Things are going to get very tiresome if everybody is going to be expected to preface every published opinion with their entire background so you can decide whether their argument has merit without reading it.
I mean, it's certainly not illegal, and one could argue that it isn't even unethical. But it's definitely in bad form. Rude. Vulgar.
And, for an insurgent platform/viewpoint to succeed, it needs tireless promotion. (Graphomania, even.)
Skip his blog posts if you don't like them, others find them valuable.
Again, I think what app.net is doing is interesting and great, just not these types of blog posts.
And the analogy of 'spending' posts isn't quite right. There is no budget constraint on internet writing to advance your cause: in many cases more is better as long as you're not repeating the exact same points. (And as I mentioned: I see both new news and analysis in this post, even though it advances a familiar theme/viewpoint.)
Lots of successes have been marketed as a contrast to an established competitor: Avis Tries Harder, The Pepsi Challenge, MCI vs. AT&T, Mac vs. PC.
I think marketing your product by criticizing your competitor is fine, but constantly blogging about how bad/evil your competitor is can be tiring and people just don't care anymore "oh, it's X criticizing Y again to promote his product, how novel!".
Compare this to someone knocking Apple for something about iOS with the explicit hope that they fix it to his liking.
Can't you judge for yourself the content you are reading?
>I think what app.net is doing is interesting and great, just not these types of blog posts.
Nice contradiction. And perspective from someone who knows what he's talking about as a result of building a competitor is invaluable insight and quite interesting to me.
I don't get why you think Dalton is doing this solely for promotional purposes, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion.
Oh, and in response to your previous post: plenty of people are "carrying the water" and are calling Twitter out on their bullshit.
Then I need to ramp up my userscript for client-side filtering Hacker News.
Perhaps it was old news from a same source if you follow the space carefully, but I suspect most readers are in my position.
And it's hard to fault a posting that is genuinely insightful for most readers.
1) There are better apps to build with Twitter's api than boring twitter clients.
2) There are plenty other clients to build for other web services if that's your thing.
3) As repeated by many people before, if you use someone's API they have control of how you use it. No point in whining, it's not like there is anything hidden or hard to understand here.
> if you use someone's API they have control of how
> you use it
Somehow I don't think this fits with the way the world works.
"There's no point in whinging about my behavior, because I'm perfectly within my rights to be an asshole"
Which is entirely different to what you stated.
"There's no point in trying to sway public opinion against me, because I'm perfectly within my rights to be an asshole"
Dalton is building disruptive infrastructure.
Since when is debunking a bad idea .. negative?
>>> His announcement was formatted as a direct reply to the official Twitter account.
This means the announcement would only be seen by his followers that also follow the official Twitter account. I don’t get the feeling he did this on purpose. An experienced Twitter user would know to add a “.” at the beginning of his message so that his followers would see it.
It seems a bit pedantic. But when top-down leaders don't get even the basic details of their operations right, then there are a lot of other big-picture things that they seem to get wrong as well. In the case of MySpace's crushing defeat by Facebook, the difference really was in the details, not in the overall ambitions of the two companies.
It's a small embarrassment to Chernin to bobble his first Tweet. The more interesting story is that he's a Hollywood deal maker, and that's more reflective of Twitter's aspirations. While he may have said some stuff about MySpace when he was at News Corp, he's really a media entertainment guy.
Chernin is not going to be leading or planning developer-relations strategies for the platform. Most likely, to your point, he's going to be there to develop content and media partnerships. He's one of the most powerful and connected people in Hollywood, and has been for 30-something years now. That's the value he's bringing. He's not a tech guy, nor does Twitter need him to be.
Small, mildly embarrassing flub of a first tweet, but Dalton's drawing way too many far-out inferences from it.
Sorry, I know I'm being dense, I just don't see Hollywood stuff in my feed very often at all.
And if Twitter is talking up Hollywood, doesn't that mean Hollywood needs Twitter more than Twitter needs a board member with connections into Hollywood?
Not only this, but with respect to news media outlets, a number of their reporters/talking heads have active Twitter accounts.
Also, just because Hollywood can benefit from Twitter doesn't mean that they are going to show up at their door begging for a deal.
i knew twitter was broken but this takes the cake.
i have been using twitter for years and had no idea.
And the many screwups with direct-messages is pretty well known...
If that riles you up, look at how SMS legacy commands still cause issues:
I would agree that's totally broken but live feeds aren't even usable past 10 or 20 followees anyway so maybe it doesn't matter that much?
His motivations are obviously only for us to guess at, but why bother replying at all if not for other people to see it?
Signed up for twitter on the day it launched(I think) and did not know that. Twitter is a painful product to use. It isn't made for humans.
Twitter doesn't have to show a username in tweets; they can easily translate it to the name.
Twitter doesn't have to require each reply to appear like an out of context note. They can easily group them as complete conversations(like facebook allowing comments).
Twitter doesn't have to make lists so hard to use. They can easily make it very similar to facebook(except on twitter there is much more need to use this since they do not filter out tweets).
Twitter doesn't have to insist on this 140 char limit that looks funnier every coming day and result in butchered communication.
Twitter doesn't have to subtract 100 characters if I post a URL that is 100 characters; it could automagically shorten it or not count against the 140 at all. Instead, I am forced to manually use bit.ly to shorten it.
Twitter doesn't have to show me a stream filled with url strings; it could easily show the title of the page or something similar to facebook.
Dear Twitter, PLEASE stop this stubbornness in your product philosophy. It is hurting your users and it is hurting Twitter Corporation.
- user names are a huge part of what makes Twitter interesting, imho it's not meant to be the type of service with real names
- replies do get grouped as complete conversations, and it's been that way for a while now.
- lists really aren't that hard to use, I don't know what your problem with it is
- and the 140 char thing is your craziest point... 140 chars is exactly what makes twitter so great and so interesting, if the messages were longer it would drastically affect how the service works and feels.
Basically what I'm getting at is that Twitter is already fantastic for users... unfortunately it isn't making them enough money, which is why they're changing so many thing about the service, but let's not pretend they're changing things because the user experience is so bad... if the experience was so bad, they wouldn't have the millions and millions of users that they have now.
I am genuinely curious of the use cases where the username adds more value than the name associated with the account. I'd also like to know what type of service twitter is supposed to be in your view.
Technically they do, but visually they are a mess. The way humans naturally converse is by adding their comments to a topic. This is why facebook lets you comment on a wall post. If you read a wall post and the comments, they make sense. On twitter, it begins with reading some random comment and then having to reverse engineer the conversation it possibly may belong to.
On twitter.com, in order to see a list, I have to click on an icon on top, click on "Lists" and then click on a list name. That is 3 clicks and a page reload compared to facebook's 1 click. Furthermore, so I click on a list, browse and want to click on another list. I must hit the "back" key resulting in a page reload, and then choose another list.
it would drastically affect how the service works and feels
Sure it may feel drastically different...but that could be for the better, no? 140 char was a great thing to launch with just as facebook restricting to college campuses was a great hook - but products evolve to accommodate wider audiences. Twitter hasn't.
My personal reading is that twitter long passed the threshold where it would be some underground place and increasingly tries to present itself for the mainstream--without changing the product to accommodate the mainstream. The equivalent would be facebook opening up to the world but building features mainly for the college market.
Well; username is actually the ID; what you use to follow someone, reply someone, promote someone, etc.
- 140 char was a great thing to launch with just as facebook restricting to college campuses was a great hook
No, the limitation is actually good in the long run, you _have_ to be concise, very useful for most kinds of massive streams of information. In my view it would be like Youtube hosting pics and users having to navigate through both kinds of media.
In the other aspects I agree with you; Twitter haves many many problems and hasn't really improved much in years. The back button is extremely broken.
I use Twitter. The 140 character limit is definitely not a feature. In addition, they could be tokenizing mentions and hashtags to save space (e.g., as a Unicode private use point followed by a 64-bit int).
When you see the amount of XML crap that is included with every tweet, the artificial limitations imposed seem all the more laughable. (See: http://www.slaw.ca/2011/11/17/the-anatomy-of-a-tweet-metadat...)
It doesn't subtract URLs at character value; it does automagically shorten URLs to a uniform tax. A bit.ly link will digest just as many characters from the tweet as a 1024 character link -- 20 characters per link. Not a recent development.
Where do you see the sign up date? I either didn't tweet for a year or deleted my tweets at some point or held another account(unlikely since I don't think I'd get my 4 letter name a year after).
edit: I have at least one other account: http://twitter.com/oonth
You signed up for your other account in March 2007.
"Place a period before the beginning of the @ if you plan on beginning your message with a mention, or else Twitter will only send that tweet to people who follow both you and the person you are mentioning."
I don't know if they'd do better by dropping the limit, but saying it's a bad limit is definitely subjective not objective.
Dalton raises some interesting questions. What exactly is twitter ? And perhaps more importantly what does Twitter think it can become? The churn in API restrictions, usage and messages certainly can be confusing.
My favorite twitter comment is that you don't have to tweet to use twitter. You can contribute to the news, and you can consume it, Twitter isn't pushing for people to use just pursue one.
Dalton understands what makes social media work - and you can see it in how he advertises App.net. If you ask "what is App.net" and look for Dalton's answer somewhere - he never explicitly states. He is deliberately vague about what it is - because it isn't anything until its users have defined what it is.
That's how twitter became successful in the first place - the service was defined by its users to become what it is now. Not just twitter, but every major social network grew the same way, and the ones that failed are those that didn't understand this.
So Twitter, Inc. need to be careful not to piss off it's content creators with aggressive advertising or constraining how they interact with it. What Twitter, Inc want their service to be is ultimately not their decision - it's up to the users.
I wrote my thoughts on this subject here in my post titled, Twitter Isn't Pivoting, It's Already A Media Company http://www.besttechie.com/2012/11/16/twitter-isnt-pivoting/
This is only partially tongue-in-cheek. The balance of information systems operate on trust, just as economies do, and eroding trust at the institutional level is a bad sign.
I think it's important to read the post with that context in mind.
The best way to consume “news and information”.
Important content is mostly created by media companies, whether they are blogs, television, radio or movies.
The main reason that “normal users” would write messages is as a backchannel to discuss media events such as the Olympics, Election Coverage, or a new television show. “Normal user” tweets are something akin to Facebook comments.
Even though this backchannel exists, it’s not expected that brands and celebrities are supposed to pay much attention to everything that is said. Chernin himself hasn’t replied to the numerous replies he received."
That's funny because that's how I used Twitter from the beginning (5 years ago).
"a media company writing software that is optimized for mostly passive users interested in a media and entertainment filter."
What's wrong in being media company? We all agree that software is eating the world, so why is it bad if Twitter is "disrupting" real-time media consumption? I loved Twitter's Olympics coverage. Even though I was thousands of miles away from London, I could feel the excitement.
Same for Hurricane Sandy. It was so useful to get latest news update in such a terrible time (for everyone involved). I was caught in another disaster few years back and the biggest problem was not getting important news updates from credible agencies/people. Twitter solved that problem for Hurricane Sandy coverage.
Twitter/FB are becoming like "breaking news" for every news. Be it earthquakes, celebrity gossip, world cups, olympics or new product launches!
My main problem is my diverse interest in different subjects and twitters current inability to let me organize and follow what I like.
I'm following approx. 200 people divided 30% technology, 30% cycling and 30% friends/locals. For me, it would be impossible to imagine following more than 250 or 300 people with todays interface - because they are all thrown into each other and reading the raw feed is a clutter and mess of subjects.
You would think, considering their main goal is to get people following their interest, that they would get this part of the interface right. But the contrary - it is what is worst with twitter.
The solution (and problem) I'm hinting to is of course lists and as Facebook, G+ and virtually every other social network already have found out: people like to organize interests, people and subjects into different "buckets". Facebook had a lame interface for this many years, but does a better job now.
My point is, as an experienced twitter user, I know where the pains are and my first day in office I would make sure that the accessibility of lists were greatly improved.
The second day I would use to fix a decent conversation view and comprehensible reply scheme.
EDIT: To point out the inaccessibility of lists today, here is the general way to read up on a subject: tool-icon > lists > choose list. That's 2 clicks too many.
You could also use the shortcut "gl" and spare 2 clicks, but still, it is 1 request too much and way too complex for the regular user.
HootSuite doesn't have the prettiest interface but it is functional and reasonably fast for a web client so it works for me.
I would like to see something split the list of accounts I follow into subject-based lists or something so that I can consume with context.
At some point, I think following becomes less important. Ideally Twitter could just show me tweets that I should enjoy. I'm not looking to get every update anyway -- I just want to dip into a stream of info that I'd find both timely and relevant.
He's been using it for a long time to consume news and information. Ok, makes sense. Yet this is apparently objectionable or at the very least damming. I think it's damming because he says he's a consumer not a producer of tweets. Is this news to anyone?
"Admit failure and give up on trying to get normal people to tweet" The balance in twitter's tweet creation and consumption happened organically. Kudos to Twitter for allowing it to happen vs forcing unnatural acts? "You should tweet more!" I don't look too closely but it seems like it's been an open secret for 2 + years that 80% of all tweets come from 5 - 10% of users or whatever.
I guess I wouldn't call it a pivot if Twitter is focusing heavily on the 10% that do 90% of the tweeting vs trying to get the other 90% to tweet more.
While I don't necessarily agree with his wording in every blog post, this is an awesome interview.
Do people really need a short-form messaging platform for communication?
They cover everything from the early days of Excel's API to the downfall of myspace and the rise of YouTube and Photobucket, and how twitter took off. It's worth your time.
What are you saying? Fourteen year olds and ethnic minorities use this website. How normal can you get?
"An experienced Twitter user would know to add a “.” at the beginning of his message"
Thanks for the protip, Dalton.
Think about it: Politicians who have been trained in the art of speaking in soundbites have been ruling much of the world since the advent of electronic media.
Those who can't phrase their arguments in bite-sized pieces for busy people to digest come across as being ineffective intellectuals.
Titter gives ordinary people the ability to communicate in soundbites. Sometimes less is more. This is society-changing powerful stuff.