5 ms·

The Arab Spring thing is hyperbole to the hilt. If anything, Facebook and Twitter acted as pacifiers. While people could use them, they stayed inside rather th

The Arab Spring thing is hyperbole to the hilt. If anything, Facebook and Twitter acted as pacifiers. While people could use them, they stayed inside rather than get involved in the streets. Only when the authorities cut the connection did shit hit the fan, as the masses ventured outside to keep up what was happening. Thinking about it, i suspect Twitter was an artifact of the US mobile market. It provided a way to do mass texts at a low cost. But as people moved to smartphones and push IM platforms, twitter's reason to exist kinda evaporated. On top of that they had basically handed the task of innovating over to third parties via their APIs. I still recall seeing people use Tweetdeck on desktop Windows with multiple columns set up on different topics, hashtags, and people during large events. This to allow them to track the full breath of what was happening at a glance. Crazy thing is that Twitter did integrate the "column" concept into their service, via lists. But neither their site nor their apps allow us to access those lists in any way similar to Tweetdeck. In contrast, most third party clients will support a column view these days.

calinet6 10y ago
a) twitter's reason to exist is as a communication system where the primary mode is individual > public, in short form. No other communication platform exists that has those characteristics. The web is the next closest thing, but the upstart costs and knowledge required to present information on the web are greater, and the expertise needed to make your content discoverable (SEO) is higher. Blogging services get close as well, but I think the short form is important because it both decreases the barrier to entry (simplicity and low threshold), and democratizes the communication itself—my tweet looks the same and has the same limits and capabilities as CNN's tweet, or the POTUS's tweet. There's something to that. However, it takes far too long to really understand the value of the service—took me several years before I really "got" it and my curated feed was something I actually enjoyed reading and participating in. Third, I don't believe twitter understands the value I described above. They've made no meaningful progress in line with that value in their product that would indicate they understand it or are interested in increasing the value, or even preserving it. b) Twitter acquired Tweetdeck, to their credit, and it still works for exactly what you describe. They really should have innovated on lists more in the actual product, though, completely agree.
- simonswords82 10y ago
  > However, it takes far too long to really understand the value of the service—took me several years before I really "got" it and my curated feed was something I actually enjoyed reading and participating in. This for me, as I've mentioned before on HN, is the main reason that Twitter is a terrible service and losing so much money. The users (especially new users) have to invest far too much of their own time curating their feed in order to make the information Twitter provides enjoyable/useful, hell, perhaps even fun. Contrast this with Reddit, Facebook or any other social media platform. The heavy lifting is done for you. You create an account and a large amount of interesting, neatly categorised and useful information is curated for you according to your tastes. These websites are instantly sticky, and keep their users coming back for more. If Twitter can't get something as straightforward as a fucking onboarding user experience right, I dread to think what else lives under the hood that is a festering pile of dog shit. Add to this that a large amount of the Tweets being generated these days are automated and you've basically got a platform of bots talking to one another, with no value for us humans who aren't prepared to spend half a day curating their twitter feed. Very soon Jack and his shareholders are going to own 100% of nothing unless some drastic changes are made to the Twitter platform.
paulcole 10y ago
>But as people moved to smartphones and push IM platforms, twitter's reason to exist kinda evaporated. Huh? Did you read the articles? Can you explain how this jives with the massive increases in revenue?
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Reason to exist != mindshare. By that time, big names and whatsnot was on Twitter and you have snowball effect going. And you can observe how the shift goes from sms backed to web and app backed. But once you mostly interact via web and app, the whole thing about 140 characters goes out the window and you basically turn into a cramped "facebook" (or perhaps and RSS feed). At the same time the main innovation was not happening at twitter hq, but in third party apps (Tweetdeck etc) that allowed people more control over just what part of the stream they wanted to pay attention to. Twitter is effectively coasting.
- imagist 10y ago
  The revenue comes from investors. A lot of those investors are saying the same thing you are: "Look at all this revenue, they must be doing well!" For those people it's a closed cycle: investors see revenue increase and invest because they see revenue increase, other investors see revenue increase and invest because they see revenue increase. But this isn't a sustainable business, it's basically an unintentional pyramid scam. Businesses need to make a profit in order for people to receive a return on investment, and Twitter has never, not once, ever made a profit.
  - woah 10y ago
    What do you mean the revenue comes from investors? That is by definition investment, not revenue.
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    What the heck? The only thing accurate in this post is that Twitter has not yet made a quarterly profit... The rest is pure nonsense, most of it being quite malicious, and some being uneducated misconceptions. Investment is not revenue. Their revenue comes from advertising. Businesses do not need to make a profit in order for people to receive a return on investment. People will always be willing to invest in a company that shows that it may have good growth in the future. Costs can be cut at any time, resulting in an easy profit. The investors care more about growth than profit, as it is a young company. It's really not ok to accuse people of scams without any evidence just because you don't understand how businesses work.

calinet6 10y ago

a) twitter's reason to exist is as a communication system where the primary mode is individual > public, in short form. No other communication platform exists that has those characteristics. The web is the next closest thing, but the upstart costs and knowledge required to present information on the web are greater, and the expertise needed to make your content discoverable (SEO) is higher. Blogging services get close as well, but I think the short form is important because it both decreases the barrier to entry (simplicity and low threshold), and democratizes the communication itself—my tweet looks the same and has the same limits and capabilities as CNN's tweet, or the POTUS's tweet. There's something to that. However, it takes far too long to really understand the value of the service—took me several years before I really "got" it and my curated feed was something I actually enjoyed reading and participating in. Third, I don't believe twitter understands the value I described above. They've made no meaningful progress in line with that value in their product that would indicate they understand it or are interested in increasing the value, or even preserving it. b) Twitter acquired Tweetdeck, to their credit, and it still works for exactly what you describe. They really should have innovated on lists more in the actual product, though, completely agree.

simonswords82 10y ago
> However, it takes far too long to really understand the value of the service—took me several years before I really "got" it and my curated feed was something I actually enjoyed reading and participating in. This for me, as I've mentioned before on HN, is the main reason that Twitter is a terrible service and losing so much money. The users (especially new users) have to invest far too much of their own time curating their feed in order to make the information Twitter provides enjoyable/useful, hell, perhaps even fun. Contrast this with Reddit, Facebook or any other social media platform. The heavy lifting is done for you. You create an account and a large amount of interesting, neatly categorised and useful information is curated for you according to your tastes. These websites are instantly sticky, and keep their users coming back for more. If Twitter can't get something as straightforward as a fucking onboarding user experience right, I dread to think what else lives under the hood that is a festering pile of dog shit. Add to this that a large amount of the Tweets being generated these days are automated and you've basically got a platform of bots talking to one another, with no value for us humans who aren't prepared to spend half a day curating their twitter feed. Very soon Jack and his shareholders are going to own 100% of nothing unless some drastic changes are made to the Twitter platform.

paulcole 10y ago

>But as people moved to smartphones and push IM platforms, twitter's reason to exist kinda evaporated. Huh? Did you read the articles? Can you explain how this jives with the massive increases in revenue?

digi_owl 10y ago
Reason to exist != mindshare. By that time, big names and whatsnot was on Twitter and you have snowball effect going. And you can observe how the shift goes from sms backed to web and app backed. But once you mostly interact via web and app, the whole thing about 140 characters goes out the window and you basically turn into a cramped "facebook" (or perhaps and RSS feed). At the same time the main innovation was not happening at twitter hq, but in third party apps (Tweetdeck etc) that allowed people more control over just what part of the stream they wanted to pay attention to. Twitter is effectively coasting.
imagist 10y ago
The revenue comes from investors. A lot of those investors are saying the same thing you are: "Look at all this revenue, they must be doing well!" For those people it's a closed cycle: investors see revenue increase and invest because they see revenue increase, other investors see revenue increase and invest because they see revenue increase. But this isn't a sustainable business, it's basically an unintentional pyramid scam. Businesses need to make a profit in order for people to receive a return on investment, and Twitter has never, not once, ever made a profit.
- woah 10y ago
  What do you mean the revenue comes from investors? That is by definition investment, not revenue.
- drakonandor 10y ago
  What the heck? The only thing accurate in this post is that Twitter has not yet made a quarterly profit... The rest is pure nonsense, most of it being quite malicious, and some being uneducated misconceptions. Investment is not revenue. Their revenue comes from advertising. Businesses do not need to make a profit in order for people to receive a return on investment. People will always be willing to invest in a company that shows that it may have good growth in the future. Costs can be cut at any time, resulting in an easy profit. The investors care more about growth than profit, as it is a young company. It's really not ok to accuse people of scams without any evidence just because you don't understand how businesses work.