model? Maybe you _need_ to iterate and change up the game a bit if you're to continue growing, expanding into new markets, etc. ("There are no sacred cows.")

niftich 10y ago
Oh absolutely it validates their business model (or so it seems), but I can't help but feel that value is paradoxically lost (for the user) once everyone iterates themselves into equivalence. Network effect advantages become almost irrelevant when everyone maintains an equally split presence. And if value is lost for the user, their platform loyalty will plummet. Facebook and Snapchat will begin to be perceived as a 'utility' (something that has already happened to Twitter), meaning, we as a society all expect these functions of social networking and messaging to be fulfilled by a provider, but the exact provider is no longer relevant. Pressures to maintain a positive balance sheet will lead to a proliferation of ads. This will leave room for new upstarts to target a niche they can serve better than the incumbents, and lure engagement away. They will use VC money to fund their effort and offer ad-free, carefully-focused refuges away from the big networks. But the incumbents have so much money, they will all get bought out in the end. (Snapchat refused to be bought out by Facebook for $3,000,000,000, at a time when it was still known as a sexting app) I see analogues to the churn of free image hosts -- new one starts up because all the old ones are full of ads; introduces ads a few years later because they can't pay the bills. The cycle continues.

jakelarkin 10y ago

"But there's Twitter. All these years, it has stayed remarkably close to the original concept of microblogging." right, they only added photos, video, FB style profile pages, link shortening, location metadata, algorithmic timeline, moments, messaging, and extensively developed mobile apps but otherwise yes exactly the same as when they were an 140 char SMS broadcast service.

niftich 10y ago
I knew this was going to be challenged, and you're not wrong. But Twitter still feels closest to the original incarnation of 'here be a (roughly) reverse-chronological list of text-message length posts'. They had the timeline, the "friend feed" first, and most enhancements affected only the payload of their messages. Moments was a big innovation, and it's presented as a separate offering on their website. Whereas Facebook's primary function went from a carefully-curated yearbook-style personal and interest page to an... algorithmic timeline of friend's status updates and tumble-blog reposts. Snapchat went from an app that sends disappearing photos to a general-purpose multimedia messaging app that happens to still put a timer on photos. Instagram went from a photo and selfie-sharing app to a general-purpose social network with an algorithmic timeline, sponsored posts, and private messaging.
- udkl 10y ago
  Why are we putting a premium on 'retaining it's original features' ? This looks like a logical fallacy.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Because a lot of radical changeovers in other services are not user needs driven and look more like bait and switch.
- sneak 10y ago
  > (roughly) reverse-chronological list of text-message length posts'. Twitter went algorithmic timeline not too long ago, sadly. Fortunately, it can still be turned off - but is on by default.

beagle3 10y ago

Twitter just doesn't have an idea about where to evolve. They've tried small changes, and nothing helped their bottom line. Rumors are that part of the reason is that they are not sure what their "secret sauce" is, so they are reluctant to change anything in fear of harming it. Also, they are dying. They have never turned a profit. Facebook or Google or Microsoft will eventually buy them, because of the users - but they have so far given no indication they can survive independently. And they have had a few billion dollars in funding and ten years to give that indication.

manigandham 10y ago
> Facebook or Google or Microsoft will eventually buy them, because of the users Those companies already have those same users.
- godzillabrennus 10y ago
  Maybe Rupert Murdoch is feeling adventurous again. I mean he did buy MySpace once.
- beagle3 10y ago
  Facebook had essentially all of WhatsApp's users, and they still paid $20B for it. I should have said "users and the time the spend on it".
  - scholia 10y ago
    On Device Research said the overlap was only 24% in the USA. 45% only used Facebook and 31% only used WhatsApp. Also, WhatsApp was strong in some parts of the globe where Facebook was weaker. In particular, WhatsApp was used in mainland China where Facebook was banned.
reitanqild 10y ago
>> It's such a shame, really; arguably Twitter, much more so than their competitors, tries to stick as close to the original form of their product as they can. > Twitter just doesn't have an idea about where to evolve. My feeling is the secret sauce was "being cool and disruptive". /s To secure that position they have, IMO, spent the last few years painting themselves into a corner.

tlrobinson 10y ago

Consider that two major newsworthy events in the US in the past week (Philando Castillo killing and Dallas attack) were live-streamed on Facebook rather than Periscope. Facebook already has a huge advantage with 10x the active users of Twitter, AND they integrated live video directly into the app that many of those users already have, rather than a separate app most of them don't. "App constellations" may be a better user experience... if you bother to download the whole constellation... but I think a similar principle to "the best camera is one you have with you" applies.

function_seven 10y ago
> AND they integrated live video directly into the app that many of those users already have, rather than a separate app most of them don't. > "App constellations" may be a better user experience... if you bother to download the whole constellation... but I think a similar principle to "the best camera is one you have with you" applies. I agree. Why does Facebook insist on Messages being a separate app then? They should re-integrate it into the main app for all the reasons you wrote.
- maherbeg 10y ago
  I imagine it's because Facebook has a huge amount of existing penetration and active usage with Facebook Messenger which allows them to have a separate app. They already have the stickiness with the platform. I imagine, once live streaming gets a sufficient enough user base, it'll have its own application experience.
- chmars 10y ago
  Messenger is the new Facebook – there won't be a re-integration, it will more and more replace today's Facebook as we know it.
  - udkl 10y ago
    I don't understand the reasoning behind your conjecture but I don't see that happening because of the different modes of interaction. Messenger is more of a 1-1 channel that focuses on the immediate. Facebook is more of a broadcast channel focusing on passive, asynchronous, entertaining items. WeChat has been successful with the model that you talk though .... Never say never ...

WWKong 10y ago

You state that these social networks haven't improved experience for user. But user count has steadily gone up and so has engagement. I'm sure the evolution is also inline with their internal metrics. Why is not evolving based on data a good thing?

justinator 10y ago

> It's such a shame, really; arguably Twitter, much more so > than their competitors, tries to stick as close to the > original form of their product as they can. I admire that. Except for that time they blocked third party access to their API. That was kinda big. [0]. I guess you could also say that this move supports your point of view, but those third parties were partly responsible for the popularity of the platform. [0] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/03/twitter-tells-third-party-devs-to-stop-making-twitter-client-apps/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/03/twitte...

niftich 10y ago
Agreed, blocking API access was an overconfident move on their part, likely in the anticipation of display ads, and they never recovered.

genericpseudo 10y ago

Twitter isn't a product. It's, at best, a product-construction command line; every product they've had (photo-sharing before murderized by Instagram, for instance) has been accidental. How not to product manage 101.

unchaotic 10y ago

> Twitter, much more so than their competitors, tries to stick as close to the original form of their product And I hope they stay that way. Despite reports on twitter's dropping valuation, I find it as an immensely valuable tool for staying up to date. I'd pay to use twitter.

Bromskloss 10y ago

> arguably Twitter, much more so than their competitors, tries to stick as close to the original form of their product as they can. I thought the original point of Twitter – it's entire raison d'être – was that you could broadcast messages via SMS.

rtpg 10y ago

I remember way back when a lot of stuff was forums. I think the communities are the most important part of these networks, and even if they all have feature parity, it's 100% fine for them to still exist independently. I think Facebook and LinkedIn are a good example. You could basically do everything you do on LinkedIn on FB, but the communities are different so they stay different. Of course, LinkedIn accentuates different features, but both are mainly "Walls" with some messaging features and community building. Though, I think you're very right in that Twitter is its own beast. Namely for the semi-public nature of it all.

Jordrok 10y ago

I think this is a fundamental truth that is rarely acknowledged by the creators of "free" services. Delivering value to your users and increasing profit for the company are almost always in direct conflict. Large groups of users are drawn in by a free product which will ultimately be unsustainable. The companies which succeed after this initial period are the ones who are willing to degrade their original product, and manage to do so gradually enough that it doesn't draw too much backlash from their existing users.

dbot 10y ago
One major social network that rarely gets mentioned is NextDoor. Unfortunately, they've just begun doing ads, too, and I already hate it. It's disappointing because they have such a natural starting base for generating revenue: collecting neighborhood dues. It provides a useful service, would likely increase dues participation, fits within the value-proposition of the product. Lots of opportunities for premium features paid for by neighborhood associations, too. That's why it's sad to see NextDoor chasing the same ad revenue of every other social network.

partiallypro 10y ago

I don't think that's true. Twitter has stuck to the original 140 character format...true. Honestly I think they should stick to that. The reason why Twitter has took a turn over the years is because of their treatment of developers and their murdering of top apps instead of letting them flourish. Look at TweetDeck, it hasn't improved in years, and you could argue it has gotten much worse. They dropped the Windows client support for one. Their services didn't change much, but their philosophy changed drastically. Then you have them temp banning people for political speech (and I'm not talking about harassment here, which is different.) As for Vine, that is one that they should have evolved. Vine could have easily been more like SnapChat is now, but instead Jack and company sat on their thumbs. Twitter is a remarkable case of mismanagement. I think in about 5 years hopefully someone write a book about how Twitter has constantly shot itself in the foot.

rpgmaker 10y ago
> The reason why Twitter has took a turn over the years is because of their treatment of developers and their murdering of top apps instead of letting them flourish. Oh how I wish this was true but sadly this is usually never the case. If it was Facebook would be long dead by now.

beefsack 10y ago

As a casual observer and non-user I'm actually quite happy to see them all reach feature parity. I'm hopeful that layman users will start to rue having the community so fragmented and we may start seeing faster progress towards common protocols and interoperability. Part of me is seeing shades of the browser wars in these social network wars, and even though there were years of pain in the middle, we're all better off nowadays.