4 ms·

Jaiku, Brightkite. Calling Friendfeed "primarily an aggregator" seems like a dodge, they're pretty much just twitter with more features (one of which is aggreg

Jaiku, Brightkite. Calling Friendfeed "primarily an aggregator" seems like a dodge, they're pretty much just twitter with more features (one of which is aggregation). Calling Twitter a unique niche, that's pretty lame. What they do, technically, is simple and could be repeated without much effort by pretty much anyone. They win, I think, because of branding ('twitter' and 'tweet' just seem destined for the lexicon) and because of the status they have among the technorati that's translating into mainstream adoption.

unalone 18y ago
Twitter provides a very simple way to pass along messages. Jaiku is too complex. Brightkite is too complex. Sometimes not having extra features is a web site's primary feature.
- calambrac 18y ago
  You're the one who complained there's nobody out there doing what Twitter does "in an interesting way". Twitter is pretty much the lowest common denominator feature-wise, plus killer branding, plus momentum, plus an open api that lets other services treat them like infrastructure. What, exactly, would you think would be interesting, if not differentiating features like these other sites are trying to offer? I mean, are you really complaining that nobody's stepping up to just to be ignored for being an exact clone?
  - unalone 18y ago
    What, exactly, would you think would be interesting, if not differentiating features like these other sites are trying to offer? I don't know. That's the problem with trying to compete with Twitter: it can't be done. Anything you add messes up the design. I wasn't complaining: I just don't think there are any Twitter competitors. Twitter does something so simply it can't be competed against effectively. FriendFeed can be improved, both feature-wise and design-wise. Twitter can't. In a way, I hope Twitter stays the same for as long as possible. Tumblr used to be ultrasimple in that same compact way. Now they've added a ton of features I really dislike, and I'm strongly considering switching to something else if I can find anything decent. Twitter will lose focus if it does anything else. (As it is, things like that new recommended people list is pretty garish.) That makes monetization tricky, though.
    - calambrac 18y ago
      I think we're arguing different things. The article claimed was that Twitter had no competition and so was getting lazy. The op pointed out competitors. You said they weren't really competitors. I said, "no, you're wrong, they are" and added two more to the list for good measure. Now you seem to have switched to arguing whether they're successful competitors; I agree, they don't seem to be (maybe FF to a degree), but just because they haven't taken off like Twitter, that doesn't mean they aren't competitors.
      - unalone 18y ago
        But I wouldn't call them competitors. That would imply actual competition. Nobody competes with Twitter. They appeal to entirely different sorts of users, because they know they can't go directly for Twitter's userset, and if they do target Twitter users wholesale, they invariably fail. Twitter knows this as well.
        calambrac 18y ago
        Yeah, I'm sure FriendFeed would hate to see a full-scale defection of Twitter users over to their service, or to have Shaq shut down his Twitter account in favor of a FF account. If you're arguing that Twitter is winning, fine, I agree, but it's just flat-out wrong to say that nobody's trying to take a cut of their users.
        unalone 18y ago
        ANY site would like to see a full-scale defection. That's different from angling specifically to get those users. There's no such thing as a "cut" of users between non-competing sites. You can use FriendFeed and Twitter together and there's a good reason for it. There's less of a reason to use, say, Twitter alongside Jaiku. Suddenly you're using two services to do the same thing. Same with Twitter and Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook, or Twitter and nearly any successful company. A real Twitter competitor would be a "this-or-that" competitor. Facebook-or-MySpace. Flickr-or-SmugMug. Youtube-or-Vimeo. Twitter has no competitor that's worth mentioning. The second-biggest competitor was Jaiku, and it was mediocre.
- axod 18y ago
  >> "Sometimes not having extra features is a web site's primary feature." It's also a great way to ensure minimal leverage to make money. At least they saw the good sense to buy summize.
olefoo 18y ago
I think one of the things that makes twitter successful is it's lack of features. I'm on friendfeed, I was on Pownce, neither of them stuck. Friendfeed comes across like a 64-track mixing console with a builtin patch bay; it's got features and it does stuff. It feels like Pro Gear, but it's mostly built for readers not senders. Twitter is as close as my phone. It removes most of the barriers to publishing, and the limitations help to make it predictable. Could twitter's functionality be replicated; yes. However none of the fast followers seem to be able to stick with the simple feature set.
- calambrac 18y ago
  Fine, I'm not arguing with any of that. That doesn't mean these sites aren't competitors with Twitter, it just means that they might be losing.

unalone 18y ago

Twitter provides a very simple way to pass along messages. Jaiku is too complex. Brightkite is too complex. Sometimes not having extra features is a web site's primary feature.

calambrac 18y ago
You're the one who complained there's nobody out there doing what Twitter does "in an interesting way". Twitter is pretty much the lowest common denominator feature-wise, plus killer branding, plus momentum, plus an open api that lets other services treat them like infrastructure. What, exactly, would you think would be interesting, if not differentiating features like these other sites are trying to offer? I mean, are you really complaining that nobody's stepping up to just to be ignored for being an exact clone?
- unalone 18y ago
  What, exactly, would you think would be interesting, if not differentiating features like these other sites are trying to offer? I don't know. That's the problem with trying to compete with Twitter: it can't be done. Anything you add messes up the design. I wasn't complaining: I just don't think there are any Twitter competitors. Twitter does something so simply it can't be competed against effectively. FriendFeed can be improved, both feature-wise and design-wise. Twitter can't. In a way, I hope Twitter stays the same for as long as possible. Tumblr used to be ultrasimple in that same compact way. Now they've added a ton of features I really dislike, and I'm strongly considering switching to something else if I can find anything decent. Twitter will lose focus if it does anything else. (As it is, things like that new recommended people list is pretty garish.) That makes monetization tricky, though.
  - calambrac 18y ago
    I think we're arguing different things. The article claimed was that Twitter had no competition and so was getting lazy. The op pointed out competitors. You said they weren't really competitors. I said, "no, you're wrong, they are" and added two more to the list for good measure. Now you seem to have switched to arguing whether they're successful competitors; I agree, they don't seem to be (maybe FF to a degree), but just because they haven't taken off like Twitter, that doesn't mean they aren't competitors.
    - unalone 18y ago
      But I wouldn't call them competitors. That would imply actual competition. Nobody competes with Twitter. They appeal to entirely different sorts of users, because they know they can't go directly for Twitter's userset, and if they do target Twitter users wholesale, they invariably fail. Twitter knows this as well.
      - calambrac 18y ago
        Yeah, I'm sure FriendFeed would hate to see a full-scale defection of Twitter users over to their service, or to have Shaq shut down his Twitter account in favor of a FF account. If you're arguing that Twitter is winning, fine, I agree, but it's just flat-out wrong to say that nobody's trying to take a cut of their users.
        unalone 18y ago
        ANY site would like to see a full-scale defection. That's different from angling specifically to get those users. There's no such thing as a "cut" of users between non-competing sites. You can use FriendFeed and Twitter together and there's a good reason for it. There's less of a reason to use, say, Twitter alongside Jaiku. Suddenly you're using two services to do the same thing. Same with Twitter and Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook, or Twitter and nearly any successful company. A real Twitter competitor would be a "this-or-that" competitor. Facebook-or-MySpace. Flickr-or-SmugMug. Youtube-or-Vimeo. Twitter has no competitor that's worth mentioning. The second-biggest competitor was Jaiku, and it was mediocre.
axod 18y ago
>> "Sometimes not having extra features is a web site's primary feature." It's also a great way to ensure minimal leverage to make money. At least they saw the good sense to buy summize.

olefoo 18y ago

I think one of the things that makes twitter successful is it's lack of features. I'm on friendfeed, I was on Pownce, neither of them stuck. Friendfeed comes across like a 64-track mixing console with a builtin patch bay; it's got features and it does stuff. It feels like Pro Gear, but it's mostly built for readers not senders. Twitter is as close as my phone. It removes most of the barriers to publishing, and the limitations help to make it predictable. Could twitter's functionality be replicated; yes. However none of the fast followers seem to be able to stick with the simple feature set.

calambrac 18y ago
Fine, I'm not arguing with any of that. That doesn't mean these sites aren't competitors with Twitter, it just means that they might be losing.