What is there after Twitter? Facebook never was and never will be an option for me.
+1, but the rest of my family seems addicted to it, as are many of my friends. I know some here (or a LOT here) have some fear of Google and ads, but to me Facebook is so much more intrusive, and has so much more personal information gathered on it's users than Google could ever wish for. I'm still amazed at the intimate details of people's lives that they're willing to put out there on Facebook.
What is there after Twitter? Facebook never was and never will be an option for me.
There’s Gab, which sets itself up as a Twitter alternative (higher character count, too).
What's the link on that one? There's no gab.com...
Aha. Found it: www.gab.ai
Looks like this is the more libertarian alternative to Twitter. Basically no censorship, except no violent threats and a few other restrictions. Strangely enough, Wired.com calls this the "white supremacist" version of Twitter: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/gab-alt-rights-twitter-ultimate-filter-bubble/
I remembered I used to get on Brightkite once in awhile and was one of their beta testers IIRC. I think they rolled out around the same time as Twitter. In any event I guess they're shut down now as I see no sign of them.
There would be nothing but downside for Apple. I could see Amazon buying it. I could see the NSA buying it.
The NSA is neck deep with Twitter, Facebook and Google. I recently saw many links and videos disappear in a hurry when a certain politician displayed signs of a disease that affects a well known retired boxer.
If either of them purchases Twitter I will delete my Twitter account.
No you won't.
You never know. When facebook acquired Instagram, I stopped using the service.
When Fox acquired Myspace, it was quickly abandoned. When Facebook acquired instagram, everyone abandoned it. It was a fad product to begin with. When Yahoo acquired Tumblr, I stopped using it... well mostly everyone reduced their usage knowing how god-awful Yahoo has been about product management. When Google acquired Youtube, it was largely independent until they tried to force G+ on everyone and turned it into a huge pain in the ass, and that also did nothing to curb the trolling on it. Google is now trying to turn Youtube into a social media platform (wtf google, you failed) so it would make sense for Google to try and acquire Twitter, but I have a feeling that they will screw it up, much like every acquisition, and people who already hate G+ will abandon it. Youtube is something that I think Google regrets buying much in the same way eBay regrets buying Skype. Back in 2007 there was much talk inside eBay about how eBay, Paypal and Skype were meant for each other, and now look at it. When Microsoft bought Skype, it shutdown it's own MSN messenger service, but people started abandoning Skype for other products, eventually Slack becoming the winner. This is again, because everyone who has handled Skype has ignored the core technology (a peer to peer messaging/VoIP product) and tried to take the P2P aspect out of it. Verizon bought AOL and is buying Yahoo, largely to expand their advertising base. If they bought Twitter you'd see Twitter become 60 second ads between tweets.
Of all the suitors, Salesforce is probably the worst one, they've acquired 40 companies and extinguished them in favor of their own brand. You'd see Twitter become "Salesforce social messenger" or some dorky name. When I think salesforce, I don't think of a successful cloud computing company, I think of the CRM software it started with.
So what is the lesson nobody seems to be learning here? You can't buy a good product and turn it into your vision. If you don't honor the original products vision, it decays rather quickly and is abandoned. "Your" (as in the acquiring company) vision for the product is stupid.
How old are you? Instagram and Skype are wildly popular.
Apple missed a golden opportunity to acquire Twitter before they went public and also clean up the product and bring it back to its roots. It was the perfect social network for Apple and even Dorsey acknowledged at the time that if they were to sell it would be to Apple. As of now Twitter is worth too much. Apple's Ping and Connect efforts suggest they have social ambitions so the opposite argument holds no water. They should have bought Twitter way back when and made Dorsey their social media exec. I cannot think of a more perfect fit. And while they were at it they could have hired Loren Brichter to work alongside Dorsey to build the perfect Twitter clients for Apple's platforms.
I can think of zero synergies between Apple and Twitter. I can think of plenty negative synergies between the two, however. Also, before it went public, Twitter had a much smaller number of users than it currently does.
What exactly would Apple do with a 140-character communication system to meet its "social ambitions" (whatever those were)? Even Google and Microsoft -- almost entirely software companies -- couldn't make a go of their "social ambitions". Facebook has, for better or worse, run away with that market. Given that Facebook has aggressively pursued and bought high-priced social networking companies in the past (recall their $19B acquisition of WhatsApp a couple of years ago), the fact that they have had zero interest in Twitter tells us all we need to know about the quality of the asset.
It would probably be a good fit for Facebook (they tried to buy twitter a while ago - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/twitter-biz-stone-facebook_n_5072075.html ) but they might not be able to put up enough money and they have enough messaging products already. LinkedIn went for $26b. Twitter's value estimates are crazy in light of how much income they make:
Never made a profit in all its 10 years, growth has stalled and they made over $2b in losses since 2011. They have about $3b in real net assets and are burning through $0.5b per year.
Financially, it's little more than a ponzi scheme. Without making a profit, the company is surviving on the investment from shareholders and to keep going, they need more. They need a company with deep pockets that doesn't care about generating a profit. Facebook's past purchases fit well with that but there's only so many times it can be done. If Facebook could cut twitter's costs by using some of their own infrastructure, maybe they could turn twitter into something profitable but they'll probably wait it out. If cash dries up for twitter over the next few years, the valuation will fall.
Apple already has the Messages app. They process more messages than twitter. They could flip a switch to add a 'public' version of Messages. It would just be a feed separate from personal messaging and the user would send messages to it. Users would subscribe to it using a generated id and they'd check the feeds in Messages like normal texts. It just wouldn't be internet-based. It can be cross-platform using an API.
Facebook owns WhatsApp and they handle even more messages. They have Facebook Messenger too. Twitter is trying to meet the need for this kind of private messaging to compete with WhatsApp:
The idea behind twitter is good in theory. You can message anyone in the world, no matter how famous or far away. In reality, it's not that interesting reading 140 character soundbites from famous people and even less interesting from everybody else. It should really be called bicker because that's all people seem to be doing on it. It's the most mundane conversations that you normally get in texts but for everyone to see. Private messaging is much more useful day-to-day but the problem is getting people to pay for that.
WhatsApp's subscription model was an ok way to go. First year free and $0.99/year after but it would probably have to be more than that to be worth having a fee. If twitter became a replacement for Skype, WhatsApp, News feeds, Customer Service/Bots etc while retaining its public side, it would get more use. It could do with having features like being able to quickly exchange direct messaging details. This is always a nuisance, having to dig out whatever random id you have or some 8 digit number and either email it or spell it out over the phone or loudly at a party and these ids become accessible to everyone and need changed. The private connection codes should be one-time use or recurring with manual expiry (like for selling something online taking multiple calls and then cancelling it once the sale is done) so they can't be randomly shared around with people and spammers and it should be easy to send to someone close to you e.g by sending a tone over a phone call or being in proximity with someone. An office for example can instantly connect everyone in the office just by having an app open together.
There are a few things twitter could do to be more appealing to users but that's not the problem they need to solve. They need to start generating profit and nobody wants to pay for conversation when so many competitors will give it away for 'free'. This is a reflection of the lack of inherent value in internet communication. If all the social networks disappeared tomorrow, who would really care? They are only important to people because of real connections to real people and those would continue to exist without the social networks.
You could start your own blog or messaging platform and make your own rules, but even then there are limits, as the courts could shut you down if the free speech crosses the line, especially with regard to the constitution, public safety or national security. A private or public corporation can censor whatever they want on their own network and I think that is totally appropriate.
I'm pretty sure it is evaluated on a case by case basis and not censoring Trump is probably a net gain for Twitter. They would be sued for millions if they did censor him unlike shutting down foreign terrorists or even domestic hate groups who have no high priced lawyers.
They banned Milo for practicing free speech. Even though that Ghostbusters lady was calling him "faggot" and such.
Some homosexuals identify themselves as ‘faggots’; one man’s slur is another man’s “triggered if you don’t call me that.”
volcan said: the courts could shut you down if the free speech crosses the line, especially with regard to the constitution, public safety or national security.
These are the only points on which a court would have any sort of standing, and in those cases there are very well demarcated, legally-defined boundaries of content. The first amendment is the recognition of protection of all other forms of expression.
I wholeheartedly think that Twitter is overvalued and Apple shouldn't buy it. But, anyone else find it interesting that Apple just woke up their long dormant main account to buy ads on Twitter and now acquisition talks pop up again?
These are the only points on which a court would have any sort of standing, and in those cases there are very well demarcated, legally-defined boundaries of content. The first amendment is the recognition of protection of all other forms of expression.
By mentioning constitutional law and amendments I meant that you are not allowed to make threatening remarks that are discriminating against people of particular ethnicities or religions.
By mentioning tconstitutional law and amendments I meant that you are not allowed to make threatening remarks that are discriminating against people of particular ethnicities or religions.
The Constitution makes no mention of that as a matter of the first amendment.
Comments
Looks like there are a few:
Sea Lion Club
www.sealion.club
AppNet
www.app.net
Maybe even Tumblr?
Aha. Found it: www.gab.ai
Looks like this is the more libertarian alternative to Twitter. Basically no censorship, except no violent threats and a few other restrictions. Strangely enough, Wired.com calls this the "white supremacist" version of Twitter: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/gab-alt-rights-twitter-ultimate-filter-bubble/
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/twtr/financials?query=income-statement
Never made a profit in all its 10 years, growth has stalled and they made over $2b in losses since 2011. They have about $3b in real net assets and are burning through $0.5b per year.
Financially, it's little more than a ponzi scheme. Without making a profit, the company is surviving on the investment from shareholders and to keep going, they need more. They need a company with deep pockets that doesn't care about generating a profit. Facebook's past purchases fit well with that but there's only so many times it can be done. If Facebook could cut twitter's costs by using some of their own infrastructure, maybe they could turn twitter into something profitable but they'll probably wait it out. If cash dries up for twitter over the next few years, the valuation will fall.
Apple already has the Messages app. They process more messages than twitter. They could flip a switch to add a 'public' version of Messages. It would just be a feed separate from personal messaging and the user would send messages to it. Users would subscribe to it using a generated id and they'd check the feeds in Messages like normal texts. It just wouldn't be internet-based. It can be cross-platform using an API.
Facebook owns WhatsApp and they handle even more messages. They have Facebook Messenger too. Twitter is trying to meet the need for this kind of private messaging to compete with WhatsApp:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/21/twitter-whatsapp-direct-message-chat-upgrade
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/18/whatsapp-nudge-to-share-data-with-facebook
The idea behind twitter is good in theory. You can message anyone in the world, no matter how famous or far away. In reality, it's not that interesting reading 140 character soundbites from famous people and even less interesting from everybody else. It should really be called bicker because that's all people seem to be doing on it. It's the most mundane conversations that you normally get in texts but for everyone to see. Private messaging is much more useful day-to-day but the problem is getting people to pay for that.
WhatsApp's subscription model was an ok way to go. First year free and $0.99/year after but it would probably have to be more than that to be worth having a fee. If twitter became a replacement for Skype, WhatsApp, News feeds, Customer Service/Bots etc while retaining its public side, it would get more use. It could do with having features like being able to quickly exchange direct messaging details. This is always a nuisance, having to dig out whatever random id you have or some 8 digit number and either email it or spell it out over the phone or loudly at a party and these ids become accessible to everyone and need changed. The private connection codes should be one-time use or recurring with manual expiry (like for selling something online taking multiple calls and then cancelling it once the sale is done) so they can't be randomly shared around with people and spammers and it should be easy to send to someone close to you e.g by sending a tone over a phone call or being in proximity with someone. An office for example can instantly connect everyone in the office just by having an app open together.
There are a few things twitter could do to be more appealing to users but that's not the problem they need to solve. They need to start generating profit and nobody wants to pay for conversation when so many competitors will give it away for 'free'. This is a reflection of the lack of inherent value in internet communication. If all the social networks disappeared tomorrow, who would really care? They are only important to people because of real connections to real people and those would continue to exist without the social networks.
I'm pretty sure it is evaluated on a case by case basis and not censoring Trump is probably a net gain for Twitter. They would be sued for millions if they did censor him unlike shutting down foreign terrorists or even domestic hate groups who have no high priced lawyers.
But, anyone else find it interesting that Apple just woke up their long dormant main account to buy ads on Twitter and now acquisition talks pop up again?