Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

89 comments

Hmm. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29378113)

Will Twitter finally jump the whale? One can only hope.

the downside: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29378129)

they will become an irrelevent has-been 2 weeks later.

Re:the downside: (5, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378355)

they will become an irrelevent has-been 2 weeks later.

That's the downside?

How hypocrite of you... (4, Insightful)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378739)

Of course, posting witty comments in Slashdot contributes way more to humanity.

Most people think tweeters just post where they are or what they are doing. A great number of people use twitter for publishing their opinions and interesting articles. It is not very different of Slashdot, it's just not topic-oriented and has a limit of 140 characters per post, what doesn't stop anyone from from making several posts or linking to a blog where the opinion is better explained.

How irrelevant the "tweet" is depends on the person.

Several news sources and stores also have twitter accounts, so the people can subscribe to them easier than they would with a RSS news reader. While some might argue they don't need it, it groups all the information in a format which is easier to read and makes any link you might want follow readily available.

Re:How hypocrite of you... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29379233)

How is twitter easier than RSS?

Either way, "a great number", maybe, but a ridiculously low percentage.

I don't care if there's 1000 interesting things on twitter when I have to wade through 10000000 others to find them.

Re:How hypocrite of you... (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29379385)

I don't care if there's 1000 interesting things on twitter when I have to wade through 10000000 others to find them.

Well, that's how internet is.

Re:How hypocrite of you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29380421)

Yes, and so back to the OP... Twitter has distilled the useless side of the Internet into it's most pure form. When that goes away, what's the downside again?

Re:How hypocrite of you... (1)

aamcf (651492) | more than 4 years ago | (#29381873)

I follow a lot of people on Twitter that couldn't follow an RSS feed, let alone set one up. Twitter is just asynchronous IRC with a few conventions like @reply and #hashtag.

Re:How hypocrite of you... (2, Insightful)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 4 years ago | (#29379397)

I don't believe the OP was referring to individual posters, so much as the system in general.

Let's face it, Twitter is still fairly new, the media is trying to embrace it, which makes it trendy to a degree. News organizations like CNN and MSNBC utilize it, but that won't necessarily secure it's popularity in the long-run.

I remember when LiveJournal was "the thing to do". After that it was MySpace. Then it was FaceBook. Somewhere after or between that it was video blogs on YouTube.

Twitter's popularity is eventually going to level-off. It's not going to remain the focal point of the media. As soon as Twitter is made profitable, Twitter is going to refocus on generating profit. No one knows what affect that will have, but people are fickle about their Internet. Something changes on their site and they don't like it.

I don't think Twitter is going away. I do think it will lose a lot of steam and settle into it's own nice little corner of the Internet, becoming just another method of communication rather than the heavily-promoted one we see now.

Re:How hypocrite of you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29379467)

"Affect" is a verb. You meant to write "effect", a noun in that context.

Re:How hypocrite of you... (1)

DrData99 (916924) | more than 4 years ago | (#29379711)

While you are at it, why not go up and correct the misuse of hypocrite instead of hypocritical?
Pedantry should have no limits!

Re:How hypocrite of you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29379837)

Good call.

Re:How hypocrite of you... (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 4 years ago | (#29382361)

I remember when LiveJournal was "the thing to do". After that it was MySpace. Then it was FaceBook. Somewhere after or between that it was video blogs on YouTube.

And I STILL use Livejournal. And I use Twitter. But I don't use Myspace or Facebook. Go figure.

How trendy a particular service is doesn't matter to me, within reason (I'm not eager to talk to an empty room). I care about whether a service supports usage patterns that I would actually use. And what I would actually use is a service that helps me disseminate my thoughts and gather those that others put out there. "Walls", garish backgrounds, and mp3s autostarting on page-load are not helpful to that end.

Re:How hypocrite of you... (1)

slimshady945 (1553213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29380973)

Gin Rummy said it best,

"it involves typing with your thumbs, which I just don't approve of. Shit, I don't know about you, but I don't have time to read nothin' that a motherfucker typed with his thumbs. Fun fact: Nothing typed by someone's thumbs has ever been important." -- The Boondocks, "Let's Nab Oprah"

Re:How hypocrite of you... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#29387413)

Thanks for explaining Twitter to us, as no-one here had ever come across it before.

Re:the downside: (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#29380781)

they will become an irrelevent has-been 2 weeks later.

That's the downside?

While that is funny, I first read the headline as "Twitter To Add Monkey Maiming Features" and I thought to myself: "Awesome! I'll start keeping an eye out downtown for people with exploding cellphones, laptops, and pdas!"

Re:the downside: (1)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378367)

they will become an irrelevent has-been 2 weeks later.

You say that like it's a bad thing!?

Re:the downside: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29378647)

What is an "irrelevent"?

Re:the downside: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29378733)

It's an adjective. You know, like "a brown cow" or "an anonymous coward". They're used to describe nouns, which, simply put, are people, places, or things. Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopedia, likely has articles on both adjectives and nouns. I encourage you to explore them thoroughly.

Re:the downside: (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29378777)

I can't find "irrelevent" in Webster. Perhaps you're mistaken?

Astroturfers Wanted (4, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378135)

According to TFA:

After a year or more of speculation by bloggers and financial pundits on ways that Twitter could generate revenue, Stone on Tuesday said the company is building an 'analytics dashboard' designed to help businesses keep track of what is being tweeted about them.

So this will basically be used to decide when to astroturf.

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (3, Insightful)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378185)

Since most of Twitter is public (if someone expects privacy about what they post, they shouldn't be there to begin with), it's a good, non-disruptive way of generating money.

If they start inserting ads, it will not go very well.

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (2, Informative)

AttilaSz (707951) | more than 4 years ago | (#29387985)

They wouldn't gain much with ads.

About 80% of Twitter's traffic is through their API (3rd party Twitter apps pulling content and rendering on their own), and only 20% through their website. They couldn't really enforce various Twitter clients to display ads when they pull tweets over the API, so Twitter can't really be monetized by ads. (OTOH, some 3rd party Twitter apps are ad-supported and display ads in their UI).

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (2, Funny)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378593)

"Brought to you by Carl's Jr."

-Oz

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (2, Interesting)

Savior_on_a_Stick (971781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378681)

Not an unreasonable area of interest.

The company for which I work produces a product which does appeal greatly to hipsters.

We get tweeted about A LOT.

In our case, most tweets are of "zomg - these guys rock" nature - but if there was a sudden air of negativity, we'd want to know about it right away.

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29379443)

...produces a product which does appeal greatly to hipsters.

Estrogen pills?

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (1)

Ajaxamander (646536) | more than 4 years ago | (#29381163)

PBR

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29381515)

Shiny butt plugs.

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (1)

AttilaSz (707951) | more than 4 years ago | (#29388007)

Yeah, yeah, we got it; you work for Apple.

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#29379513)

Social networking is getting creepier by the day. Maybe it was never innocent, it was just that I was. If you want to place the way Facebook and Twitter in a proper context, obtain and watch The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis. Essentially, that film finished at the point that politicians fell in love with the focus group; its thesis can easily be extended by the view to cover the new obsession with online social networks.

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29379923)

Agreed. BTW, you can download "The Century Of The Self here [archive.org] . Worth a look.

Re:Astroturfers Wanted (1)

twistah (194990) | more than 4 years ago | (#29380537)

You have to wonder why this kind of thing can't just be easily implemented using Twitter's API, instead of having to pay them for it.

$1.40 per tweet (maximum) (3, Funny)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378145)

140 cents should be enough for everybody.

Re:$1.40 per tweet (maximum) (1)

Cult of Creativity (1548333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378197)

lol, microfinance @ it's best. Bring back the ole office space/superman trick!

Re:$1.40 per tweet (maximum) (5, Funny)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378973)

Damn inflation, I remember when you used to be able to give an opinion for 2 cents!

Re:$1.40 per tweet (maximum) (5, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#29379619)

Damn inflation, I remember when you used to be able to give an opinion for 2 cents!

I take it you've never studied economics. Instead of boring you with lots of technical terminology and theory, I'll restrict my comments to real world transactions and use commonly understood terms.

In the marketplace of ideas, opinions typically come in two forms. The first is worth 5 cents (as in "Not worth a plug nickel"), and the latter is a premium product valued at 10 cents ("I wish I had a dime for every time ..."). And like in all markets, there are "wholesale" prices and "retail" prices. Those numbers represent the retail prices.

When exchanging goods or services, there is an underlying cost for each transaction that must be bourne by one or more of the participants. The difference between 10 cents and your two cent idea is, of course eight cents. This is the "markup" or "overhead".

Put simply, when you manufacture your idea, its wholesale price is two cents, but is sold in the marketplace at either 5 or 10 cents. Small amounts, to be sure, but that doesn't prevent entrepreneurial resellers from making much more, or for those with sufficient legal resources, from securing a patent and making millions!

My idea (for this post) was similarly worth two cents. That's not to say, however, that in the marketplace of ideas known as Slashdot, the laws of supply and demand don't apply. That means that there's high probability it will end up being worth zero cents. Or to use the English formative of Latin origin, nonsense.

Re:$1.40 per tweet (maximum) (1)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 4 years ago | (#29381835)

People are usually only willing to give a penny for your thoughts.

Re:$1.40 per tweet (maximum) (1)

KharmaWidow (1504025) | more than 4 years ago | (#29382029)

Actually, I was thinking more like micro-payments to post longer tweets like 180 and 200 characters, or the additional of a thumbnail graphic. Unlike many of you, I'd love to see Twitter pull this off.

Reminds me of the old SMS moneymaking. (0, Offtopic)

Cult of Creativity (1548333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378163)

I used to write content for a cellular company that would feed out horoscopes & erotic content to users for a monthly fee. Wasn't quite a Miss Cleo, lol, I would generally try to throw out good, general everyday advice with a little I-Ching/Tarot/etc.., thrown into the mix while under a sort of Yeat's like automatic writing trance. The erotic content was a lot more fun, sort of a voyuer thing, was probably some of the best money I ever made, while also having fun. Miss it, wonder if I might be able to wring in something with twitter this way... Maybe I should RTFA more though, but, always nice to get a post in.

Re:Reminds me of the old SMS moneymaking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29378301)

The erotic content was a lot more fun, sort of a voyuer thing, was probably some of the best money I ever made, while also having fun..

You mean fun like this [bash.org] .

It was about time... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378191)

I've never understood how Social Networking sites made enough money off of JUST advertising. Maintaining a website once it reaches popularity is a costly venture.

Re:It was about time... (2, Interesting)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378269)

I've never understood how Social Networking sites made enough money off of JUST advertising. Maintaining a website once it reaches popularity is a costly venture.

I think the idea is that you don't have to generate any content. It's "social networking" - so your users generate all their own content by chattering away at eachother.

You need to supply bandwidth/servers/storage/whatever, but not content.

I still find it hard to believe that anyone can make enough money from advertising along to support something the size of these sites...

Re:It was about time... (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 4 years ago | (#29379563)

I still find it hard to believe that anyone can make enough money from advertising along to support something the size of these sites...

Actually the advertising revenue will largely go up in proportion to the size so basically the more muppets you have on your social networking site the more adverts you can deliver and the more money you can make.
HTH

Re:It was about time... (2, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378605)

Network television is supported by advertising alone, and their costs are far, far higher than the cost to run a social networking site. Yes, advertising revenue online is peanuts compared to TV advertising revenue, but the costs are also peanuts in comparison. On the other hand, the reason online sites are always looking for new ways to insert advertising in the user experience is because, although they might make enough to be profitable, they still aren't raking in "buy your own country" money.

Re:It was about time... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378829)

Yeah, but Network Television has advertising companies BIDDING to get their commercials on the air, there isn't never not something on. Website Advertising is generally done on a "per-click basis".

As in, I have to go, find a package of adverts from a company whom I think are most similar or appealing to my website. I have to sign up for their deal, and they'll let me put those banners on my page, and for every visitor that clicks on an ad I get a penny.

The more annoying ones (like those emoticons) will give you more than a penny.

Now when a social networking site gets as massive as Facebook or Myspace, I understand that if 10,000 users out of a million click on an add thats 100 dollars in a day.

But when something like that is starting out, it seems like that middle ground where servers become expensive but the ads don't generate enough revenue... sounds like a money pit.

Re:It was about time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29379955)

Yeah, but Network Television has advertising companies BIDDING to get their commercials on the air, there isn't never not something on.

Ooo! The rarely attempted triple negative, folks! Wouldn't it have been easier to just say "there's always something on" instead of writing unparsable, grammatical gobbledygook?

Re:It was about time... (2, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378889)

"On the other hand, the reason online sites are always looking for new ways to insert advertising in the user experience is because, although they might make enough to be profitable, they still aren't raking in "buy your own country" money."

Google is.

And this makes me wonder what the disconnect is. Since it's correct that Network television has much higher costs than any website, and yet in many cases has fewer advertising eyes than major websites. (Especially when you consider tivo and people wandering off to get a coffee in ad breaks)

Which leads me to consider that TV advertising is probably vastly over inflated, and overrated, and that web advertising -- should someone take the time to do it in a contextual, non-invasive and entertaining way -- it vastly undervalued and underrated.

I suspect the advertising industry itself is really to blame for its own shortsightedness. It really should be possible, and easy for anyone with a reasonably successful website to hook up with advertisers with ease and fear of annoying their site visitors, and transforming their website into a flashing, flickering spawn of hell.

But as long as the industry is trusting flawed rankings like Nielsen and Alexa, there won't be much change.

This change needs to happen - urgently. By making this happen, it will help end piracy and the ridiculous cartel that is the music industry and film distribution. Content can be set free.

Re:It was about time... (2, Interesting)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29379413)

One issue is exclusivity.

A well produced tv advert on a major channel conveys a message of "we are a big stable company who can afford to make a good quality advert and buy expensive TV time to show it". That message is somewhat reassuring to customers. Not saying big companies are angels but at least there is likely to be someone left to complain to/sue when your product doesn't turn up or turns out to be faulty.

Whereas with internet advertising adverts from reputable firms are mixed in with adverts from companies that are frankly outright scammers and often are outside your jurisdiction making them very difficult to go after legally.

Another issue is the targetting sucks, I see adverts that are clearly aimed at americans all the time on slashdot, can't they seem i'm coming from british IP addresses?!

Re:It was about time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29386099)

Haven't you ever seen the crazy warehouse guy adverts?

Re:It was about time... (2, Interesting)

Bertie (87778) | more than 4 years ago | (#29382033)

I work in the business, and you're right, budgets for TV advertising are generally out of all proportion to the results they generate. It's one of the big frustrations of producing advertising-related websites - clients are not only stingy with the budgets, but they want chapter and verse on exactly what they're getting for their money. Whereas with TV, they'll piss millions up the wall on bloated follies just because they like the concept. If a website fails (and let's face it, most do), you'll have a hard job ever selling another one to them, whereas with TV, they just keep coming back for more.

I think the reasons for this are complex, but it's partly historical - TV ad budgets are massive because they've always been massive, and they haven't fully adjusted to the fact that their audiences have mostly vanished. We don't sit around in our tens of millions watching a couple of channels any more. We're spread across dozens of them, and that's if we're in the house at all - increased prosperity means that people can afford to go out more. And even when we are watching, we'll skip the ads if at all possible. Or just not bother with the broadcasts and buy/download stuff to watch at our leisure. The consumer is fully in control nowadays.

And yet here's the web, where the fact that the consumer is in control is its main virtue, but budgets are relatively tiny. I think that for the most part the industry's still figuring out how to consistently pull in eyeballs, and also how to charge for those eyeballs once they have them. It's just hard to persuade clients that they're getting value for money, even though in my view, if you can actually persuade a user to come and have a look around your website, that's infinitely more valuable than the televisual blunderbuss approach to getting your message out there to the passive masses who mostly just want you to go away so they can get back to watching the show.

It'll change one day. It has to. TV nowadays has much less to offer as an advertising medium than the web.

Re:It was about time... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#29387451)

web advertising -- should someone take the time to do it in a contextual, non-invasive and entertaining way

It's still advertising, so if it's not invasive it's probably not working.

It doesn't matter how much marketing/advertising people go on about creativity and producing witty entertainment, the fact is that the most effective adverts are straightforward "buy our soap powder" ads.

Recently in the UK for instance, everyone loved the gorilla drumming along to Phil Collins, but no-one remembers what the product being advertised was.

Re:It was about time... (2, Insightful)

jhfry (829244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29381605)

They don't.

The way I see it, a typical social networking site LOSES money.

1. get funded and become popular
2. make a lot of noise so everyone knows about you to attract tons of investment money.
3. sell to a larger company at inflated values... PROFIT
4. larger company tries to monetize and realizes that they wasted money.
5. site becomes so-last-year and dies a slow, painful death.

What I expect is that they are boosting their "perceived" value in hopes that they can get an inflated offer to buy them out. That's what I would be doing. Trying to generate direct income with twitter will not be easy, and if they fail it will likely destroy any chance of turning a big profit off the large user base they developed.

Everyone's making money off Twitter (1)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378291)

except Twitter.

What is this dashboard thing? (3, Informative)

SlothDead (1251206) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378311)

So, the article says that they'll offer a "dashboard" which companies can use to see what users are twittering about them. How is this different from just putting a company name into the search box?

Also, the free Twitter API already allows for interesting data mining. For example, this little site monitors the popularity of the political parties in Germany: Wahlgetwitter [wahlgetwitter.de] . The users just write #Piratenpartei+ or #CDU- to show which party they like or not.

The worst thing this announcement could mean is that they'll charge for the API or exclude businesses from the search function.

Re:What is this dashboard thing? (4, Interesting)

Deag (250823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378407)

The article didn't seem to mention it, but from what I have seen elsewhere, not all information that twitter has is available with the free api. It could be stuff like who is actually reading the tweets (rather that just followers), where they are, where the people tweeting about you are, standard analytic stuff that business really like to know.

I can see this being quite popular and making plenty of money for them.

Re:What is this dashboard thing? (2, Informative)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378825)

Having written some stuff in Python that interacts with the Twitter API, there is more to it than the free stuff. They give special access levels to people with cool apps and things - it would make sense to charge businesses to access in-depth analytic stuff, or prevent them from getting it via the API entirely and build your own suite.

Re:What is this dashboard thing? (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 4 years ago | (#29382773)

where they are, where the people tweeting about you are

Yes, because I totally want people to know where I am, so when I'm out of the house, burglars can tweet me to tell me they're robbing me, and prove to me that they're in my house..

Re:What is this dashboard thing? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378609)

There could be features to automatically count positive tweets and negative tweets said about the company you've got the dashboard running for, as well as some demographical information.

sounds a lot like (1)

sublimino (1425913) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378375)

commercial suicide

Re:sounds a lot like (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378431)

Yes. Finally, it's Twitter's turn to commit ritual suicide. Of all the social networking sites, they seem to me to be the most annoying. And the most useless.

Re:sounds a lot like (1)

BlueStraggler (765543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29380059)

...And the most useless.

I consider Twitter to be the *only* useful social networking site. It's certainly the only one I have any use for, and it's really, really useful.

I have a real need to get information out to a specific set of people, and they have a real desire to get that information instantly. To whit: I run a sports team, and there are regular announcements, schedule changes, special practices, entry deadlines, and other items that need to be pushed out to the team members, parents, etc. By using Twitter, they can choose to receive these updates by phone SMS, RSS, on a mobile Twitter client, or by a web bookmark that they are in the habit of checking. It's their choice how they want to use it, and it works *really* well. When I send out an announcement while at a practice, people's phones start chirping as they get the SMS within 2 seconds of me sending it.

Personally, I think that's pretty impressive. Twitter is the bomb.

Re:sounds a lot like (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29380183)

Sounds like an excellent use for an RSS feed, which I can receive on the web, SMS, or on a mobile client. Oh, and the RSS headline is associated with something more substantial than 140 characters (which can ALSO be automatically retrieved, though perhaps not by text message).

Twitter is just a limited me too version of RSS with a stupid name.

Re:sounds a lot like (1)

BlueStraggler (765543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29382601)

So let me get this straight:

  1. You think Twitter is a stupid name, but "RSS" is okay.
  2. You think soccer moms will know what an RSS feed is.
  3. You think that even if they know what to do with an RSS feed, that they will be able to hook it up to SMS or their IM client.
  4. You don't see the use for a simple interface to do all of this so easily that it works for 10 year olds and their grandparents.
  5. You think that your team members, half of whom are already on Twitter, will appreciate being given a hodgepodge of other technologies that they have manually link together, all to do what Twitter already does.
  6. You think that this is a good way to build a social network.
  7. You think that RSS can do this: @ceoyoyo [twitter.com] u #fail [twitter.com]

Re:sounds a lot like (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29382901)

Yeah, @ceoyoyo #fail is awfully intuitive for the soccer moms.

All of your points are simply fairly easily implemented interface details. I fully agree with you - Twitter is a reasonably easy to use, proprietary interface, but that's all. So when they decide to "monetize" it by shoving ads in people's faces, everyone will move on to something else and Facebook will thank their lucky stars their half billion dollar bid got turned down.

Re:sounds a lot like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29383327)

I have a real need to get information out to a specific set of people,

This is the real failure of Twatter. There is no way to do this in general. There is only the ability to get it out to people who go out of their way to get it.

I'm only interested in hearing things from people who have actually taken the time to send it to me specifically. If they can't be bothered to do that, I can't be bothered to care what they say.

Re:sounds a lot like (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 4 years ago | (#29383415)

Since you included "by a web bookmark that they are in the habit of checking", it seems to me like at least for that portion of the group, email is just as useful. For the rest, I *guess* using twitter is easier because they can be lazy and not have to check email (oh it's soooo hard to check email).

(I use twitter, only because I have a company paid phone and signed up for tweets from a few pro poker players & mythbusters guys out of curiousity.. I'm already tiring of it after a few weeks and may at the very least stop getting the tweets sent to my phone. I actually wish I could have them batched, per *sender* sent as email once a day or so.. Maybe I can, I haven't played with twitter's settings too much.)

Re:sounds a lot like (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29382913)

It doesn't actually sound like it'll have any impact on the success of the site. They're not proposing something obviously stupid like charging for accounts, or charging to post or read. They're just planning to sell some data-analysis services to companies that want to buy them. Those services might or might not be useful, but I don't see how it'll affect the normal operation of the site.

Well, if you're actually named "Biz"... (1)

beef3k (551086) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378423)

then I guess this one has been in the cooker all along

A Simple Solution (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378529)

Allow people to pay money to deliver electrical shocks to celebrities every time they "tweet" something stupid. They could make millions in a matter of minutes.

Re:A Simple Solution (1)

themightythor (673485) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378665)

Allow people to pay money to deliver electrical shocks to celebrities every time they "tweet" something stupid. They could make millions in a matter of minutes.

...and you'd be shocking annoying celebrities. Double bonus!

Re:A Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29379207)

and allow people to pay money to deliver electrical shocks to those who decide to read said twitter updates.

little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29379317)

There's an app for that

Money Making? (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378533)

Super Disco, Disco Breakin'!

Another money making option... (2, Interesting)

Avalain (1321959) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378607)

Allow messages over 140 characters, but charge $0.05 for them. They may still want to limit the size to avoid people writing novels, but they can set a limit for paid messages at 500 chars or so.

Re:Another money making option... (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378861)

Twitter's 140 character limit is so they'll fit inside the basic SMS protocol. I don't seem them abandoning this, as portability and the ability to use it on many platforms is one of the reason they are so successful.

Re:Another money making option... (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378963)

The SMS mechanism doesn't work well with that. It's not an artificial limit on their part.

Re:Another money making option... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29379163)

Yeah, 500 seems about right. Well, i'd say 512 is probably better since it is a power of 2
The average characters per word in English is roughly 4.5, lets round it down to 4 since it is Twitter (probably could go down to 3 since people cut out a lot of uneedd chrs)
500/4 gives us ~125 words (or 128 if using 512), compared with ~35 words at the moment.
This might annoy people and push them away though, so it is a bit of a risky thing to do.

Also, you could do something like for every 100k followers, add another cent on since the more followers + longer posts = lot more service usage.
Note that this would only be for character usage over 140 since it requires much more resources to deal with those messages.

Also, i was sure you could post +140 before, did they stop that?
I thought messages over 140 were just truncated and you could click a link to view the full post...

IPO? (1)

nnnnnnn (1611817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378735)

"Just last spring, Stone told Computerworld that since the company has plenty of venture capital funds available, there's no rush to create a business plan focused on generating profits. "

Sounds like a great time to launch an IPO!

am i too late (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378855)

Am i late for the Twitter bashing thread? i want to stay trendy, but i can't jump on someone else's train if it's left the station.

Um. Twitter is just persistent IRC. It's feeding teen narcissism. 140 characters? Are they kidding? Twitter? More like shitter!

Am i doing this right?

Re:am i too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29379653)

No, ur not

Message from the dotcom lab: (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29378897)

The bubble is complete!

The dotcom bubble 2.0 is FINALLY complete!

Now we just need to wait for all those midlife-crisis managers rushing to invest in it...

P.S.: I guess it's the Internet's natural cycle of selection, weeding out the idiots. ;)

Re:Message from the dotcom lab: (1)

shashark (836922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29379359)

Citation [nytimes.com] needed [cnet.com]

I've said it before, I'll say it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29380295)

wtf is twitter

From the Redundant Department of Redundancy (2, Funny)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 4 years ago | (#29380455)

Twitter to add money-making features? Twitter is a marketing tool which happens to be abused by teenagers who want the world to know when they're taking a dump and what kind of stool samples they've produced. It's an RSS on steroids. This story is basically saying Steinway & Sons to Add Music Making Features

Too late! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29380637)

Doesn't Twitter already have a money-making venture in the kickbacks they obviously get from major wireless providers thanks to their explicit refusal to work with smaller regional providers?

In other news (1)

Foo2rama (755806) | more than 4 years ago | (#29381729)

The world is round, and we are in an economic crisis.


How is this news how Twitter is still pretending to be the dot com boom, where you can operate for a few years with ZERO revenue. Adoption rates, and usefullness are going down quickly with no way to monetize without breaking core functionality. Jumping the shark in t minus 4 months.


Now if he said how they plan to monetize that would be news, it is no secret they need to start making money and fast, the investors must be getting really really pissy currently.

Twitter (1)

chucklebutte (921447) | more than 4 years ago | (#29382381)

I use it for promotion uses only have 1100+ followers (most just bots) cant get more than 2000 following due to restrictions until I get more followers. Im not sure if it really works at all, I havent seen any increase in website traffic nor forum registration. Hell my forums allow guests to post and play the arcade without registering still no increase due to twitter lol. Upside is its free, I have a bot/app (w/e twitter calls it) that allows me to spam out msgs to promote my site (or say w/e u like) every 3hrs or so. So it might bring in people and I am just unaware of it.... either way I guess since its free its cool but real value of twitter I am unaware of any... unless my site is useless and has no value which also may be very true lol.

paid accounts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29382547)

I think the free accounts in twitter should be allowed to have up to 140,000 followers, but if you want more followers then you will have to pay $140 per month to maintain your account. People with over 140,000 followers on twitter are either using it to make money or they are millionaires.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...