3 ms·

The vast majority of Twitter users don't use Twitter because they like the 3rd party apps. They use Twitter because they could get constant updates from Justin

The vast majority of Twitter users don't use Twitter because they like the 3rd party apps. They use Twitter because they could get constant updates from Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga. 3rd party apps means nothing to them as long as Bieber and Gaga are still on Twitter.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
Facebook could subvert that in an instant. Literally tomorrow, if they wanted to do so.
- continuations 14y ago
  Facebook has been trying to so for ages with their "subscribe" button.
  - nmcfarl 14y ago
    If that’s considered "wanting to subvert Twitter", it’s not twitter who’s in trouble. But I suspect (and hope) that’s not Facebook’s end game with subscribe.
danilocampos 14y ago
> 3rd party apps means nothing to them as long as Bieber and Gaga are still on Twitter. Truth. > They use Twitter because they could get constant updates from Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga. Also true. > The vast majority of Twitter users don't use Twitter because they like the 3rd party apps. True again. And entirely missing the point. New technologies are driven by early adopters. And Twitter is in the very unique position of having flipped a lever that alienates that precise population all at once. So they'll move on to the next big thing, build up the network, and eventually Bieber will move over because it's actually not hard to build a better product than Twitter. Their only insurance is network effects, and they've undermined that advantage by delivering the most perfect gift basket packed with early adopters to Dalton Caldwell.
- continuations 14y ago
  > New technologies are driven by early adopters. This is why you're missing the point. Twitter isn't "new technology". It's not even a technology company. It is a way for people to get their celebrity fix. Sure early adopters would move to whatever Dalton Caldwell is building. That's a non-event to 99.9% of Twitter users. Followers of Lady Gaga don't care what new service Robert Scoble is jumping to.
  - danilocampos 14y ago
    > Twitter isn't "new technology". Its competition will be. If the world worked the way you're describing, Yahoo would still be king, MySpace would reign supreme and and I'd be using a Blackberry. In the short term, Twitter will be fine, of course you're right there. I'm not proposing an instantaneous timescale. In five years, they're fucked.
    - continuations 14y ago
      > Its competition will be. Good luck trying to compete on technology when the users don't care about technology > If the world worked the way you're describing, Yahoo would still be king, MySpace would reign supreme and and I'd be using a Blackberry. ...and Craigslist would still be king in local marketplace. Oh wait, Craigslist IS still king in local marketplace. What happened to all those CL competitors who touted their superior technologies and APIs? That's right, they all failed because the users don't care about the technologies and the APIs.
      - danilocampos 14y ago
        > That's right, they all failed because the users don't care about the technologies and the APIs. I'm so glad we agree on this. Users indeed do not care about technologies or APIs. They care about great experiences. Twitter does not excel at great experiences. If they did, third party clients would not have to exist. Since they do, 23% of Twitter users choose to consume the network via superior-to-them, third-party offerings. Twitter has signed the death warrant of those products. Craigslist would be a valid counter-argument had it been initially built on the strength of third-party clients and then killed them. (PadMapper doesn't count, before you bring it up. It came to craigslist after dominance, not before.) Twitter, on the other hand, has two native clients that began their very lives as third-party products. We'll see. Maybe Twitter will be just fine after taking their most engaged users and sending them elsewhere. Or maybe the users will follow their tech-savvy friends to a better experience, which again, isn't a hard category to trounce Twitter in.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

Facebook could subvert that in an instant. Literally tomorrow, if they wanted to do so.

continuations 14y ago
Facebook has been trying to so for ages with their "subscribe" button.
- nmcfarl 14y ago
  If that’s considered "wanting to subvert Twitter", it’s not twitter who’s in trouble. But I suspect (and hope) that’s not Facebook’s end game with subscribe.

danilocampos 14y ago

> 3rd party apps means nothing to them as long as Bieber and Gaga are still on Twitter. Truth. > They use Twitter because they could get constant updates from Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga. Also true. > The vast majority of Twitter users don't use Twitter because they like the 3rd party apps. True again. And entirely missing the point. New technologies are driven by early adopters. And Twitter is in the very unique position of having flipped a lever that alienates that precise population all at once. So they'll move on to the next big thing, build up the network, and eventually Bieber will move over because it's actually not hard to build a better product than Twitter. Their only insurance is network effects, and they've undermined that advantage by delivering the most perfect gift basket packed with early adopters to Dalton Caldwell.

continuations 14y ago
> New technologies are driven by early adopters. This is why you're missing the point. Twitter isn't "new technology". It's not even a technology company. It is a way for people to get their celebrity fix. Sure early adopters would move to whatever Dalton Caldwell is building. That's a non-event to 99.9% of Twitter users. Followers of Lady Gaga don't care what new service Robert Scoble is jumping to.
- danilocampos 14y ago
  > Twitter isn't "new technology". Its competition will be. If the world worked the way you're describing, Yahoo would still be king, MySpace would reign supreme and and I'd be using a Blackberry. In the short term, Twitter will be fine, of course you're right there. I'm not proposing an instantaneous timescale. In five years, they're fucked.
  - continuations 14y ago
    > Its competition will be. Good luck trying to compete on technology when the users don't care about technology > If the world worked the way you're describing, Yahoo would still be king, MySpace would reign supreme and and I'd be using a Blackberry. ...and Craigslist would still be king in local marketplace. Oh wait, Craigslist IS still king in local marketplace. What happened to all those CL competitors who touted their superior technologies and APIs? That's right, they all failed because the users don't care about the technologies and the APIs.
    - danilocampos 14y ago
      > That's right, they all failed because the users don't care about the technologies and the APIs. I'm so glad we agree on this. Users indeed do not care about technologies or APIs. They care about great experiences. Twitter does not excel at great experiences. If they did, third party clients would not have to exist. Since they do, 23% of Twitter users choose to consume the network via superior-to-them, third-party offerings. Twitter has signed the death warrant of those products. Craigslist would be a valid counter-argument had it been initially built on the strength of third-party clients and then killed them. (PadMapper doesn't count, before you bring it up. It came to craigslist after dominance, not before.) Twitter, on the other hand, has two native clients that began their very lives as third-party products. We'll see. Maybe Twitter will be just fine after taking their most engaged users and sending them elsewhere. Or maybe the users will follow their tech-savvy friends to a better experience, which again, isn't a hard category to trounce Twitter in.