3 ms·

I don't get the problem. The app is great, they are having launch/growing pains. That much is true, to be sure, but would you write an article about how great t

I don't get the problem. The app is great, they are having launch/growing pains. That much is true, to be sure, but would you write an article about how great twitter is and then be sure to write but I occasionally get the fail-whale!? I don't think so, it dates your article severely and isn't really relevant to the quality of the product. Next week (or soon, anyway) things will smooth out. Review the app on it's functionality/style/etc not on the short-comings of it's server infrastructure. The latter is a detail that can be fixed pretty easily while the former is pretty permanent.

Terretta 16y ago
> Review the app on it's functionality/style/etc not on the short-comings of it's server infrastructure. The latter is a detail that can be fixed pretty easily while the former is pretty permanent. Was this missing a "/sarcasm"? This seems like the most recklessly harmful remark I've read on Hacker News in ages. Ideas are easy; implementation—especially in iron—is hard. It matters, and it's exponentially harder post launch. > would you write an article about how great twitter is and then be sure to write but I occasionally get the fail-whale!? I don't think so, it dates your article severely and isn't really relevant to the quality of the product Mashable would, two days ago, on 21 July 2010: http://mashable.com/2010/07/21/twitter-scalability/ http://mashable.com/2010/07/21/twitter-scalability/ To quote this "severely dated" article: > "[Twitter] must first and most importantly achieve an acceptable uptime ratio. All the partnerships, revenue and media buzz in the world can fall a bit flat when the app itself doesn’t work."
- thenduks 16y ago
  I think you're taking a bit of a leap with what I said. I'm not saying it's only the idea that is important at all, I'd be the first to argue that ideas are actually worth next to nothing by themselves. What I was trying to say was that their idea and their implementation are solid -- specifically I'm saying the part of the implementation that counts is solid. Server infrastructure problems are a minor detail compared to the app itself IMO. And to the last part about the mashable article... I would absolutely say that article is 'severely dating' itself. Twitter isn't going anywhere (again IMO) and some server problems aren't going to change that. In a year that article will be a slightly less embarrassing "no one will ever need more than 640k of memory" piece of writing.

Terretta 16y ago

> Review the app on it's functionality/style/etc not on the short-comings of it's server infrastructure. The latter is a detail that can be fixed pretty easily while the former is pretty permanent. Was this missing a "/sarcasm"? This seems like the most recklessly harmful remark I've read on Hacker News in ages. Ideas are easy; implementation—especially in iron—is hard. It matters, and it's exponentially harder post launch. > would you write an article about how great twitter is and then be sure to write but I occasionally get the fail-whale!? I don't think so, it dates your article severely and isn't really relevant to the quality of the product Mashable would, two days ago, on 21 July 2010: http://mashable.com/2010/07/21/twitter-scalability/ http://mashable.com/2010/07/21/twitter-scalability/ To quote this "severely dated" article: > "[Twitter] must first and most importantly achieve an acceptable uptime ratio. All the partnerships, revenue and media buzz in the world can fall a bit flat when the app itself doesn’t work."

thenduks 16y ago
I think you're taking a bit of a leap with what I said. I'm not saying it's only the idea that is important at all, I'd be the first to argue that ideas are actually worth next to nothing by themselves. What I was trying to say was that their idea and their implementation are solid -- specifically I'm saying the part of the implementation that counts is solid. Server infrastructure problems are a minor detail compared to the app itself IMO. And to the last part about the mashable article... I would absolutely say that article is 'severely dating' itself. Twitter isn't going anywhere (again IMO) and some server problems aren't going to change that. In a year that article will be a slightly less embarrassing "no one will ever need more than 640k of memory" piece of writing.