[Greenisus]

"At stake is whether Twitter [...] can become a mainstream platform instead of a niche forum favored by journalists and celebrities."

I found that line interesting, because I often think of Twitter as a niche forum favored by technology workers and celebrities.

[dasil003]

Yeah, or protesters and celebrities. It could actually be anyone and celebrities, because you only see the groups that you participate in, and the only one with global visibility are, duh, celebrities!

I think Twitter's biggest problem is lack of vision and a commitment to that vision. Going public was a big mistake for them, because Wall Street has no concept of what makes technology good or interesting over the long haul, they can only reduce things to the most simplistic metrics. Facebook is pretty much a known quantity at this point, and is the biggest social network that has ever existed. So now everyone wants to measure Twitter by the Facebook yardstick. But Facebook only has 5 times as many active users as Twitter, and I would bet money that the average Twitter user is more than 5 times as influential as the average Facebook user. If you can't build a viable company with 300M of the most influential users, then something is very very wrong in the world.

The biggest tell-tale for me is that everyone knows exactly what Facebook is, and many people (especially younger ones) see it as a crufty accumulation of old friends and family that they have no interest engaging with. But for Twitter there's still a majority of people who "don't get it", and yet it has been a revolution for celebrities and the aforementioned groups in terms of what it's done for the public conversation. To me this is all an indication that Twitter has way more upside than Facebook. In fact, I'd be willing to invest in Twitter if I thought their leadership was strong, but my big concern is that they don't have a clear vision, and therefore they will get picked apart by the clueless hand-wringing of Wall Street until they become so cheap that Google or Facebook snaps them up.

[jerf]

"If you can't build a viable company with 300M of the most influential users, then something is very very wrong in the world."

One of the intriguing thing I'm keeping my eye on is that if TWTR keeps sinking, will there be any other follow-up effects? Because if TWTR can't convert eyeballs to money at the Wall Street-expected rate, that suggests in that invester-sphinctor-tightening way that maybe the other companies depedent on that model may have trouble too.

The market's faith in eyeballs ---advertising---> money has always struck me as excessively strong. Not that it's a stupid idea, just that Wall Street seems to believe it's about 5-10 times more effective a plan than I do.

[freehunter]

When I think of twitter I think nothing but mainstream. There are two platforms that anyone who is anyone (celebrity or business or politician) needs to have: either Facebook or Twitter. Niche is Instragram. Niche is Snapchat. But when Kardashian is on CNN once an hour because of a tweet, it's not niche. App.Net is niche. Twitter is the epitome of mainstream.

[eterm]

CNN is precisely the journalism niche they are talking about.

It isn't about niche celebrities, but celebrities as a whole is their niche. And journalists, of course. Newspaper websites publish vast quantities of tweets because it costs them nothing, it means you indirectly consume a lot of tweets.

But the celebrity content consumed by journalists is as a whole still a niche, even if all celebrities are on there.

FWIW I think it would be a mistake to abandon that, but it does raise questions about how they grow.

[mmahemoff]

Part of Twitter's challenge is that it's mainstream, but in a "write-only" way. Every celebrity, politician, religious leader, and journalist may be tweeting 24-7, but their followers aren't engaging in the same way they do on Facebook. A lot of users don't login, tweet, or spend much time on the site/app according to various reports.

Chris Sacca said a lot about this recently. http://lowercasecapital.com/2015/06/03/what-twitter-can-be-2...

[Zigurd]

Google will buy it because Google+ is Twitter minus the people.

[dredmorbius]

G+ is a staggering number of peoole. 2.6 billion last I checked. Its simply that mist of them don't want to be there and say nothing. Engagement is by a fraction of a percent of the whole.

[icpmacdo]

I think thats the main problem with Twitter, saturation. Its mainstream enough the regular people are not likely to jump on Twitter now if they already haven't.

[somebodyother]

This. Nobody who could conceivably make an account is just waiting to hear about this hot new thing called microblogging.

[bluepostitnote]

And yet Facebook is still signing up users

[incongruity]

I'd argue they're better about extracting value from network effects – Facebook allows you to broadcast, but it really encourages interactions... the value grows a lot more with your network... whereas, following more people on twitter just makes it harder to follow.

[dredmorbius]

My understanding was that FB growth stalled in the US./EU in 2012, slipping since. No?

[nuclear_eclipse]

> "Niche is Instagram"

Except Instagram has more active users than Twitter...

[freehunter]

When was the last time you saw a business with nothing but an Instagram profile, or saw Instagram referenced on the news, or cited in a paper, or used for a press release?

It's not about active users, it's about how it's used.

[mkr-hn]

Everyone had an AOL keyword. AOL isn't dead, but it fell hard. Ubiquity isn't enough.

[freehunter]

Are you saying AOL wasn't mainstream? The Internet might have been niche as a whole, but out of that, AOL was as mainstream as it got. AOL was synonymous with Internet, like Facebook and Twitter are synonymous with social media.

[mkr-hn]

I said:

> Everyone had an AOL keyword. AOL isn't dead, but it fell hard. Ubiquity isn't enough.

Every business having a Twitter account won't save Twitter any better than everyone having an AOL keyword saved AOL.

[mkr-hn]

I use it to talk to people into the things I'm into. Mostly writers, furries (which has a billion subgroup interests), and artists. You wouldn't know these communities exist on Twitter from the logged-out home page, and the discovery tools don't help until you've already figured out the major players in a community.

Twitter should make the many different and largely unconnected communities a first-class part of the Twitter experience, rather than this informal thing they are now.

[sreyaNotfilc]

The big issue is this - The goal of many start ups and software companies (especially modern ones circa 2000) is to get really big and then figure out how to make money. The problem with Twitter is that its doing just that. Exactly that even after its IPO. Its humongous yet doesn't have a decent business model (thus the falling stock prices).

You can't get much bigger (well known) as a brand/company than Twitter. From networks such as CNN, FOX NEWS, ESPN, ABC, etc... Twitter is everywhere! Everyone knows them.

So, there's a check. The issue happens with the second part : what do do with our fame?

Can Twitter use their power to make services that are profitable? Yes! Do they? No, not really :(

I often wonder why it takes so long for companies like these to blatantly monetize their services. They are backed by billions yet you rarely see an ad here or a "shop" there. Its as if they feel that its a bad thing to do. Its as if they feel that they are betraying the people using their services.

I feel that these services can survive with a little more push towards that. Then again I'm not the CEO or founder of that BIG company so I'm sure most would feel that my idea is not valid. It just frustrates me that you see so much potential (money-wise and service-wise) in a product/service yet it takes a long time to see those changes.

[teaneedz]

The problem is that Twitter is trying to monetize like most with ad-tech at a time that many are becoming ad adverse. The rise of ad blockers should be a wake up call for such monetization efforts. Twitter is placing ads everywhere now. Auto play videos, promoted ads, a jumbled UX, and product decisions springing from a want-to-be-like-Facebook mindset are just damaging the brand especially with the lack of strong product leadership that exists (which shows in the official app). It's all about monetization and listening to advertisers who don't have UX chops.

[teaneedz]

Twitter has appeal and reach, but it seriously needs to get it UX in order and focus on being great at simplicity. The official app is a jumbled mess. Instead of trying to be Facebook it needs to be Twitter. I think the advertisers and many of the investors are placing too much pressure on Twitter to become more like Facebook. I'd wager that Twitter's userbase and power-user is more influential and savvier than the typical FB user. We don't want another Facebook experience.

[grok2]

Actually it is a fantastic platform for businesses to reach out to people interested in their business. It is the easiest way to do the equivalent of cold-calling and introduce your business to someone you are interested in selling to. I have always thought they don't do enough on this front to mine the possibilities here.

[moron4hire]

It's the same thing they do when they talk about Google+ being a "ghost town". Certainly doesn't look like a ghost town from my perspective. It's because Social Media gives out exactly what you yourself put in.