

State of the Twitter, June 2008 - bootload
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/06/28/stateOfTheTwitterJune2008.html

======
tialys
Perhaps it's because I just don't "get it" but what's all the hubub about
twitters downtime? You're not paying for the service, so you really have no
expectation of service, hence I just don't get why people make such a big deal
about twitter 'letting them down.' I guess what I mean is, it's not a big
deal, and complaining about it isn't going to get them to fix it any faster
than what they're trying to now.

~~~
antiform
I think it is because in 2008, we expect a certain level of uptime for web
services. It's a good indicator of how the standards for web applications have
increased over the years.

I remember about a decade ago when I first signed up for services like Hotmail
or eBay, they would be down fairly often and for long periods of time, but it
was understood and even accepted, since they were usually free services that
did not have much direct competition. "Internet application" usually carried
implications of slow, buggy, and unreliable service. However, in the last
couple of years, it seems that we have to come to expect a near-constant
uptime for the websites we use. It points to a general up trend in application
quality and consumer expectation, which I think is healthy for both developers
and consumers.

In the end, I think Twitter speaks to Ev Williams's brilliance in building an
extremely sticky product, since people continue to Twitter despite the
downtime and the deluge of blog posts from people criticizing them at every
turn. It reminds me of how most people continued to blog on Blogspot even with
its notorious bad pre-Google uptime.

~~~
akd
> I think it is because in 2008, we expect a certain level of uptime for web
> services.

Exactly. Google is free, but what if you couldn't access it one day a month?
Sure, you could just use Yahoo, but people would still be steaming mad.

