4 ms·

You have a very limited idea of competition. You do realize that the ability to use both at once is FF's strategy for competing with Twitter, don't you? They

You have a very limited idea of competition. You do realize that the ability to use both at once is FF's strategy for competing with Twitter, don't you? They know Twitter has a massive user advantage, so rather than try to build a competing network from scratch, they're trying to get users to use both, and hope that the extra features eventually convince users to be at FF more often than Twitter. And FB: they have about a billion more users than Twitter, but their recent redesign shows that they certainly think of Twitter as a competitor. "Closed" vs. "open" isn't a point of competition? You don't think to yourself "I'm going to take the next 30 seconds to tell people about what I'm up to, do I use FB or Twitter?"?

unalone 18y ago
FriendFeed can't compete with a service that they integrate with. Should Twitter close doors, FriendFeed loses functionality. So they can't directly compete at all effectively. And FB: they have about a billion more users than Twitter, but their recent redesign shows that they certainly think of Twitter as a competitor. No it doesn't. Facebook's been moving in this direction ever since they introduced the status update. Perhaps Twitter inspired their changes - and it almost certainly did - but Facebook isn't trying to take Twitter users away. Why would they both competing with Twitter? It's miniscule. It's where Facebook was three years ago. Facebook has its own niche. "Closed" vs. "open" isn't a point of competition? You don't think to yourself "I'm going to take the next 30 seconds to tell people about what I'm up to, do I use FB or Twitter?"? Of course I do. I act differently around friends than I do around complete strangers.
- calambrac 18y ago
  FriendFeed can't compete with a service that they integrate with. Should Twitter close doors, FriendFeed loses functionality. So they can't directly compete at all effectively. That's just flat-out wrong, you can post short messages directly in FF just like with Twitter. If Twitter closes its doors, FF is probably in the best position right now to be its drop-in replacement. but Facebook isn't trying to take Twitter users away. No, they're trying to keep the users they already have. You don't think competition includes keeping an eye on the up-and-comers and trying to keep your advantage? I'm pretty sure this back-and-forth is getting pointless, I'm done.
  - unalone 18y ago
    That's just flat-out wrong, you can post short messages directly in FF just like with Twitter. If Twitter closes its doors, FF is probably in the best position right now to be its drop-in replacement. You seem to be of the opinion that Twitter's purpose is to "post short messages". I doubt that's why people use Twitter. FriendFeed's message is no solution. No, they're trying to keep the users they already have. You don't think competition includes keeping an eye on the up-and-comers and trying to keep your advantage? I don't. Facebook isn't basing their strategy around Twitter. They're basing it around their own set of features, which do something entirely different. As I said: perhaps Twitter inspired their new system, but Facebook's not stupid enough to think they're a Twitter alternative, and it's not stupid to think it should be.
    - calambrac 18y ago
      I know I said I was done, but, you know... someone is wrong on the internet. You seem to be of the opinion that Twitter's purpose is to "post short messages". Um, yes. Because it is. And yes, that's why people use Twitter, along with the fact that a bunch of other people use Twitter (which would go away if they shut their doors, wouldn't it? So that bit's kind of irrelevant in the context of this imaginary scenario). Also: You agree with this, go back to the part of this thread where you said "Twitter provides a very simple way to pass along messages." Now I'm done, for realz.
      - unalone 18y ago
        Pass along being the key phrase. You don't use Twitter because it lets you post messages. You use it because the site is a giant infrastructure that is designed to pass the things you write along to other people, both through following and through replying. The actual system of posting messages is comparatively irrelevant: there were microblogging sites before Twitter, but they didn't focus on following other people, so they were forgotten.

unalone 18y ago

FriendFeed can't compete with a service that they integrate with. Should Twitter close doors, FriendFeed loses functionality. So they can't directly compete at all effectively. And FB: they have about a billion more users than Twitter, but their recent redesign shows that they certainly think of Twitter as a competitor. No it doesn't. Facebook's been moving in this direction ever since they introduced the status update. Perhaps Twitter inspired their changes - and it almost certainly did - but Facebook isn't trying to take Twitter users away. Why would they both competing with Twitter? It's miniscule. It's where Facebook was three years ago. Facebook has its own niche. "Closed" vs. "open" isn't a point of competition? You don't think to yourself "I'm going to take the next 30 seconds to tell people about what I'm up to, do I use FB or Twitter?"? Of course I do. I act differently around friends than I do around complete strangers.

calambrac 18y ago
FriendFeed can't compete with a service that they integrate with. Should Twitter close doors, FriendFeed loses functionality. So they can't directly compete at all effectively. That's just flat-out wrong, you can post short messages directly in FF just like with Twitter. If Twitter closes its doors, FF is probably in the best position right now to be its drop-in replacement. but Facebook isn't trying to take Twitter users away. No, they're trying to keep the users they already have. You don't think competition includes keeping an eye on the up-and-comers and trying to keep your advantage? I'm pretty sure this back-and-forth is getting pointless, I'm done.
- unalone 18y ago
  That's just flat-out wrong, you can post short messages directly in FF just like with Twitter. If Twitter closes its doors, FF is probably in the best position right now to be its drop-in replacement. You seem to be of the opinion that Twitter's purpose is to "post short messages". I doubt that's why people use Twitter. FriendFeed's message is no solution. No, they're trying to keep the users they already have. You don't think competition includes keeping an eye on the up-and-comers and trying to keep your advantage? I don't. Facebook isn't basing their strategy around Twitter. They're basing it around their own set of features, which do something entirely different. As I said: perhaps Twitter inspired their new system, but Facebook's not stupid enough to think they're a Twitter alternative, and it's not stupid to think it should be.
  - calambrac 18y ago
    I know I said I was done, but, you know... someone is wrong on the internet. You seem to be of the opinion that Twitter's purpose is to "post short messages". Um, yes. Because it is. And yes, that's why people use Twitter, along with the fact that a bunch of other people use Twitter (which would go away if they shut their doors, wouldn't it? So that bit's kind of irrelevant in the context of this imaginary scenario). Also: You agree with this, go back to the part of this thread where you said "Twitter provides a very simple way to pass along messages." Now I'm done, for realz.
    - unalone 18y ago
      Pass along being the key phrase. You don't use Twitter because it lets you post messages. You use it because the site is a giant infrastructure that is designed to pass the things you write along to other people, both through following and through replying. The actual system of posting messages is comparatively irrelevant: there were microblogging sites before Twitter, but they didn't focus on following other people, so they were forgotten.