Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #4005 > unrolled thread

Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-07-12 17:39 +0000
    Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-07-12 20:15 +0000
      Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2014-07-13 00:05 +0100
        Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium G Skinner <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-07-13 21:40 +0000
          Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-07-14 04:21 -0500
            Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-07-15 20:51 +0100
              Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-07-15 21:00 +0000
                Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-07-15 21:09 +0000
                  Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-07-17 12:46 +0000
                    Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-07-17 14:33 +0000
                    Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-07-17 16:06 +0000
                    Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-07-17 13:55 -0400
                Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-07-15 23:59 +0100
                Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-07-16 11:32 -0500
                  Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-07-16 18:02 +0000
                  Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-07-16 19:29 +0100
                    Re: Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-07-17 07:17 -0500

#4005 — Twitter Business Model and the End of Freemium

"http://www.tomordonez.com/blog/2014/07/06/twitter-business-model-
and-the-end-of-freemium/
"

I haven't looked into this, but if it's true you'll soon have to
 pay to use Twitter it will likely be the end of twitter.  And I
 for one will rejoice. 
-- 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4006

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> "http://www.tomordonez.com/blog/2014/07/06/twitter-business-model-
> and-the-end-of-freemium/^M"
> 
> I haven't looked into this, but if it's true you'll soon have to
> pay to use Twitter it will likely be the end of twitter.  And I
> for one will rejoice. 

My motto is "Twitter is for twits".  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4008

On 12/07/2014 21:15, Jerry Peters wrote:
> My motto is "Twitter is for twits".

You're doing it wrong. I can get anything with an internet connection to 
send a tweet. My mobile provider sends me tweets via SMS for free. I 
only pay for tweets I send. So I get servers etc. I maintain to send a 
status tweet or error tweet and I receive them for free on my phone. For 
that Twitter is very useful. And free.

However, I couldn't give a monkey's what celebutards or other people do. 
So Twitter does have some real uses. But I wouldn't pay for it!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4013

mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On 12/07/2014 21:15, Jerry Peters wrote:
>> My motto is "Twitter is for twits".
> 
> You're doing it wrong. I can get anything with an internet connection to 
> send a tweet. My mobile provider sends me tweets via SMS for free. I 
> only pay for tweets I send. So I get servers etc. I maintain to send a 
> status tweet or error tweet and I receive them for free on my phone. For 
> that Twitter is very useful. And free.

Seems like a rather roundabout method of re-implementing email, except
that you're tied to a single provider which may very well pull itself
out from onder you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4015

G Skinner wrote:

>Seems like a rather roundabout method of re-implementing email
The way mm0fmf uses it, you're right. But twitter is one-to-many while email  
is normally one-to-one. We could certainly benefit from an open protocol,  
similar to email or Usenet for one-to-many messaging. RSS is almost there,  
but doesn't allow replies yet.



-- 
regards

~tdk
View this thread at http://squte.com/usenet/twitter-business-model-and-end-freemium?src=u#comment-33495

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4027

"tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> writes:

> G Skinner wrote:
>
>>Seems like a rather roundabout method of re-implementing email
> The way mm0fmf uses it, you're right. But twitter is one-to-many while
> email  is normally one-to-one. We could certainly benefit from an open
> protocol,  similar to email or Usenet for one-to-many messaging. RSS
> is almost there,  but doesn't allow replies yet.

I was confused by this post, but that's likely to be me (I am such an
old fogey I don't really know twitter at all).  In what way is it
one-to-many that the others are not?

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4028

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> writes:

> > G Skinner wrote:
> >
> > Seems like a rather roundabout method of re-implementing email The
> > way mm0fmf uses it, you're right. But twitter is one-to-many while
> > email is normally one-to-one. We could certainly benefit from an
> > open protocol, similar to email or Usenet for one-to-many
> > messaging. RSS is almost there, but doesn't allow replies yet.

> I was confused by this post, but that's likely to be me (I am such an
> old fogey I don't really know twitter at all).  In what way is it
> one-to-many that the others are not?

Note, not a twitter user either, but as best I understand it, instead
of working like email where I'd add 25 recipeients to the From: or CC:
header, with twitter others have to subscribe to listen to my ravings. 
I.e., I don't know, ahead of time, how many might receive the rant.

So in a way, it works slightly more like usenet.  We toss messages out
there, and whether you read it depends upon whether you subscribe to
view the group the message is within.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4029

On 2014-07-15, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> So in a way, it [Twitter] works slightly more like usenet.  We toss messages out
> there, and whether you read it depends upon whether you subscribe to
> view the group the message is within.

Twitter's *exactly* like Usenet, except there's only one "group" - misc.misc.

Among the many ways it's shit is that it doesn't scale. Once you follow
enough people, the Tweets arrive way faster than you can keep up, and unless
you have a Twitter client that saves them(*), they vanish off the bottom of the
list and are lost.

Yet another example of someone reinventing Usenet, badly.

(* I don't know if any do that. The two I use don't.)


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 50th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3180
Celebrate Confuflux
"I do not believe in revealed religion — I will have nothing to do with your
immortality; we are miserable enough in this life, without speculating on
another." Lord Byron, 1778-1824, letter to Rev. Francis Hodgson, 1811

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4041

On 15 Jul 2014 21:09:03 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2014-07-15, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > So in a way, it [Twitter] works slightly more like usenet.  We toss messages out
> > there, and whether you read it depends upon whether you subscribe to
> > view the group the message is within.
> 
> Twitter's *exactly* like Usenet, except there's only one "group" - misc.misc.
> 
> Among the many ways it's shit is that it doesn't scale. Once you follow
> enough people, the Tweets arrive way faster than you can keep up, and unless
> you have a Twitter client that saves them(*), they vanish off the bottom of the
> list and are lost.
> 
> Yet another example of someone reinventing Usenet, badly.
> 
> (* I don't know if any do that. The two I use don't.)

Huge is right.  I use @dicthandbook to promote my book, and a couple
dozen people follow ole' "Dick Tater" and I follow a bunch of reporters
mostly, who are reporting from the field on what dictators are doing.

To me, it's an auditorium, in which everyone is saying "Hey, XX YY ZZ
Whatever" to nobody in particular, hoping somebody is listening.  Then
you've got a whole bunch of other people simply repeating that.  It's a
huge echo chamber.  Yes you can follow interestig people and if you get
the right ones it can be a good source of information.  But the amount
of noise in that echo chamber is deafening.  Not to mention the 140
character limitation makes it useful for short, pithy declarations but
pretty awful for meaningful conversation.  I know people like it, but I
truly don't get it.  It just seems like an awful medium for exchanging
information and its related ills - like URL shorteners - make the web
less safe.  I just can't figure out why people like it so much.   Maybe
because it gives you a steady stream of novelty on your smart phone -
i.e., it's mildly distracting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4048

On 2014-07-17, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2014 21:09:03 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-07-15, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> > So in a way, it [Twitter] works slightly more like usenet.  We toss messages out
>> > there, and whether you read it depends upon whether you subscribe to
>> > view the group the message is within.
>> 
>> Twitter's *exactly* like Usenet, except there's only one "group" - misc.misc.
>> 
>> Among the many ways it's shit is that it doesn't scale. Once you follow
>> enough people, the Tweets arrive way faster than you can keep up, and unless
>> you have a Twitter client that saves them(*), they vanish off the bottom of the
>> list and are lost.
>> 
>> Yet another example of someone reinventing Usenet, badly.
>> 
>> (* I don't know if any do that. The two I use don't.)
>
> Huge is right.  

Yay!

> Not to mention the 140
> character limitation makes it useful for short, pithy declarations but
> pretty awful for meaningful conversation. 

The other horrid things people do is post longer rants as a series of
140 character lumps, or as pictures of text!

> Maybe
> because it gives you a steady stream of novelty on your smart phone -
> i.e., it's mildly distracting.

I suspect it's this. I see one or two things each day which make me laugh
out loud, which is enough to justify keeping it. I've also discovered that
ranting at corporate helpdesks on Twitter is way more effective than
other means of communicating with them.

No way in a million years would I pay for it. And I have no idea how
(or indeed, if) they are making money.


-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 52nd day of Confusion in the YOLD 3180
"I do not believe in revealed religion — I will have nothing to do with your
immortality; we are miserable enough in this life, without speculating on
another." Lord Byron, 1778-1824, letter to Rev. Francis Hodgson, 1811

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4051

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> I just can't figure out why people like it so much.

Maybe because it gives those who like to engage their mouth while their
brain is firmly in park an outlet for their BS?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4056

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, RS Wood wrote:

> On 15 Jul 2014 21:09:03 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-07-15, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> So in a way, it [Twitter] works slightly more like usenet.  We toss messages out
>>> there, and whether you read it depends upon whether you subscribe to
>>> view the group the message is within.
>>
>> Twitter's *exactly* like Usenet, except there's only one "group" - misc.misc.
>>
>> Among the many ways it's shit is that it doesn't scale. Once you follow
>> enough people, the Tweets arrive way faster than you can keep up, and unless
>> you have a Twitter client that saves them(*), they vanish off the bottom of the
>> list and are lost.
>>
>> Yet another example of someone reinventing Usenet, badly.
>>
>> (* I don't know if any do that. The two I use don't.)
>
> Huge is right.  I use @dicthandbook to promote my book, and a couple
> dozen people follow ole' "Dick Tater" and I follow a bunch of reporters
> mostly, who are reporting from the field on what dictators are doing.
>
> To me, it's an auditorium, in which everyone is saying "Hey, XX YY ZZ
> Whatever" to nobody in particular, hoping somebody is listening.  Then
> you've got a whole bunch of other people simply repeating that.  It's a
> huge echo chamber.  Yes you can follow interestig people and if you get
> the right ones it can be a good source of information.  But the amount
> of noise in that echo chamber is deafening.  Not to mention the 140
> character limitation makes it useful for short, pithy declarations but
> pretty awful for meaningful conversation.  I know people like it, but I
> truly don't get it.  It just seems like an awful medium for exchanging
> information and its related ills - like URL shorteners - make the web
> less safe.  I just can't figure out why people like it so much.   Maybe
> because it gives you a steady stream of novelty on your smart phone -
> i.e., it's mildly distracting.
>
It's because so many people have little to say.

In the early days, people came to the internet because it was about 
sharing ideas, and there was no expectation of meeting people you knew 
(since density was too low in most geographic locations).

Then it became popular, and people came to shop, or read newspapers 
online.

Then another wave, people came because their friends were online.  Email 
initially, then myspace, facebook and twitter.  These are the same people 
who'd just have phoned someone before, but somehow they've leaped to text. 
And they expect the world to be as they expect it, rather than moving into 
a different world.  They came so late that they think corporations have 
kindly given them interaction, "web 2.0".

Since they don't have much to say, the short number of characters is 
perfect for them.

ANd since they don't have much to say, being able to retweet something 
someone else said is more important than longer messages. Or, they can put 
in a URL to something significant, again most likely something someone 
else has written.  The medium isnt' about ideas, it's about "going viral".

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4034

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> writes:
>
>> > G Skinner wrote:
>> >
>> > Seems like a rather roundabout method of re-implementing email The
>> > way mm0fmf uses it, you're right. But twitter is one-to-many while
>> > email is normally one-to-one. We could certainly benefit from an
>> > open protocol, similar to email or Usenet for one-to-many
>> > messaging. RSS is almost there, but doesn't allow replies yet.
>
>> I was confused by this post, but that's likely to be me (I am such an
>> old fogey I don't really know twitter at all).  In what way is it
>> one-to-many that the others are not?
>
> Note, not a twitter user either, but as best I understand it, instead
> of working like email where I'd add 25 recipeients to the From: or CC:
> header, with twitter others have to subscribe to listen to my ravings. 
> I.e., I don't know, ahead of time, how many might receive the rant.
>
> So in a way, it works slightly more like usenet.  We toss messages out
> there, and whether you read it depends upon whether you subscribe to
> view the group the message is within.

It seemed a lot like Usenet with some access control and automatic group
creation (hash tags).

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4035

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>So in a way, it works slightly more like usenet. We toss messages out there,  
>and whether you read it depends upon whether you subscribe to view the group  
>the message is within
yes, that's what I meant. A tweet normally goes out to many people, few of  
whom answer. Mailing lists and Usenet normally have a few active participants  
who respond to each other (ie many-to-many) and lots of lurkers, and other  
email is typically one-one.

If I wanted to subscribe to all your emails or posts, regardless of which  
group you post to, I couldn't. Which might be why Usenet is more topic-based  
discussions rather than broadcasts of funny pictures.

The biggest difference though, is that Twitter has a central server, so they  
can control all messages, meaning no spam or flame wars. Some people prefer  
it outside the walled garden, which is why Usenet is still here. Most people  
prefer convenience to liberty, which is why it's only just still here.

There are some attempts [1]to create peer-to-peer replacements for twitter,  
but I think without some kind of moderation system, they will fail.



[1] http://www.wired.com/2014/01/twister/
-- 
regards

~tdk
View this thread at http://squte.com/usenet/twitter-business-model-and-end-freemium?src=u#comment-33712

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4037

tdk <forum.tdk@squte.com> wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> The biggest difference though, is that Twitter has a central server,
> so they can control all messages, meaning no spam or flame wars. Some
> people prefer it outside the walled garden, which is why Usenet is
> still here. Most people prefer convenience to liberty, which is why
> it's only just still here.

The famous Ben Franklin quote seems appropriate to your last sentence:

  Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
  temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
  Benjamin Franklin

Sadly, lots of people take the "convience" over "liberty" route...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4038

"tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> So in a way, it works slightly more like usenet. We toss messages
>> out there,  and whether you read it depends upon whether you
>> subscribe to view the group  the message is within
> yes, that's what I meant.

OK, but I did not say that!  You are quoting 'Rich'.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4040

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>OK, but I did not say that! You are quoting 'Rich'.
OK, sorry.

-- 
regards

~tdk
View this thread at http://squte.com/usenet/twitter-business-model-and-end-freemium?src=u#comment-33870

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web