|
|
|
|
|
by pjjw
3908 days ago
|
|
i think it's funny seeing analyses of twitter that act like the problem is that the product needs tuning. the problem is they need to make money, and as-is there's basically not much good reason to pay them for advertising over facebook, who offer much better targeting. |
|
At one point years ago, perhaps for the first time in history, a single company (Twitter) had the opportunity for it's privately owned HTTP API to become a ubiquitous defacto Internet Protocol for a particular type of global communication (the notification message) potentially replacing email. (tweet + privmsg could have threatened email)
If they would have stepped into this integrative role, by keeping the API access open and available as a building block for third party developers then I think this may be precipitated quite naturally.
Just as a small example of what I mean by procotol.. the entire "Internet of things" could likely be running on top of Twitter with the twitter @name serving as the defacto way for your refrigerator to claim it's unique global identity and to route messages to your toaster.
More importantly I think Twitter would have become the defacto Internet Protocol for both notifications and Identity / Reputation. It would have meant that new systems wouldn't have been able to afford to not integrate with Twitter which contrasts greatly with today's situation where none of them can integrate with because of the onerous legal restrictions outlined in the terms. I believe that in order to achieve this Twitter should optimize for SCALE rather than revenue. Restrictive terms are massive friction for scale because they dramatically limit the number of vectors through which any individual can discover the product and engage with it.