5 ms·

There is a big difference between Twitter and AIM. Twitter messages are public. Even (especially!) if their protocol is standardized they will benefit. They

There is a big difference between Twitter and AIM. Twitter messages are public. Even (especially!) if their protocol is standardized they will benefit. They own the data and can publish it. There wasn't much AIM could do with private conversations without making people angry.

andreyf 18y ago
There is a big difference between Twitter and AIM. Twitter messages are public. Seems completely irrelevant. Twitter, friendfeed, facebook, and many more provide the exact same features. That's what makes something generic.
- JoelSutherland 18y ago
  Having the same features is not the same as interoperability! Ultimately people use the AIM network and AOL receives no net value. They can use any client and the data is private. Additionally they can migrate between clients because their network is a part of the protocol. That the messages are public is completely relevant. As long as the twitter network is used, twitter can create value from the data. Twitter search only grows in value when more people are on their network. This is why the comparison between AIM and Twitter is flawed.
- swombat 18y ago
  eBay is a pile of crap and easily copied, and yet it survives because of the network effects. I see not reason to think that Twitter won't maintain its monopoly for the exact same reason. Well, actually I see one way it could lose the network effect battle - if it loses in the Twitter vs Facebook battle that's looming. Which is why it's so right that Twitter is pouring all its resources into expansion, rather than worrying about monetisation. Once they have a definite, secure monopoly on status broadcast messages, then they can think of the next step. Before that, everything must be geared towards building that monopoly.
  - nostrademons 18y ago
    LiveJournal is a pile of crap (actually it's not, there're some things that LJ does right that FaceBook etc. still haven't gotten) and easily copied and yet...oh wait, Friendster ate them for lunch. Friendster is a pile of crap and easily copied, and yet it...oh wait, MySpace ate them for lunch. MySpace is a pile of crap and easily copied, and yet it...oh wait, FaceBook ae them for lunch. FaceBook is a pile of crap and easily copied, and yet it...oh wait, Twitter's eating them for lunch. ;-) Network effects tend to be strongest when they connect people who have never interacted before and would not interact without the service. For example, E-bay buyers and sellers don't have prior existing relationships - they need E-bay to find each other. If you're a buyer, you go where all the sellers are, and if you're a seller, you go where all the buyers are, and you can't communicate with a whole mass of buyers at once to say "Let's go somewhere else." Same with Microsoft: developers go where customers are, customers go where developers are, and neither know who or where the others are until they put out a product on Microsoft's platform. The problem for social networking sites is that they've largely just codified existing social networks, which all have plenty of backchannels to use instead. So if something clearly better comes along, they send a mass message to all their friends (or just talk about it in school - remember that the public school system is a far bigger social network than anything online) saying "Hey, I found this great website, everybody go check it out." I've got a bunch of friends I met online through the Harry Potter fandom. When I met them, everybody was like "Are you on AIM? How about LiveJournal? Here, let me get you an invite code." Then in 2005, when FaceBook came out, there was a flurry of friends-locked posts saying, "Are you on FaceBook? I'm Full Name @ College" if they were in college, or "Are you on MySpace? I'm ScreenName there" if they were not. Now, my friends list looks like, "Anybody on Twitter? Send me your screen names so I can follow you!" followed by a bunch of "Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter..." messages.
    - swombat 18y ago
      The problem for social networking sites is that they've largely just codified existing social networks I've never met 90% of the people I follow and who follow me on Twitter, so I don't think that theory affects Twitter.
  - 18y ago

andreyf 18y ago

There is a big difference between Twitter and AIM. Twitter messages are public. Seems completely irrelevant. Twitter, friendfeed, facebook, and many more provide the exact same features. That's what makes something generic.

JoelSutherland 18y ago
Having the same features is not the same as interoperability! Ultimately people use the AIM network and AOL receives no net value. They can use any client and the data is private. Additionally they can migrate between clients because their network is a part of the protocol. That the messages are public is completely relevant. As long as the twitter network is used, twitter can create value from the data. Twitter search only grows in value when more people are on their network. This is why the comparison between AIM and Twitter is flawed.
swombat 18y ago
eBay is a pile of crap and easily copied, and yet it survives because of the network effects. I see not reason to think that Twitter won't maintain its monopoly for the exact same reason. Well, actually I see one way it could lose the network effect battle - if it loses in the Twitter vs Facebook battle that's looming. Which is why it's so right that Twitter is pouring all its resources into expansion, rather than worrying about monetisation. Once they have a definite, secure monopoly on status broadcast messages, then they can think of the next step. Before that, everything must be geared towards building that monopoly.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  LiveJournal is a pile of crap (actually it's not, there're some things that LJ does right that FaceBook etc. still haven't gotten) and easily copied and yet...oh wait, Friendster ate them for lunch. Friendster is a pile of crap and easily copied, and yet it...oh wait, MySpace ate them for lunch. MySpace is a pile of crap and easily copied, and yet it...oh wait, FaceBook ae them for lunch. FaceBook is a pile of crap and easily copied, and yet it...oh wait, Twitter's eating them for lunch. ;-) Network effects tend to be strongest when they connect people who have never interacted before and would not interact without the service. For example, E-bay buyers and sellers don't have prior existing relationships - they need E-bay to find each other. If you're a buyer, you go where all the sellers are, and if you're a seller, you go where all the buyers are, and you can't communicate with a whole mass of buyers at once to say "Let's go somewhere else." Same with Microsoft: developers go where customers are, customers go where developers are, and neither know who or where the others are until they put out a product on Microsoft's platform. The problem for social networking sites is that they've largely just codified existing social networks, which all have plenty of backchannels to use instead. So if something clearly better comes along, they send a mass message to all their friends (or just talk about it in school - remember that the public school system is a far bigger social network than anything online) saying "Hey, I found this great website, everybody go check it out." I've got a bunch of friends I met online through the Harry Potter fandom. When I met them, everybody was like "Are you on AIM? How about LiveJournal? Here, let me get you an invite code." Then in 2005, when FaceBook came out, there was a flurry of friends-locked posts saying, "Are you on FaceBook? I'm Full Name @ College" if they were in college, or "Are you on MySpace? I'm ScreenName there" if they were not. Now, my friends list looks like, "Anybody on Twitter? Send me your screen names so I can follow you!" followed by a bunch of "Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter..." messages.
  - swombat 18y ago
    The problem for social networking sites is that they've largely just codified existing social networks I've never met 90% of the people I follow and who follow me on Twitter, so I don't think that theory affects Twitter.
- 18y ago