4 ms·

Perhaps it's because I just don't "get it" but what's all the hubub about twitters downtime? You're not paying for the service, so you really have no expectati

by tialys 18y ago

Perhaps it's because I just don't "get it" but what's all the hubub about twitters downtime? You're not paying for the service, so you really have no expectation of service, hence I just don't get why people make such a big deal about twitter 'letting them down.' I guess what I mean is, it's not a big deal, and complaining about it isn't going to get them to fix it any faster than what they're trying to now.

antiform 18y ago
I think it is because in 2008, we expect a certain level of uptime for web services. It's a good indicator of how the standards for web applications have increased over the years. I remember about a decade ago when I first signed up for services like Hotmail or eBay, they would be down fairly often and for long periods of time, but it was understood and even accepted, since they were usually free services that did not have much direct competition. "Internet application" usually carried implications of slow, buggy, and unreliable service. However, in the last couple of years, it seems that we have to come to expect a near-constant uptime for the websites we use. It points to a general up trend in application quality and consumer expectation, which I think is healthy for both developers and consumers. In the end, I think Twitter speaks to Ev Williams's brilliance in building an extremely sticky product, since people continue to Twitter despite the downtime and the deluge of blog posts from people criticizing them at every turn. It reminds me of how most people continued to blog on Blogspot even with its notorious bad pre-Google uptime.
- akd 18y ago
  > I think it is because in 2008, we expect a certain level of uptime for web services. Exactly. Google is free, but what if you couldn't access it one day a month? Sure, you could just use Yahoo, but people would still be steaming mad.
axod 18y ago
Twitter have a good number of users. When they give a consistently bad user experience, people are going to leave. It's just like watching a very very very big car crash.

by tialys 18y ago

antiform 18y ago

I think it is because in 2008, we expect a certain level of uptime for web services. It's a good indicator of how the standards for web applications have increased over the years. I remember about a decade ago when I first signed up for services like Hotmail or eBay, they would be down fairly often and for long periods of time, but it was understood and even accepted, since they were usually free services that did not have much direct competition. "Internet application" usually carried implications of slow, buggy, and unreliable service. However, in the last couple of years, it seems that we have to come to expect a near-constant uptime for the websites we use. It points to a general up trend in application quality and consumer expectation, which I think is healthy for both developers and consumers. In the end, I think Twitter speaks to Ev Williams's brilliance in building an extremely sticky product, since people continue to Twitter despite the downtime and the deluge of blog posts from people criticizing them at every turn. It reminds me of how most people continued to blog on Blogspot even with its notorious bad pre-Google uptime.

akd 18y ago
> I think it is because in 2008, we expect a certain level of uptime for web services. Exactly. Google is free, but what if you couldn't access it one day a month? Sure, you could just use Yahoo, but people would still be steaming mad.

axod 18y ago

Twitter have a good number of users. When they give a consistently bad user experience, people are going to leave. It's just like watching a very very very big car crash.