4 ms·
but there was (A LOT) of luck involved in the success of Twitter. Actually there wasn't a lot of luck. Twitter is something that users actually wanted: a broad
by menloparkbum 17y ago
but there was (A LOT) of luck involved in the success of Twitter.
Actually there wasn't a lot of luck. Twitter is something that users actually wanted: a broadcast "status" update that wasn't just on their instant message client.
Twitter is successful because they remained positive and persevered while other people capable of making a similar system didn't do anything about it. Grumpy programmers just posted confused blog posts and forum comments about it. "Twitter? Huh? I don't get it." Nobody really tried to compete with them head on, and they still don't have any real competition. People say facebook is their main competition, and they are right, but Facebook has so much baggage of being something else that isn't Twitter that it seems unlikely people will ever consciously choose between one or the other. More likely people will use both services.
It's a bit of luck that anyone cares about posting their status online but it's not really luck that they are using Twitter to do so... What else would they use?
- c3o 17y agoYou wouldn't say Pownce tried competing with them head-on?
- axod 17y agoNot afaik. Pownce had features.
- paulgb 17y agoIt's easy to pick reasons in after the fact to explain why something happened the way it did. Just being able to find plausible reasons doesn't mean they are right, or that the event wasn't in fact a matter of luck.
- psranga 17y agoIIRC, Twitter was started as a way to send personal bits of info to people you knew. Why else do they have the tagline "What are you doing?". That idea didn't work. Hence I would definitely agree that a lot of luck resulted in Twitter being repurposed as an broadcaster of impersonal information to people who you don't know. (which is pretty much the opposite of the original intent).