4 ms·

I agree... I think the problem for them is that morphing facebook into twitter is simple - you remove features and privacy settings. Morphing twitter into faceb

by axod 17y ago

I agree... I think the problem for them is that morphing facebook into twitter is simple - you remove features and privacy settings. Morphing twitter into facebook however, is far harder and much more work. You have to build all the tons of features facebook have. I'd be really surprised if Twitter win it out, facebook just look ridiculously clued in to how to beat them, whereas I haven't really seen any changes at twitter in terms of features. Have they added any? :/ Strike that... have they added back in the features they removed? edit: yeah downmod me all you like... or you could reply with a coherent argument.

tonystubblebine 17y ago
I think defining easy and hard for these two sites solely in terms of software development costs is too narrow. It would be extremely hard for Facebook to remove features from a customer relations standpoint. Likewise, it would actually be pretty easy for Twitter to add a feature like photos into the existing feature set without alienating their users. I think also that this idea that Twitter and Facebook are in a head to head battle is mostly media generated. Twitter's strength is its public nature, and Facebook's is its private nature. To say that one will beat the other is to say that either there is no need for private conversation or no need for public.
- axod 17y ago
  Facebook has already moved toward twitter, and has gained users because of it. They can easily make it easy for people to use the service like they would twitter, whilst making it clear that posts will be public etc. No issues with PR there. If you look back at the last year or so, facebook has moved massively... Yes Twitter could add all the features, and remove things like the 140 char limit, but they don't seem to have moved all that much in the same time. Facebook clearly has the momentum and opportunity. I do think the battle is pretty real, I don't want to go to 2 sites to share stuff, I just want one. And I can - I just post stuff to facebook, and say [Family] or [Friends] or [everyone]. It's pretty much already there.
  - tonystubblebine 17y ago
    In social software there's a big and important gap between the possibility of a social behavior and the existence of that social behavior. In this case, your theory (shared by TechCrunch apparently) seems to be that Facebook, which has proved that there is an enormous market for private social communication, is going to develop a massive volume of public postings, public discussion, and become a destination site for following public discussion. Here's my theory: no way. - Defaults rule. If the facebook default is for private than that will be the bulk of conversation and that will set the expectation about how to respond (i.e. it limits forwarding of good posts to strangers). - Both sites benefit from being simple and easy to use. For Facebook to suddenly imbue every activity (posting, reading, and finding friends) with an understanding of access controls would make it a much more complex site to understand. Facebook may be copying features, but I don't think it has a chance of becoming the primary tool for public asynchronous messaging any more than it has of becoming the primary blogging platform or primary email platform. Twitter, is not copying Facebook features because those features don't support its goal for public discourse. Instead they are developing deep contacts with media. In the end, Facebook may end up with more users than Twitter, but that's an indication of the size of the markets not of one company beating the other. Both sites grew last month by the way, so it does seem like talking about the demise of either one is backward. Twitter's 6% monthly growth rate compounds to more than 100% per year (if only my investments would do that).
arfrank 17y ago
I don't think it will end up where one wins out over the other. I see Facebook primarly as a networking tool, where as I see twitter as a messaging framework. Yes facebook can pare down services to allow real-time messaging and they certainly will, but I think it'll be difficult to start building a place for developers to play and create. Whereas Twitter intially things open and encourages others to create their features. They are focusing on making their service as reliable and simple as possible. Want more features, well there is an web app for that.
halo 17y ago
Your argument is flawed because you're making it seem like Facebook competing with Twitter is a technical problem, when it isn't, it's a social, branding and marketing problem. People use the products in different ways. Twitter is associated and popular in the public consciousness on "public updates" while Facebook isn't, and Twitter has a buzz behind it that Facebook doesn't. By using the same logic as yours, Facebook Marketplace should have beaten Craigslist by now. Or Match.com should have beaten plentyoffish. Or, hell, Reddit should have beaten Hacker News. But they haven't happened, despite all being technically superior and having supersets of the others functionality.

by axod 17y ago

tonystubblebine 17y ago

I think defining easy and hard for these two sites solely in terms of software development costs is too narrow. It would be extremely hard for Facebook to remove features from a customer relations standpoint. Likewise, it would actually be pretty easy for Twitter to add a feature like photos into the existing feature set without alienating their users. I think also that this idea that Twitter and Facebook are in a head to head battle is mostly media generated. Twitter's strength is its public nature, and Facebook's is its private nature. To say that one will beat the other is to say that either there is no need for private conversation or no need for public.

axod 17y ago
Facebook has already moved toward twitter, and has gained users because of it. They can easily make it easy for people to use the service like they would twitter, whilst making it clear that posts will be public etc. No issues with PR there. If you look back at the last year or so, facebook has moved massively... Yes Twitter could add all the features, and remove things like the 140 char limit, but they don't seem to have moved all that much in the same time. Facebook clearly has the momentum and opportunity. I do think the battle is pretty real, I don't want to go to 2 sites to share stuff, I just want one. And I can - I just post stuff to facebook, and say [Family] or [Friends] or [everyone]. It's pretty much already there.
- tonystubblebine 17y ago
  In social software there's a big and important gap between the possibility of a social behavior and the existence of that social behavior. In this case, your theory (shared by TechCrunch apparently) seems to be that Facebook, which has proved that there is an enormous market for private social communication, is going to develop a massive volume of public postings, public discussion, and become a destination site for following public discussion. Here's my theory: no way. - Defaults rule. If the facebook default is for private than that will be the bulk of conversation and that will set the expectation about how to respond (i.e. it limits forwarding of good posts to strangers). - Both sites benefit from being simple and easy to use. For Facebook to suddenly imbue every activity (posting, reading, and finding friends) with an understanding of access controls would make it a much more complex site to understand. Facebook may be copying features, but I don't think it has a chance of becoming the primary tool for public asynchronous messaging any more than it has of becoming the primary blogging platform or primary email platform. Twitter, is not copying Facebook features because those features don't support its goal for public discourse. Instead they are developing deep contacts with media. In the end, Facebook may end up with more users than Twitter, but that's an indication of the size of the markets not of one company beating the other. Both sites grew last month by the way, so it does seem like talking about the demise of either one is backward. Twitter's 6% monthly growth rate compounds to more than 100% per year (if only my investments would do that).

arfrank 17y ago

I don't think it will end up where one wins out over the other. I see Facebook primarly as a networking tool, where as I see twitter as a messaging framework. Yes facebook can pare down services to allow real-time messaging and they certainly will, but I think it'll be difficult to start building a place for developers to play and create. Whereas Twitter intially things open and encourages others to create their features. They are focusing on making their service as reliable and simple as possible. Want more features, well there is an web app for that.

halo 17y ago

Your argument is flawed because you're making it seem like Facebook competing with Twitter is a technical problem, when it isn't, it's a social, branding and marketing problem. People use the products in different ways. Twitter is associated and popular in the public consciousness on "public updates" while Facebook isn't, and Twitter has a buzz behind it that Facebook doesn't. By using the same logic as yours, Facebook Marketplace should have beaten Craigslist by now. Or Match.com should have beaten plentyoffish. Or, hell, Reddit should have beaten Hacker News. But they haven't happened, despite all being technically superior and having supersets of the others functionality.