3 ms·

The fundamental product with Twitter is that its product doesn't appeal to everyone [1] the way that Google and Facebook do. This may be the problem with Snapch

The fundamental product with Twitter is that its product doesn't appeal to everyone [1] the way that Google and Facebook do. This may be the problem with Snapchat as well, although that hasn't been conclusively determined. If Twitter were a truly mass-market product, none of the rest of its problems would matter. But it's not, and that's a conundrum, since you can't monetize a social network through means other than advertising: https://stratechery.com/2014/ello-consumer-friendly-business-models/ https://stratechery.com/2014/ello-consumer-friendly-business... [1] Yes, "everyone" is a slight exaggeration. If you exclusively use DuckDuckGo and Gnu Social, you're the odd one out, I'm sorry to say.

bshimmin 10y ago
This is it. Everything else is just a convoluted red herring. For nearly everyone, Facebook is just better in every single way for the things that they actually want something "social" to do - which seems (from looking over people's shoulders, since I'm no longer a Facebook user) to be having group chats in real-time, posting baby pictures, sharing and commenting on crappy Buzzfeed material, and organising events. Twitter doesn't do any of those very well. From a really simple perspective, Facebook already has a mechanism for posting status updates, which is the main thing people understand that Twitter does... and if everyone you know is already on Facebook (which has been the case probably for almost the entirety of Twitter's existence), why would you post your updates on Twitter?