How much was Next making when Apple bought them in 1996?
OK, it is not exactly the same, Next did have revenue, but that is not what Apple bought them for. Apple saw something there that they needed. They were willing to pay hundreds of millions even if most people didn't know what their plan was...
But we all know why Apple really bought NeXT......
I agree. Buy AT&T, completly overhaul the company and make somewhat fair plans available to all, then perhaps also use your influence with other carriers around the world to do something about the rediculous overseas roaming and data charges.
*wakes up*
Seriously though, AT&T could be had for a few billion, right? and with a couple billion more you could leap into 4G faster... then really tightly integrate the iphone, mobileMe + visual voicemail, etc.
That might be pretty cool, if not an almighty headache for apple.
Funny, there was also a report today that Apple was going to buy EA. I'd believe that one before this Twitter story. This reeks of Disney buying Apple. It makes no sense.
If anything I see the rumors probably having more to do with Apple being more tightly integrated with Twitter. Twitter access being built into the default apps for the iPhone, etc. That's about all.
If people looked up the definition of the word "Twit" maybe they would realize how stupid Twitter actually is. What a useless service.
Well I thought Twitter was incredibly dumb for a long time, even long after I started using it, but I can see it has it's place now and it *is* useful for many many people.
It's true that it would never have got off the ground if the owners were English though.
I don't use FaceBook, don't like it. I don't say I hate it though, no reason, it's also a waste of energy. Oh, but I do know (of) 200,000,000 people that use it.
Correction, you know of 200,000,000 people that created an account. The number of people who actually use it is something less than that. And for Twitter, I suspect that the ratio of active users vs # of accounts created is much, much lower than that even.
Funnily enough I've already though about this privately for whatever reason. "I wonder if Apple is eyeing Twitter?" - I thought to myself. This is a gem this service. Apple could make it a cultural persuasion. Do what Google did for YouTube. And Apple likes simple. This news is extremely interesting to me, being that I'm in the process of setting up a (simple) Twitter-related service.
Twitter isn't a flash in the pan guys, everyone says that until they end up realizing the value in it, and in turn are using it. One great thing about it is everyone uses it differently. I use it rather than e-mail in some cases, quite a bit. When using it rather than e-mail it forces u to get to the heart of the matter, and it makes it quick for the person on the other end to get the point. And no, IM is not the same thing, it's different.
Yeah, IM is private but Twitter is not (this has burned a lot of people on Twitter already). I just don't buy into it yet, no matter how popular it may remain.
There was recently a group of young people stuck in an elevator who twittered their way out. They all had cell phones but it never occurred to them to call 911? They were in the elevator for an hour before rescue officials told them how to push a button that would let them out!
Technology should help advance our thinking not make us dumber.
There was recently a group of young people stuck in an elevator who twittered their way out. They all had cell phones but it never occurred to them to call 911? They were in the elevator for an hour before rescue officials told them how to push a button that would let them out!
I think that pretty much sums up the good majority of people who use twitter...
Facebook is trying to imitate Twitter in many respects, much to the dismay of many users when the new features and layout were recently introduced. So, Twitter is obviously having an impact on FB's popularity. And as FB continues to throw users off who "use the service too much," they will eventually make themselves obsolete.
My prediction: Apple will not buy Twitter. Twitter will buy Facebook.
Actually, the new Facebook layout/format made it LESS like Twitter is some respects. The old layout included the Live Feed tab that constantly updated your Home page with all of your friend's updates, profile changes, added photos, etc. The new Home page includes less information and needs to be manually refreshed to get updated into. However, it adds some additional filtering.
Add that new filtering to the Live Feed tab from the old layout and then SMS is to your phone or RSS it to your computer client and you've got Twitter on steriods.
I assume all of that can be done with existing internet standards. I can't see anything Twitter has worth $500 million, much less $700 million, from a technology/intellectual property standpoint. They have a user base, but even that has questionable long-term viability.
I hated IM when it first came out (tribal fusion days)...annoying, interrupting, a waste of time (IMO) but millions flocked to it and my sister even met her husband using it. I still don't use it because it's not for me but I text message all the time now instead of making a phone call because texting is portable (and can be ignored much easier than IM)
Twitter does have a lot of flaws but has huge potential to be one of the most influential communications platforms of the future.
We can keep our heads in the sand or we can recognize the potential/opportunity.
I see no reason for Apple to invest or buy into such a tedious system.
Because you know crap, about what you are talking about, here are some twitter facts. Twitter is built using ruby on rails, one of the best frameworks around. Twitter also scaled back to 140 characters
to make this system robust. Its a open framework and essentially each Twitter member account is an RSS feed so If you are calling one of the main technologies of the web tedious I question your comprehension... Frankly apple some gains to be made from acquiring twitter and given that ROR is built into leopard I find this rumor interesting.
I know people who do this sort of thing with Twitter and that's my reaction.
I personally don't get why I would need to know ever little mediocre thing someone else is doing regularly but I can't deny that it's quite popular.
It's basically to SMS what Skype is to phone calls with multiple group features.
As for Apple buying it, I think I've seen service problems with Twitter before so if they wanted a reliable service that was integral to their Mac experience then buying it up would make sense. Plus, it has a branding that fits with Apple's style.
Nothing more annoying when some indulgent twit occupies my whole Facebook page letting me and the rest of their 6000 close friends know that they just arrived at the airport, bought a latte or whatever else totally boring thing they just did.
two words: "Hide" and "Lists" - nobody's feelings are hurt and problem solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
DOn't worry - you'll get MMS texting like the rest of the world next month. Very easy and simple to use. Much better than twitter.
for what it's better for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
And doing exactly that via Twitter is superior... how?
For the Twits out there (very appropriate verbiage, btw), PLEASE educate me. I'm only being half sarcastic there. I need to have someone who ostensibly understands this service explain its value to me.
And here are some (some fairly wild and maybe important new) things Twitter seems better for......
Methinks this forum's more populated by the hardware oriented than the social networkers. Especially as so many talk of "twittering" when it's "tweeting" to real buzzword-compliant twit heads. Kind of like that senator calling the internet "a series of tubes" or your Aunt Sadie "uploading a file" from her C:/ drive to Word. But I tweak, so enough baiting.
Seriously, though read the first NY Times link above and then try to say something important isn't happening here, even if what it is ain't immediately clear..... (apologies to Buffalo Springfield)
BTW, I joined Twitter a few months ago, but have yet to make or read a tweet. One need not engage to appreciate the birth of a new social phenomenon. (But I am admittedly wasting too much of my life on facebook, tho'.)
...Apple applications could act as a front-end to Twitter distribution of media content. It might be easier for some to understand than RSS. I'm surprised at how many Internet junkies no nothing about RSS, but they know what Twitter is.
This guy posted on Seeking Alpha this morning with an example of what I was saying.
"The thing that really excites me about Twitter is the ability to personalize the news in a way that has never been done before. If you?re an NBA fan, you don?t have to rely on ESPN for the inside scoop; now you can follow Shaquille O?Neal or Steve Nash or Kobe Bryant on Twitter."
He thinks Twitter is the first time you could do these things. What about RSS ? Say "RSS" and people's eyes glaze over. (not the people on this board) Say Twitter and they get it working.
Yes, Seeking Alpha has some pretty bad posters. In general this guy has been pretty good.
I still think it's just a rumor, and after Skype eBay I think it would be a waste of money. It would come down to what the user accounts are worth and nothing more.
Because you know crap, about what you are talking about, here are some twitter facts. Twitter is built using ruby on rails, one of the best frameworks around. Twitter also scaled back to 140 characters
to make this system robust. Its a open framework and essentially each Twitter member account is an RSS feed so If you are calling one of the main technologies of the web tedious I question your comprehension... Frankly apple some gains to be made from acquiring twitter and given that ROR is built into leopard I find this rumor interesting.
I always thought Twitter was moving towards an Erlang-based backbone (ejabberd, RabbitMQ, YAWS) and Erlang is certainly the mutts nutts for scaleability - the web server YAWS can handle 80,000 sessions when on the same kit Apache chokes at 2000.
Thing is, Twitter is NOT a tech buy IMHO, so I am perplexed as to what the deal is.
Comments
How much was Next making when Apple bought them in 1996?
OK, it is not exactly the same, Next did have revenue, but that is not what Apple bought them for. Apple saw something there that they needed. They were willing to pay hundreds of millions even if most people didn't know what their plan was...
But we all know why Apple really bought NeXT......
But we all know why Apple really bought NeXT......
well, that too...
A waste of time- bloatware= twitter.
I agree. Buy AT&T, completly overhaul the company and make somewhat fair plans available to all, then perhaps also use your influence with other carriers around the world to do something about the rediculous overseas roaming and data charges.
*wakes up*
Seriously though, AT&T could be had for a few billion, right? and with a couple billion more you could leap into 4G faster... then really tightly integrate the iphone, mobileMe + visual voicemail, etc.
That might be pretty cool, if not an almighty headache for apple.
Of course it'd be a crazy reversal if you think about it with an Apple game on a Microsoft xbox, Apple software on Microsoft hardware!
If anything I see the rumors probably having more to do with Apple being more tightly integrated with Twitter. Twitter access being built into the default apps for the iPhone, etc. That's about all.
If people looked up the definition of the word "Twit" maybe they would realize how stupid Twitter actually is. What a useless service.
Well I thought Twitter was incredibly dumb for a long time, even long after I started using it, but I can see it has it's place now and it *is* useful for many many people.
It's true that it would never have got off the ground if the owners were English though.
I don't use FaceBook, don't like it. I don't say I hate it though, no reason, it's also a waste of energy. Oh, but I do know (of) 200,000,000 people that use it.
Correction, you know of 200,000,000 people that created an account. The number of people who actually use it is something less than that. And for Twitter, I suspect that the ratio of active users vs # of accounts created is much, much lower than that even.
Funnily enough I've already though about this privately for whatever reason. "I wonder if Apple is eyeing Twitter?" - I thought to myself. This is a gem this service. Apple could make it a cultural persuasion. Do what Google did for YouTube. And Apple likes simple. This news is extremely interesting to me, being that I'm in the process of setting up a (simple) Twitter-related service.
Twitter isn't a flash in the pan guys, everyone says that until they end up realizing the value in it, and in turn are using it. One great thing about it is everyone uses it differently. I use it rather than e-mail in some cases, quite a bit. When using it rather than e-mail it forces u to get to the heart of the matter, and it makes it quick for the person on the other end to get the point. And no, IM is not the same thing, it's different.
Yeah, IM is private but Twitter is not (this has burned a lot of people on Twitter already). I just don't buy into it yet, no matter how popular it may remain.
There was recently a group of young people stuck in an elevator who twittered their way out. They all had cell phones but it never occurred to them to call 911? They were in the elevator for an hour before rescue officials told them how to push a button that would let them out!
Technology should help advance our thinking not make us dumber.
There was recently a group of young people stuck in an elevator who twittered their way out. They all had cell phones but it never occurred to them to call 911? They were in the elevator for an hour before rescue officials told them how to push a button that would let them out!
I think that pretty much sums up the good majority of people who use twitter...
Dumbasses.
Facebook is trying to imitate Twitter in many respects, much to the dismay of many users when the new features and layout were recently introduced. So, Twitter is obviously having an impact on FB's popularity. And as FB continues to throw users off who "use the service too much," they will eventually make themselves obsolete.
My prediction: Apple will not buy Twitter. Twitter will buy Facebook.
Actually, the new Facebook layout/format made it LESS like Twitter is some respects. The old layout included the Live Feed tab that constantly updated your Home page with all of your friend's updates, profile changes, added photos, etc. The new Home page includes less information and needs to be manually refreshed to get updated into. However, it adds some additional filtering.
Add that new filtering to the Live Feed tab from the old layout and then SMS is to your phone or RSS it to your computer client and you've got Twitter on steriods.
I assume all of that can be done with existing internet standards. I can't see anything Twitter has worth $500 million, much less $700 million, from a technology/intellectual property standpoint. They have a user base, but even that has questionable long-term viability.
Yeah, IM is private but Twitter is not (this has burned a lot of people on Twitter already).
I'd say maybe the people that got burned deserved it. Nobody gave any pretense of privacy. Unless you set it otherwise, it's a broadcast medium.
Music? Who would want to play music on a computer (phone)? Computers are for Business!
Advertising always follows the eyeballs. Cave drawings (Mr Grok) Pamphlets (Mr Paine) Newpapers (Mr Hearst) TV (Mr Sarnoff) Holographic projections (Ms Laya)
I hated IM when it first came out (tribal fusion days)...annoying, interrupting, a waste of time (IMO) but millions flocked to it and my sister even met her husband using it. I still don't use it because it's not for me but I text message all the time now instead of making a phone call because texting is portable (and can be ignored much easier than IM)
Twitter does have a lot of flaws but has huge potential to be one of the most influential communications platforms of the future.
We can keep our heads in the sand or we can recognize the potential/opportunity.
cheers,
Joe
I see no reason for Apple to invest or buy into such a tedious system.
Because you know crap, about what you are talking about, here are some twitter facts. Twitter is built using ruby on rails, one of the best frameworks around. Twitter also scaled back to 140 characters
to make this system robust. Its a open framework and essentially each Twitter member account is an RSS feed so If you are calling one of the main technologies of the web tedious I question your comprehension... Frankly apple some gains to be made from acquiring twitter and given that ROR is built into leopard I find this rumor interesting.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/...t-twitter.html
Apple is NOT eBay.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/futureman-and-twitter-blog.jpg
I personally don't get why I would need to know ever little mediocre thing someone else is doing regularly but I can't deny that it's quite popular.
It's basically to SMS what Skype is to phone calls with multiple group features.
As for Apple buying it, I think I've seen service problems with Twitter before so if they wanted a reliable service that was integral to their Mac experience then buying it up would make sense. Plus, it has a branding that fits with Apple's style.
LMAO - really cool, dude!
Nothing more annoying when some indulgent twit occupies my whole Facebook page letting me and the rest of their 6000 close friends know that they just arrived at the airport, bought a latte or whatever else totally boring thing they just did.
two words: "Hide" and "Lists" - nobody's feelings are hurt and problem solved.
DOn't worry - you'll get MMS texting like the rest of the world next month. Very easy and simple to use. Much better than twitter.
for what it's better for.
And doing exactly that via Twitter is superior... how?
For the Twits out there (very appropriate verbiage, btw), PLEASE educate me. I'm only being half sarcastic there. I need to have someone who ostensibly understands this service explain its value to me.
And here are some (some fairly wild and maybe important new) things Twitter seems better for......
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/te...tter.html?_r=1
http://www.doshdosh.com/ways-you-can-use-twitter/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/te...h/12pogue.html
http://tinyurl.com/2q8x5a
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/te...gy/21link.html
I could easily go on.
Methinks this forum's more populated by the hardware oriented than the social networkers. Especially as so many talk of "twittering" when it's "tweeting" to real buzzword-compliant twit heads. Kind of like that senator calling the internet "a series of tubes" or your Aunt Sadie "uploading a file" from her C:/ drive to Word. But I tweak, so enough baiting.
Seriously, though read the first NY Times link above and then try to say something important isn't happening here, even if what it is ain't immediately clear..... (apologies to Buffalo Springfield)
BTW, I joined Twitter a few months ago, but have yet to make or read a tweet. One need not engage to appreciate the birth of a new social phenomenon. (But I am admittedly wasting too much of my life on facebook, tho'.)
...Apple applications could act as a front-end to Twitter distribution of media content. It might be easier for some to understand than RSS. I'm surprised at how many Internet junkies no nothing about RSS, but they know what Twitter is.
This guy posted on Seeking Alpha this morning with an example of what I was saying.
"The thing that really excites me about Twitter is the ability to personalize the news in a way that has never been done before. If you?re an NBA fan, you don?t have to rely on ESPN for the inside scoop; now you can follow Shaquille O?Neal or Steve Nash or Kobe Bryant on Twitter."
He thinks Twitter is the first time you could do these things. What about RSS ? Say "RSS" and people's eyes glaze over. (not the people on this board) Say Twitter and they get it working.
Yes, Seeking Alpha has some pretty bad posters. In general this guy has been pretty good.
I still think it's just a rumor, and after Skype eBay I think it would be a waste of money. It would come down to what the user accounts are worth and nothing more.
Because you know crap, about what you are talking about, here are some twitter facts. Twitter is built using ruby on rails, one of the best frameworks around. Twitter also scaled back to 140 characters
to make this system robust. Its a open framework and essentially each Twitter member account is an RSS feed so If you are calling one of the main technologies of the web tedious I question your comprehension... Frankly apple some gains to be made from acquiring twitter and given that ROR is built into leopard I find this rumor interesting.
I always thought Twitter was moving towards an Erlang-based backbone (ejabberd, RabbitMQ, YAWS) and Erlang is certainly the mutts nutts for scaleability - the web server YAWS can handle 80,000 sessions when on the same kit Apache chokes at 2000.
Thing is, Twitter is NOT a tech buy IMHO, so I am perplexed as to what the deal is.
It's estimated that there are now approximately 25 million Twitter users worldwide
AKA: Twits...