| Twitter is ultimately infrastructure Bullshit. To reinforcer this point: in the early days of Twitter it kept falling over under the load - the one thing infrastructure should never do. It didn't matter. To further reinforcer this point: OSStatus/Identi.ca has a widely deployed, API compatible implementation of Twitter. That really is infrastructure, and yet it has had approximately zero impact on Twitter's growth or strategy - because Twitter isn't infrastructure. (Unless you mean it in the way that every single online service is ultimately infrastructure - but I don't think this is what you meant). Twitter has eyeballs too You say that like it is a minor point, whereas actually it is 90% of what matters. It also has the publishers people want to follow, for whatever your particular niche is. social platforms seem fickle at best Actually, social platforms aren't fickle: they are usually incredibly sticky (see the huge number of forums that have been running for 10+ years). Most people just look at the "social network" category and see how Friendster/MySpace/Bebo/Hi5/etc all got destroyed by the Facebook juggernaut. They never talk about the success of LinkedIn/PInterest/Twitter/Reddit/etc. In every case, those overran competitors of their own (including Facebook in some cases) to dominate their categories. That's not "fickle", that is platform strategy and product development. There is nothing preventing Twitter from becoming the next Myspace. MySpace sold to News Ltd, and then went downhill. Maybe Twitter won't sell itself to a company that is actively internet-hostile. But yes, you are correct: potentially any company could fail. |
I don't think that's it. I don't remember the acquisition disrupting their strategy much. Rather I think the quality of their code base and inability to keep up with Facebook's agility is what drove the nails in the coffin.