14 comments

• 

  calamityjake

  1 year ago

  I pretty much agree with the Soylent Green theory of social networking (although, of course, features and performance play a significant role in attracting the critical mass a social networking service needs to take off)--and by that theory, you've got to give Facebook (or Google, if it wanted to jump in) the big edge in the Twitter-esque category. Facebook certainly has more regular users, and they spend plenty of time on the site, so you'd expect that with a modicum of additional functionality the Facebook status feature would take over and leave Twitter a faded, useless shell (like poor Friendster).
  
  But, as Scott Karp says, these sites aren't necessarily fighting for the same users, anyway. And those users who might use one or the other (like me) are just as likely to figure out how to use both--the TwitterSync Facebook app clones my Twitter messages as Facebook status messages without much trouble.
  
  I think the real question is whether there's enough general interest in Twitter as a standalone product at all. Obviously it has found a niche of passionate users, but I certainly haven't had much luck convincing most of my non-techie friends to start using the site. And, unfortunately for Twitter, if they were to expand their service beyond status messages, I think they'd be doubly-screwed, because at that point they're actually competing with Facebook. And I don't think they win that fight.
  
  Basically, I think Twitter's best bet is to dance with who brung it, figure out some way to monetize the service (see how I casually threw that in there, like it's a minor issue?), and eke out a profitable existence as a minor player in social networking.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I agree, Jake -- Twitter's end game is unclear.
  reply
• 

  Tim Burden

  1 year ago

  I have to admit to some trouble understanding the usefulness of Twitter. Maybe I haven't built a big enough network, or maybe I don't get it on some more fundamental level.
  
  What was wrong with email? Well, one might say, one isn't likely to email all one's friends (or casual acquaintances or people you don't even know) to tell them you are watching Battlestar right now. Well, quite frankly, I'm not that interested when I see that on Twitter, either.
  
  To be notified of new blog posts, why wouldn't I just subscribe to someone's RSS feed rather than follow them on Twitter? And anyway, as the recent mantra goes, the news will find me. Twitter just looks like work to me.
  
  And Jake has a good point about connecting with the non-techie non-bloggers: they're not using Twitter, they're using Facebook. You can do more stuff there, and you don't feel like you have to update every sneeze and hiccup in life to be participating "properly".
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Fair enough, Tim. Just admit that you're not cool enough to get
  Twitter. As for what's wrong with email, that would take a book :-)
  
  Seriously though, it's not for everyone. I think it's a lot like text
  messaging is for a generation younger than ours (or at least mine).
  Why do they do it? Who knows. Different reasons, I guess. Some are
  purely social, some are not -- in some cases it's broadcast, in other
  cases it's a way to get input. Sometimes it's informative, sometimes
  it's not.
  
  What's the Internet for?
  reply
• 

  Tim Burden

  1 year ago

  Or maybe I'm uber-cool, for calling it. :)
  
  The Internet is for connecting computers together. On top of which you can build things like the Web and social networks. And?
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Well, I could argue that connecting computers together is what the
  Internet *is*, not what it's *for*. But still -- what are the Web and
  social networks for?
  reply
• 

  Tim Burden

  1 year ago

  Staying as informed as possible, if I had to put it as succinctly as possible.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  And I guess I would answer that different people like to be informed
  about different things, in different ways. Sometimes it's a big news
  event, sometimes it's a quirky story, sometimes it's a personal update
  from a friend. Different purposes, different methods.
  reply
• 

  Tim Burden

  1 year ago

  Oh, for sure, and I'm not trying to crap on people for using whatever they want to use. Personally, my problem with it appears to be twofold:
  1. signal/noise ratio
  2. work in building a network
  
  That last one is a bit of a Catch-22 - I don't want to put a lot of work into it until I see the value of it, and I probably won't see the value in it until I build up a network. In the meantime, I see a lot of stuff about Clinton/Obama (ahem - Dave Winer) and other stuff that doesn't interest me per se. And my friends and fellow students and journalists (except you, kind sir) don't seem to be on there.
  
  I want services that help me sort through all the available information quickly. Twitter doesn't do that for me. It's like a big chat room. I thought chat rooms went away in the 90's :)
  
  The difference now is that I can chat on there with my cell phone. Except I don't have a cell phone. Damn, you're right, I am NOT cool! :)
  reply
• 

  StevenHodson

  1 year ago

  Soylent Green factor .... I so like that phrase Mathew
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Glad you like it, Steven -- just give me $5 every time you use it :-)
  reply
• 

  engtech

  1 year ago

  SGF is such a better term than "The Network Effect"
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I agree, Engtech :-)
  reply
• 

  jansegers

  1 year ago

  Every major language seems to have its microblogs these days...
  
  but all accept English language posting with an English URL included
  reply