4 ms·
The thing about Twitter is that it should have been TV vs trying to be channels. I don't know why they were never comfortable enough in their skin to let third
by jusben1369 11y ago
The thing about Twitter is that it should have been TV vs trying to be channels. I don't know why they were never comfortable enough in their skin to let third parties extend the living heck out of their platform. Using Twitter and getting a Gen 1.0 iPhone were very similar experiences. Pretty much wow and thinking the sky was the limit (vs what they actually were initially). Apple harnessed an app developer community and made their product 10x more valuable. Twitter locked everyone out. I always thought the Twitter competitor launched by Dalton (App.net) totally missed the boat. We didn't need a paid service to save us from ads we needed an open free platform that drew in millions and millions of users to draw in app developers etc. That would have crushed Twitter.
- akrymski 11y agoExcept that TVs are commodities compared to channels. They didn't want to commoditise their own business.
- jusben1369 11y agohah well all analogies break down if you peck at them long enough. Twitter should have enabled developers to create great things on their medium vs trying to be both the platform and the app creator.
- SandersAK 11y agoBut the analogy doesn't break down. The value is in owning the medium. This is exactly why entities like comcast don't want to become dumb pipes. yes it is better for everyone if they do, but in their shorter term interest, it's much better to own the high value stuff.
- jusben1369 11y agoIt does breakdown. Twitter done right is a marketplace with network effects. ISP is an easily replaceable service. If I'm CNN I can't just pick up and leave Twitter for another Twitter at a lower cost. Same thing all the way down to a tech company with 10 people who use it to communicate outrages. People are already there. They expect you to be there too.