
Twitter Confirms It Will Launch Its Own Link Shortener - jasonlbaptiste
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/14/twitter-confirms-it-will-launch-its-own-link-shortener/
======
jonknee
That's probably why Twitter has been visiting links in tweets recently:
<http://www.jongales.com/blog/2010/04/14/whats-twitterbot0-1/>

------
keenans
Does anyone know why they haven't implemented the ability to insert good old-
fashioned hyperlinks? Links embedded in the text would save some characters in
the message and improve legibility.

~~~
qeorge
Key point is that it has to fit in 1 SMS message, that's where the whole 140
character thing comes from.

~~~
spazmaster
Also SMS fits 160 chars, not 140.

~~~
barredo
20 chars were reserved for twitter username

------
joshu
This was entirely predictable.

------
briansmith
Link shortening on Twitter only makes sense when it is provided by third-
parties (to fit inside Twitter's length restrictions) or when tweets are being
consumed over SMS (due to SMS length limits). If Twitter only shortens links
when sending them through an SMS gateway, then this will be a very positive
change over what 3rd-parties are able to provide. However, if Twitter's link
shortening service continues to inconvenience all users just so they can try
to build an analytics business around that inconvenience, then that will be a
clear sign that Twitter isn't interested in optimizing the user experience--
which they claimed was the reason for taking over the roles currently being
occupied by 3rd-party software and services.

Also, if they're goal is top optimize UX then they'll need a very short domain
name like 3.ly or j.mp. The domains suggested in this article don't make any
sense for a link shortener since they're twice as long as necessary.

~~~
briansmith
(I really wish I could fix the typos in this post.)

------
terryjsmith
Why would they foster such a strong ecosystem of applications only to stab
them in the back? I think purchasing existing third party apps to fill these
holes would make more sense both in terms of fostering less ill will the
community and getting better apps than they can likely build internall.

Edit: other posts* state that Twitter has not yet decided if it will use an
existing URL shorter or build out its own.

* [http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/04/15/twitter-launch-link-sh...](http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/04/15/twitter-launch-link-shortener/?awesm=tnw.to_15xhQ&utm_medium=tnw.to-twitter&utm_source=direct-tnw.to&utm_content=twitter-publisher-main)

~~~
bradgessler
Because bit.ly took on a round of funding which probably made them too
expensive for Twitter to buy.

<http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/01/bit-ly-1-5-million/>

Would you pay millions of dollars for an URL shortner or build your own?

~~~
terryjsmith
Unfair question: I'm a developer so I would very likely to build my own :) But
from a business perspective I would definitely consider buying it; Bitly in
particular has a lot of valuable technology that Twitter could monetize on.

Bitly seems to be the default in these discussions and it's clearly the market
leader, but there are other companies to consider. I think even starting
discussions with another company would force Bitly's asking price down
considerably. They may talk about how Twitter is _only_ 30% to 40%* of their
traffic, but no business wants to lose those kind of numbers.

* [http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-buy-but-bitly-is-waiting-for-a-big-f-ing-number-2010-4)

~~~
jakarta
Really? I mean to me, it seems like Twitter is really holding all the cards
here.

Unfortunately, it seems like an acquisition of Bitly would really amount to
charity because if they wanted, they could easily come out with their own
competing service which would likely be adopted simply because it's easier to
use. Presumably it would be right there on your twitter page or better yet,
automatic.

------
Disparity
I feel bad posting this (and will be voted down probably), but why is this
significant?

~~~
wallflower
bit.ly appeared to be the front runner for an acquisition in that Twitter
arena.

Their analytics are impressive:

<http://bit.ly/info/cjwkQI>

<http://bit.ly/info/oQJM>

~~~
tdmackey
Twitter already tried to acquire them and they declined the offer.

~~~
dbrown26
Source?

~~~
tdmackey
Thought it was just kind of well known. The first of many sources:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-
to-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-buy-but-
bitly-is-waiting-for-a-big-f-ing-number-2010-4)

------
ryanhuff
They also announced their own android app. Photo sharing is likely next.

------
puredemo
Bad news for bit.ly, but it was pretty surprising that they held out for more
money than what either Google or Twitter offered them.

------
ryandvm
I've never quite understood the URL shortener business model.

Why would Twitter buy bit.ly when they could have an intern write their own
URL shortening service in an afternoon?

URL shorteners are the "Hello World" of webapp programming.

~~~
lrm242
An intern? The entire bit.ly team doesn't even amount to one single intern,
because they clearly needed more than that to build this service at scale.
Cmon, seriously?

Besides, why would Twitter want bit.ly's thousands of corporate clients who
have custom shortened domains. You know, like the one Amazon announced today?
Bit.ly has enormous traction--that's why Twitter would want to buy them. Now,
why they didn't buy them is anyone's guess, but it certainly isn't because
they could "have an intern write their own URL shortening service in an
afternoon."

------
Kilimanjaro
<http://tw.it> would be killer

------
zecg
This is a new and disruptive idea from innovators in the field.

