6 ms·

Twitter Confirms It Will Launch Its Own Link Shortener

35 points by jasonlbaptiste 17y ago

terryjsmith 17y ago
Why would they foster such a strong ecosystem of applications only to stab them in the back? I think purchasing existing third party apps to fill these holes would make more sense both in terms of fostering less ill will the community and getting better apps than they can likely build internall. Edit: other posts* state that Twitter has not yet decided if it will use an existing URL shorter or build out its own. * http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/04/15/twitter-launch-link-shortener/?awesm=tnw.to_15xhQ&utm_medium=tnw.to-twitter&utm_source=direct-tnw.to&utm_content=twitter-publisher-main http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/04/15/twitter-launch-link-sh...
- bradgessler 17y ago
  Because bit.ly took on a round of funding which probably made them too expensive for Twitter to buy. http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/01/bit-ly-1-5-million/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/01/bit-ly-1-5-million/ Would you pay millions of dollars for an URL shortner or build your own?
  - terryjsmith 17y ago
    Unfair question: I'm a developer so I would very likely to build my own :) But from a business perspective I would definitely consider buying it; Bitly in particular has a lot of valuable technology that Twitter could monetize on. Bitly seems to be the default in these discussions and it's clearly the market leader, but there are other companies to consider. I think even starting discussions with another company would force Bitly's asking price down considerably. They may talk about how Twitter is _only_ 30% to 40%* of their traffic, but no business wants to lose those kind of numbers. * http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-buy-but-bitly-is-waiting-for-a-big-f-ing-number-2010-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-...
    - jakarta 17y ago
      Really? I mean to me, it seems like Twitter is really holding all the cards here. Unfortunately, it seems like an acquisition of Bitly would really amount to charity because if they wanted, they could easily come out with their own competing service which would likely be adopted simply because it's easier to use. Presumably it would be right there on your twitter page or better yet, automatic.
    - bradgessler 17y ago
      Would you buy it if it was over valued? If Google and Twitter really considered acquiring bit.ly, they must have arrived at the same conclusion at the end of their due diligence that it just wan't worth it. Running the numbers for these types of deals isn't rocket science and if something costs too much, you're not going to buy it.
- dnsworks 17y ago
  One word: Sharecropping. This is my big concern with the current trend of turning websites into platforms. Any share-cropped idea that would be profitable to do in-house and is in line with the business goals will eventually be done in-house.
  - binspace 17y ago
    Good point, however bit.ly has a good customer base for a very simple product. Besides, I imagine that Twitter will have an api for their shortener + analytics, so bit.ly can still integrate. Also, bit.ly can make a play to service multiple social networks. Simply put, they must innovate or die.
    - nl 17y ago
      There's a haiku in that: Dev sharecropping? The platform must progress. Innovate or die!
      - binspace 17y ago
        Hmm, not quite a Haiku... Maybe, Theres Dev sharecropping? The platform must progress now. Innovate or die!
    - patio11 17y ago
      Also, bit.ly can make a play to service multiple social networks. Is there a rich ecosystem of social networks who have all made the same design flaw that Twitter did, fixing which is bit.ly's only reason for existing? And did the social networks in this rich ecosystem all decline to fix the problem for themselves despite the fact that it can be hammered out by a junior engineer in an afternoon?
      - binspace 17y ago
        Well I was thinking they could evolve a bit. Maybe with their analytics?
    - 17y ago
puredemo 17y ago
Bad news for bit.ly, but it was pretty surprising that they held out for more money than what either Google or Twitter offered them.
keenans 17y ago
Does anyone know why they haven't implemented the ability to insert good old-fashioned hyperlinks? Links embedded in the text would save some characters in the message and improve legibility.
- qeorge 17y ago
  Key point is that it has to fit in 1 SMS message, that's where the whole 140 character thing comes from.
  - fredBuddemeyer 17y ago
    yes but is it worth the illegibility and extra step of shortening? how many of those sms recipients make use of the link by retying it in a browser? if there is much of a use case why not have special handling for it?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - briansmith 17y ago
    It only has to fit in a single SMS message if the tweet is being consumed over SMS. There's no reason to do link shortening in other user interfaces.
  - joshu 17y ago
    Tweets already diverge from what will fit in an SMS. For example, 140 chars of unicode won't fit.
    - jmhodges 17y ago
      We go by bytes, not chars.
      - chaosmachine 17y ago
        That's incorrect, Twitter goes by characters. I actually wrote an app to exploit this loophole: http://tweetcompressor.com/ http://tweetcompressor.com/
ryanhuff 17y ago
They also announced their own android app. Photo sharing is likely next.
jonknee 17y ago
That's probably why Twitter has been visiting links in tweets recently: http://www.jongales.com/blog/2010/04/14/whats-twitterbot0-1/ http://www.jongales.com/blog/2010/04/14/whats-twitterbot0-1/
briansmith 17y ago
Link shortening on Twitter only makes sense when it is provided by third-parties (to fit inside Twitter's length restrictions) or when tweets are being consumed over SMS (due to SMS length limits). If Twitter only shortens links when sending them through an SMS gateway, then this will be a very positive change over what 3rd-parties are able to provide. However, if Twitter's link shortening service continues to inconvenience all users just so they can try to build an analytics business around that inconvenience, then that will be a clear sign that Twitter isn't interested in optimizing the user experience--which they claimed was the reason for taking over the roles currently being occupied by 3rd-party software and services. Also, if they're goal is top optimize UX then they'll need a very short domain name like 3.ly or j.mp. The domains suggested in this article don't make any sense for a link shortener since they're twice as long as necessary.
- briansmith 17y ago
  (I really wish I could fix the typos in this post.)
joshu 17y ago
This was entirely predictable.
Disparity 17y ago
I feel bad posting this (and will be voted down probably), but why is this significant?
- wallflower 17y ago
  bit.ly appeared to be the front runner for an acquisition in that Twitter arena. Their analytics are impressive: http://bit.ly/info/cjwkQI http://bit.ly/info/cjwkQI http://bit.ly/info/oQJM http://bit.ly/info/oQJM
  - tdmackey 17y ago
    Twitter already tried to acquire them and they declined the offer.
    - bryanh 17y ago
      Whoops...
    - dbrown26 17y ago
      Source?
      - tdmackey 17y ago
        Thought it was just kind of well known. The first of many sources: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-buy-but-bitly-is-waiting-for-a-big-f-ing-number-2010-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-...
Kilimanjaro 17y ago
http://tw.it http://tw.it would be killer
zecg 17y ago
This is a new and disruptive idea from innovators in the field.
ryandvm 17y ago
I've never quite understood the URL shortener business model. Why would Twitter buy bit.ly when they could have an intern write their own URL shortening service in an afternoon? URL shorteners are the "Hello World" of webapp programming.
- lrm242 17y ago
  An intern? The entire bit.ly team doesn't even amount to one single intern, because they clearly needed more than that to build this service at scale. Cmon, seriously? Besides, why would Twitter want bit.ly's thousands of corporate clients who have custom shortened domains. You know, like the one Amazon announced today? Bit.ly has enormous traction--that's why Twitter would want to buy them. Now, why they didn't buy them is anyone's guess, but it certainly isn't because they could "have an intern write their own URL shortening service in an afternoon."

Why would they foster such a strong ecosystem of applications only to stab them in the back? I think purchasing existing third party apps to fill these holes would make more sense both in terms of fostering less ill will the community and getting better apps than they can likely build internall. Edit: other posts* state that Twitter has not yet decided if it will use an existing URL shorter or build out its own. * http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/04/15/twitter-launch-link-shortener/?awesm=tnw.to_15xhQ&utm_medium=tnw.to-twitter&utm_source=direct-tnw.to&utm_content=twitter-publisher-main http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/04/15/twitter-launch-link-sh...

bradgessler 17y ago
Because bit.ly took on a round of funding which probably made them too expensive for Twitter to buy. http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/01/bit-ly-1-5-million/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/01/bit-ly-1-5-million/ Would you pay millions of dollars for an URL shortner or build your own?
- terryjsmith 17y ago
  Unfair question: I'm a developer so I would very likely to build my own :) But from a business perspective I would definitely consider buying it; Bitly in particular has a lot of valuable technology that Twitter could monetize on. Bitly seems to be the default in these discussions and it's clearly the market leader, but there are other companies to consider. I think even starting discussions with another company would force Bitly's asking price down considerably. They may talk about how Twitter is _only_ 30% to 40%* of their traffic, but no business wants to lose those kind of numbers. * http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-buy-but-bitly-is-waiting-for-a-big-f-ing-number-2010-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-...
  - jakarta 17y ago
    Really? I mean to me, it seems like Twitter is really holding all the cards here. Unfortunately, it seems like an acquisition of Bitly would really amount to charity because if they wanted, they could easily come out with their own competing service which would likely be adopted simply because it's easier to use. Presumably it would be right there on your twitter page or better yet, automatic.
  - bradgessler 17y ago
    Would you buy it if it was over valued? If Google and Twitter really considered acquiring bit.ly, they must have arrived at the same conclusion at the end of their due diligence that it just wan't worth it. Running the numbers for these types of deals isn't rocket science and if something costs too much, you're not going to buy it.
dnsworks 17y ago
One word: Sharecropping. This is my big concern with the current trend of turning websites into platforms. Any share-cropped idea that would be profitable to do in-house and is in line with the business goals will eventually be done in-house.
- binspace 17y ago
  Good point, however bit.ly has a good customer base for a very simple product. Besides, I imagine that Twitter will have an api for their shortener + analytics, so bit.ly can still integrate. Also, bit.ly can make a play to service multiple social networks. Simply put, they must innovate or die.
  - nl 17y ago
    There's a haiku in that: Dev sharecropping? The platform must progress. Innovate or die!
    - binspace 17y ago
      Hmm, not quite a Haiku... Maybe, Theres Dev sharecropping? The platform must progress now. Innovate or die!
  - patio11 17y ago
    Also, bit.ly can make a play to service multiple social networks. Is there a rich ecosystem of social networks who have all made the same design flaw that Twitter did, fixing which is bit.ly's only reason for existing? And did the social networks in this rich ecosystem all decline to fix the problem for themselves despite the fact that it can be hammered out by a junior engineer in an afternoon?
    - binspace 17y ago
      Well I was thinking they could evolve a bit. Maybe with their analytics?
  - 17y ago

puredemo 17y ago

Bad news for bit.ly, but it was pretty surprising that they held out for more money than what either Google or Twitter offered them.

keenans 17y ago

Does anyone know why they haven't implemented the ability to insert good old-fashioned hyperlinks? Links embedded in the text would save some characters in the message and improve legibility.

qeorge 17y ago
Key point is that it has to fit in 1 SMS message, that's where the whole 140 character thing comes from.
- fredBuddemeyer 17y ago
  yes but is it worth the illegibility and extra step of shortening? how many of those sms recipients make use of the link by retying it in a browser? if there is much of a use case why not have special handling for it?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- briansmith 17y ago
  It only has to fit in a single SMS message if the tweet is being consumed over SMS. There's no reason to do link shortening in other user interfaces.
- joshu 17y ago
  Tweets already diverge from what will fit in an SMS. For example, 140 chars of unicode won't fit.
  - jmhodges 17y ago
    We go by bytes, not chars.
    - chaosmachine 17y ago
      That's incorrect, Twitter goes by characters. I actually wrote an app to exploit this loophole: http://tweetcompressor.com/ http://tweetcompressor.com/

ryanhuff 17y ago

They also announced their own android app. Photo sharing is likely next.

jonknee 17y ago

That's probably why Twitter has been visiting links in tweets recently: http://www.jongales.com/blog/2010/04/14/whats-twitterbot0-1/ http://www.jongales.com/blog/2010/04/14/whats-twitterbot0-1/

briansmith 17y ago

Link shortening on Twitter only makes sense when it is provided by third-parties (to fit inside Twitter's length restrictions) or when tweets are being consumed over SMS (due to SMS length limits). If Twitter only shortens links when sending them through an SMS gateway, then this will be a very positive change over what 3rd-parties are able to provide. However, if Twitter's link shortening service continues to inconvenience all users just so they can try to build an analytics business around that inconvenience, then that will be a clear sign that Twitter isn't interested in optimizing the user experience--which they claimed was the reason for taking over the roles currently being occupied by 3rd-party software and services. Also, if they're goal is top optimize UX then they'll need a very short domain name like 3.ly or j.mp. The domains suggested in this article don't make any sense for a link shortener since they're twice as long as necessary.

briansmith 17y ago
(I really wish I could fix the typos in this post.)

joshu 17y ago

This was entirely predictable.

Disparity 17y ago

I feel bad posting this (and will be voted down probably), but why is this significant?

wallflower 17y ago
bit.ly appeared to be the front runner for an acquisition in that Twitter arena. Their analytics are impressive: http://bit.ly/info/cjwkQI http://bit.ly/info/cjwkQI http://bit.ly/info/oQJM http://bit.ly/info/oQJM
- tdmackey 17y ago
  Twitter already tried to acquire them and they declined the offer.
  - bryanh 17y ago
    Whoops...
  - dbrown26 17y ago
    Source?
    - tdmackey 17y ago
      Thought it was just kind of well known. The first of many sources: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-buy-but-bitly-is-waiting-for-a-big-f-ing-number-2010-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-...

Kilimanjaro 17y ago

http://tw.it http://tw.it would be killer

zecg 17y ago

This is a new and disruptive idea from innovators in the field.

ryandvm 17y ago

I've never quite understood the URL shortener business model. Why would Twitter buy bit.ly when they could have an intern write their own URL shortening service in an afternoon? URL shorteners are the "Hello World" of webapp programming.

lrm242 17y ago
An intern? The entire bit.ly team doesn't even amount to one single intern, because they clearly needed more than that to build this service at scale. Cmon, seriously? Besides, why would Twitter want bit.ly's thousands of corporate clients who have custom shortened domains. You know, like the one Amazon announced today? Bit.ly has enormous traction--that's why Twitter would want to buy them. Now, why they didn't buy them is anyone's guess, but it certainly isn't because they could "have an intern write their own URL shortening service in an afternoon."