3 ms·
[Do you not know who Michael Arrington is?] The argument is that Google+ is unsuccessful, and Twitter is, on the other hand. Twitter is booming with growth and
by Shank 13y ago
[Do you not know who Michael Arrington is?]
The argument is that Google+ is unsuccessful, and Twitter is, on the other hand. Twitter is booming with growth and is a prime target for Google if their goal is really to own a social network with a high amount of usage and and public knowledge. Google+ is not.
Arrington presents that it would be akin to Google purchasing YouTube even when it had Google Video gaining moderate traction over a slower period of time. Twitter is to YouTube as Google+ is to Google Video.
- adamnemecek 13y agoI do. Does that improve the quality of the article? Your argument is assuming that Twitter and G+ are comparable products which they are not (unlike YT/Google video). So it's debatable whether Twitter has the same value to Google as a more successful version of G+. Regardless, is he really expecting that after reading this article, the people who the deciding power at Google will fall to their knees and exclaim "How could we have been so blind? It's so obvious and so genius!"?
- kwestro 13y agoTwitter has NEVER made a profit. They can barely monetize their products.
- OvidNaso 13y agoWhich makes his youtube analogy more apropos.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- r0h1n 13y agoDid you intend your question about knowing Mike Arrington in a serious or sarcastic manner? I couldn't tell, though the sarcastic one makes more sense.