Hacker News Reader

Comment by softbuilder | Hacker News Reader

See Chirpify[1], who has since pivoted. I don't know if that pivot was because of the idea or because Twitter decided it made more sense to be an ad wall than a platform.

I really, truly do not understand Twitter's thinking. I'm sure on someone's spreadsheet of imaginary numbers it looks more attractive to be a billboard, but Twitter had the opportunity to be a true platform. A platform gives you control. It's a longer-term play, but my goodness the opportunities missed. Including this one, which could have been in play years ago.

Whether people will actually use this feature is a whole other question.

[1] http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/sell-simply

Edit: Clarify first P.

View on HN

This is a little bit too hand-wavy to me. You mention only a single opportunity Twitter missed by not focusing on being a "true platform", and then you immediately hedge by saying that you're not sure people will actually use it.

Sandy comes to mind, and is actually a better example. (Although Google seems to have forgotten it existed.)

For clarity, I see Twitter as having this amazing potential as a message bus for both people, apps, and services. And I feel that potential has been squandered.

I'm unsure if this particular idea is going to pay off. But the general notion of an ecosystem of services hanging off of Twitter seems like the right one to me.

(This is usually where someone says app.net, and I say 'critical mass'.)

How do you make money as a message bus? I'm not saying I disagree (I take no position on the merits of Twitter-as-a-servce, as I am not a user), but clearly the Best Minds have decided that the attention economy (read: ads) is the way forward. How do you pay for that critical mass? Twitter isn't something that falls out of infrastructure -- decisions had and have to be taken to spend resources.

While selling people to advertisers is getting harder, and therefore less margin-friendly, it'd take a braver company than Twitter to turn their back on the model. IMO.

It's not entirely either/or. They have a website and an official app, so advertising is always going to be on the table.

You make money by charging companies for access to the platform. Charge for access, charge for users, charge per tweet. There are options. This is not a new idea. (See EDI etc.)

Advertising is way more lucrative. See $FB. HNers need to come to grips with the fact that advertising is by far the best way to monetize attention. And it's quite possible that will never change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com