no it didn't. Odeo did, which Obvious bought back from investors (and later sold). Twitter was a product of Obvious when they realized Odeo wasn't going anywhere they wanted to be.
I know it's semantics and technicalities, but it's a striking statement of how little the article's author really fact checked- which brings into question the rest of it.
The article is just fine. Its theme is "second ideas that were more successful than original ones", and the Odeo guys' decision to switch focus to Twitter is a classic recent example.
The blurb had all of three sentences. To take up such limited space with an irrelevant distinction between Odeo and Obvious would obviously have been odious.
> After Ev Williams quit Google in 2005, he agreed to work partime for Odeo, a startup that syndicated podcasts through the RSS (the technology that brings blog posts to your Google Reader).
> The gig became fulltime, but Odeo flopped.
> So Ev and his friend Biz Stone decided to focus the company on a product Odeo employee Jack Dorsey had come up with: a site that broadcast the notes people put up in the AOL instant messenger away messages. Thus, Twitter was born.
no it didn't. Odeo did, which Obvious bought back from investors (and later sold). Twitter was a product of Obvious when they realized Odeo wasn't going anywhere they wanted to be.
I know it's semantics and technicalities, but it's a striking statement of how little the article's author really fact checked- which brings into question the rest of it.