4 ms·
This shows a complete lack of understanding of Twitter. Twitter does status updates and does them amazingly well. You (more-or-less) know that all of your fol
by jackowayed 18y ago
This shows a complete lack of understanding of Twitter.
Twitter does status updates and does them amazingly well.
You (more-or-less) know that all of your followers read all of your statuses.
You can get Tweets from any device remotely connected to anything. SMS, Firefox, desktop, iGoogle, web, etc. This would take a lot of time for Facebook to catch up on.
And with Twitter there is no other noise. Statuses are the entire thing. That focuses you on that. You don't get distracted by pictures, videos, relationship status changes, etc. That focuses it, which is very appealing to users.
No one would make Twitter-like apps centered around statuses because people don't care that much about statuses on Facebook, and people wouldn't start caring about statuses because there would be no Twitter-like apps to make getting statuses easy and versatile.
It takes a lot to totally transform how people use a service like making Facebook Twitter-centric would.
- gaius 18y agoYou can in your preferences tweak FB to prioritize status updates in your newsfeed and de-prioritize everything else.
- pietro 18y agoOr just click the status updates tab.
- jackowayed 18y agoI know that both of these are true, but it's not the point. People would need a lot to start using facebook like Twitter. They'd need to be able to get all of the statuses via SMS, Firefox Extensions, etc, etc. People overall don't use Facebook statuses like they do Twitter, and that inertia will take a lot more than allowing people to make apps that would show people their friends' statuses. Inertia is a powerful force, and that larger userbase would somewhat be a disadvantage in that regard. It's more people they have to get to switch over to using statuses like they would Twitter. Getting that process started would be almost impossible.