
What Twitter and the NYT have in common - aaw
http://scripting.com/stories/2011/03/20/whatTwitterAndTheNytHaveIn.html
======
icarus_drowning
I understand why Winer says that "each is the solution to the other's problem"
(referring to Twitter and the NYT). It is a reasonable assumption to come to,
but I have to admit: I suspect its wrong. I don't think the primary reason why
most "normal" people use Twitter is to share news links. I think Dave Winer
uses it that way, but I feel like he has a tendency to assume that _his_ way
is the _only_ way. It isn't.

I also understand Winer's objection to the 140-character limit. I really do. I
personally think that it breaks Twitter for me and others who primarily access
it via the web or the data connection on our smartphones.

However, I don't think Winer understands that for people who _don't_ access
Twitter in this way, anything more that 140 characters _completely breaks_ the
service. My wife used to have a "dumb" phone and thus access Twitter entirely
through SMS. Had the service broken the 140-character limit, she would not
have been able to use it.

I don't know how many people use Twitter in this manner. I don't know if
anyone but Twitter does. I suspect, though, that Twitter doesn't change this
because they _know_ it will negatively impact enough of their userbase that it
isn't worth dealing with.

~~~
statictype
I was going to say that the 140 character limit is what separates twitter from
every other blog+rss feed combination - but now that I think about it, that's
only partially true.

Twitter's appeal is that it _is_ a blog+rss feed combination and is probably
the only one of it's kind. The technologies existed as separate entities - you
post your thoughts on your own page - you use a separate tool to read an
aggregated list of other's thoughts. Twitter combined the two into a dead
simple interface.

The 140 character limit - initially an artifact left over from the days when
sms was the primary means of using it - is now more of a practicality issue.

You can't show a steady stream of other's thoughts if they all extend to
multiple pages.

------
Tichy
Here is an idea for Twitter: they could open source their server
infrastructure and make it distributed, thereby massively reducing their
operating costs. Then they could offer paid hosting of Twitter streams for
people who are too lazy to host their own Twitter servers (the Wordpress
model).

One can dream, no? :-)

~~~
dasil003
They've taken too much investment for that to be seen as a success. They need
the control because they need 9-figure revenues, and that don't come easy for
social web services. It's a shame really because twitter as a federated
protocol would undoubtedly create more true value in the long term, and
potentially join the ranks of ftp, smtp, and http as fundamental tools. I'm
sure that would have appealed to Evan and Biz, but such things are impossible
unless set in motion before the business people get their skin in the game.

------
statictype
If what he's saying is right (and he very well could be) that's actually kind
of bad for everyone. If The New York Times can't figure out how to make money
then they will simply go out of business and we lose one of the more respected
newspapers in the world.

I'm less concerned about Twitter but I can understand that it brings enough
value to people's daily lives that not having it would be a net loss.

At least in the case of NYT, they're at least making an attempt to monetize
their business in a reasonable way - you pay us money and we give you content.

~~~
ojbyrne
Disagree. The NYT can make money by changing their cost structure to one more
conducive to distributing news via the internet. The old rule of thumb for
newspapers is that the "cover price" essentially covers distribution, and
advertising pays for everything else. Advertising should end up being the same
or larger, but the cost of distribution should be significantly less.

They'll end up there anyway, but executives tend to fight tooth and nail
against lower cost structures, because it also means lower salaries for
executives (smaller company means that fewer of them are needed and there's
less room for featherbedding).

------
mkramlich
Having some optional for-pay features seems like the no-brainer way for almost
of these "give service away for free, get huge if popular" web businesses to
get revenue. It should work for NYT, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.
Essentially, freemium bolted on late. Even if not all users would be willing
to buy anything, there will always be some folks that do. Find out what those
folks want and are willing to pay, and make that happen. Done.

