Beta
×

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!

Is Twitter Rendered Obsolete By Google+?

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the imitation-adoption-adaption-repeat dept.

Communications 456

suraj.sun writes with a ComputerWorld piece predicting the end of Twitter, at least in its current form. From the article: "It's only a matter of time before Twitter becomes a ghost town. While Google+ will soon do all the things Twitter does, Twitter can't support a long list of the things Google+ supports. Also on Google+, you can post pictures and videos directly in posts, launch immediately into a video chat, send your posts to nonmembers and even present all your posts marked 'Public' as a blog available to anyone with an Internet."

cancel ×

456 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What is an Internet? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878908)

Can I get "an Internet"? How do you quantify one?

Re:What is an Internet? (2)

cshark (673578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878994)

You're missing out. My internet is huge!

Re:What is an Internet? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879526)

Good maybe we can go a whole 10 minutes without hearing about fucking Twitter.

I seem to get over things a hell of a lot faster than the media does. Great example: Michael Jackson's death. The man died. Took me about 2 minutes to digest that and move on with my life. Seemed to take the rest of the world a couple of months since that is how long it took before I stopped seeing it in media every single fucking day. I don't even know how you can find that much to say about it. We already knew the man was mortal.

Now with Twitter and "tweets" and 150 character limits out of the spotlight for a while, we can all move on to the next frivolous thing and make a big deal out of THAT instead! Woohoo!

you know, when everything has to be a BIG FUCKING DEAL and a protracted public spectacle people start seriously thinking these things matter. it warps and distorts the views and values of everyone who is dumb enough to look to the outside world for those, which is most of the population incidentally.

Re:What is an Internet? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879528)

It's not the size that matters, it's whether you know how to use it!

Re:What is an Internet? (4, Funny)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879038)

An Internet is the currency used on The Internet.

Re:What is an Internet? (5, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879394)

An Internet is the currency used on The Internet.

On the internet's black market, Lulz are widely accepted alternate currency.

RFC 1918: Address Allocation for Private Internets (5, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879104)

Can I get "an Internet"?

RFC 1918 [ietf.org] explains how to set up your own internet.

Re:RFC 1918: Address Allocation for Private Intern (2)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879386)

+1 Internets for you (because I'm all out of mod points)

Re:What is an Internet? (1)

carpenoctem63141 (2266368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879106)

It's like a Chuck E. Cheese prize - you can't buy an Internet, but you can win it.

Re:What is an Internet? (1)

viega (564643) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879490)

Actually, you can buy any of the prizes at Chuck E Cheese-- they charge you $.01 per ticket!

Re:What is an Internet? (4, Funny)

MattW (97290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879242)

Back in 1995, I did dialup support. (Mercifully briefly.)

Working for Netcom, afaik the first ISP to offer unlimited connectivity straight to the internet.

"Hi, I just bought the Internet."

"Hi, I just bought your Internet."

Were the two most common lines from customers as they began to tell me their problem. (One particular brand of modem with no UART chip was the biggest pest...)

Re:What is an Internet? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879568)

I guess the biggest pest was the one that just told you they bought the internet, am I right?

But aaahhhh, yes, the good ol' days, when the internet was still a lot more free and the average idiot was still a bit less clueless than today because getting on required actually being able to rub two brain cells together... and still you had those interesting calls that made you wonder, that gave you stories that sound like they're made up until you realize that they're SO outlandish that nobody with a hint of an idea of how the internet works could remotely get that idea. They range from the concerned parent who found out that little Jimmy spent hours on a chatroom overseas and who're now worried about insane long distance fees and don't even end at people asking for a full listing of webpages and getting irate when you not only can't provide it but also can't put their favorite page back online, since, after all, YOU own that internet! You just sold it to them, so you pretty much had to own it. Or are you some swindling, shady crook who sells what he doesn't have?

Ahh, good ol' times.

I'm glad I managed to get out of support hell before I had to name my ulcers after my customers.

Long answer? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878910)

No.

Re:Long answer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879048)

Twitter will be rendered obsolete by Darwin.

Re:Long answer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879166)

Is that you jack?

The Question Is Absurd (1)

danaris (525051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879256)

Seriously, if this were in any way correct, then Facebook would have already killed Twitter.

Dan Aris

Re:Long answer? (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879294)

This.

Google tried to kill it with Buzz, but only got a hangover :P . If I want to share something interesting with Google's services, I need to choose between three:

  • Google Reader
  • Google Buzz
  • Google+

Note that these are not fully integrated, so people are segregated by the service I use to broadcast. Twitter is just Twitter, can be as closed for outsiders as a doll's an*s, and comes in 140 characters (more than enough for the ADHD-afflicted masses).

Re:Long answer? (2)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879562)

Twitter was rendered obsolete by the marketing departments who overused it for advertising, and users who insist on notifying everyone of every mundane aspect of their lives.

Long Live Twitter (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878922)

But on Twitter I can use any name I wish ...

Re:Long Live Twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879072)

Even your real name, which has already gotten a ton of users suspended on G+ at which point they are required to submit a government issued photo ID to prove it... Seriously fuck G+.

Re:Long Live Twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879200)

Oh christ, relax. They have these identity problems on Twitter too.

No, it's not your fault if your name is Ashton Kutcher. But yes, it's going to be a problem with some services.

...and Odder, Mactrope, ibane, and all the rest (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879372)

But on Twitter I can use any name I wish

Yeah, like Erris, Mactrope, gnutoo, inTheLoo, willeyhill, westbake, Odder, ibane, deadzero, freenix, myCopyWrong, right handed, or GNUChop. Use any or all to promote GNU/Linux and dis M$.

An internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878924)

Just one Internet? All the cool kids have at least 2 Internets.

Re:An internet (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879592)

Screw you! I'll get my own internet. With blackjack. And hookers.

Erh... ok, that joke doesn't work in this case. It wouldn't be much different from the original internet.

Twitter exists to do less (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878930)

If were about "doing more," people would still just be using email (and email lists) over twitter. It's all the restrictions of twitter that prevent it from being a nuisance that made it stick.

Re:Twitter exists to do less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878956)

Exactly. I don't want to see the pictures and videos unless I click on them. I don't care if 84710284201248 people liked it, I only care if I liked it. I don't want to be in someone's hangout, or circle, or huddle, or whatever new word Google pulls out of the dictionary next.

Re:Twitter exists to do less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879044)

Geeks and nerds don't 'get' normal people.
People want toasters, they put toast in, push a button, toast!
How are so many otherwise smart people oblivious to what normal people want?
Twitter is a text board toaster, they type a thought, or maybe a link to a cat picture, they're happy.

Re:Twitter exists to do less (2)

ManTaboo (2027174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879418)

Here is why geeks and nerds are smarter though... They put bread in their toasters. I don't like burnt toast no matter how much you scrape it nor how much butter an jelly you put on it.

Re:Twitter exists to do less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879590)

Haha, seriously, where can I buy premade toast that I can burn in my toaster?

Re:Twitter exists to do less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879476)

Yes, because seeing 10,000 140 character posts about people buying shoes and going to the bathroom every day is certainly not a nuisance.

Re:Twitter exists to do less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879534)

Twitter isn't a nuisance to me since I am not stupid enough to use it. I created an ID on it once because it was required to enter a contest that I wanted to enter (and had to think hard about whether I really wanted to enter because of that requirement). I finally caved, created the account and entered the contest. I've logged on to Twitter maybe 5 times since then and it is the silliest inane service ever. I guess it literally is for twits.

Twitter + (0)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878934)

This was my immediate reaction to Google + as well.

My Google+ Prediction. It'll have a small impact on Facebook. It'll destroy twitter.

Here is why I think Google+ isn't a facebook replacement and never will be: you can follow people without their permission. So that means people will be scanning your profile waiting for you to "slip up" and accidentally post to the wrong circle. Inevitably like Weiner Gate someone will.

With Facebook there is one privacy setting for who can see your posts "Friends", "Friends of Friends", "Everyone" (or you can setup a custom privacy per-post. As a result I pretty much only see friends' posts on my news feed. On Google+ I'm already getting celebrity and industry semi-celebrity wall posts. Sure you can in the back of your mind know that your post is only going to your inner-circle. But it just feels so vulnerable sitting out in a sea of very public posts streaming onto your Google+ wall. You set that post you just made to "inner-circle"... right? Riiiiightt!?

At least with Facebook you know the score. If you don't want them to see it. Don't friend them. If you didn't friend them and your defaults are setup so that only friend see your posts... you're golden. With Google+ your brother's new Baby announcement is going to be mixed with Perez Hilton's daily gossip. Perception is everything. As soon as people start using Google+ like twitter (and they will, who doesn't want to follow Steve Martin?) the perception of privacy will be gone.

Google+ is Twitter+ and it's a welcome replacement to the rediculous and archaic monster that is Twitter but you're one Weineresque DM away from never using it for anything personal ever again.

Do you feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?

https://plus.google.com/106339468652977106822/posts/NEPcKejKv2b [google.com]

Re:Twitter + (2)

MrMarket (983874) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878986)

People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. -Steve Jobs

Re:Twitter + (1)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879066)

I'm fairly certain I won't "slip up" and post half nude pictures of myself while in a relationship and in a position of prestige. Actually, it's really not that hard.

Re:Twitter + (3, Funny)

Bob Cat - NYMPHS (313647) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879190)

>Actually, it's really not that hard.

Re:Twitter + (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879350)

Have you tried Viagra?

Re:Twitter + (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879138)

You can "delete" a post you put on there pretty easily.

I'm not saying it would stop anything major, but if you accidentally post those honeymoon pictures to your co-workers circle, you can easily delete the post and re-post to the correct group (MidEast Swingers circle).

It's IM all over again (4, Interesting)

williamhb (758070) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879142)

Remember when because some of your colleagues were on ICQ or AOL but some were on Yahoo Messenger but some were on MSN but some had started to move to Skype etc you ended up having to have accounts with all of them because you don't control which account the person you need to speak to likes to use? And the techies amongst us started wanting tools like Kopete to deal with our plurality of accounts? That's the direction I see social networks going in. Already there are people who are Facebook friends whose Facebook status updates come from their Twitter app. Meanwhile many Twitter posts are there to point me to blog articles on blogs that I could also individually follow using RSS. And all those social communities hasn't, for instance, stopped me doing the old fashioned form of community of visiting and commenting on sites I like, like Slashdot. One more social network does not necessarily mean death to the rest. I don't see Twitter and Facebook following Bebo and MySpace into insignificance. It means yet another system I'll need to have an account on because people I need/want to follow/talk to use it. It does not mean I have a new single account that I consider to be my identity -- "me on the web" -- it means I'll have (well, if someone sends me an invite) an additional personally identifiable account on the Web. I think interoperability between social networks is going to be the next big battleground.

Re:Twitter + (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879304)

Why Google+ isn't Twitter for me:

Anyone I don't know who follows me on Google+ gets moved to "Blocked".

Anyone I don't know who follows me on Twitter, as long as they don't spam me, is ignored. I only follow people I know or I find very interesting who is being followed and is following another person I know.

---

Honestly, for me, Google+ is useless and because it doesn't tie in with other applications I use (Hootsuite, etc), I have no use for it and I rarely pay attention to it.

YMMV.

Re:Twitter + (1)

ZankerH (1401751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879308)

That's cute, but even if you "follow" someone, you only see his public posts unless they also add you to a circle and share a post with that circle. And I have a feeling there won't be many public posts on Google+, seeing as how most people are treating it as Facebook without the privacy issues.

Re:Twitter + (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879422)

Quite a few of the popular Twitter follows (Weaton, Day, etc.) are also doing the whole Google+ thing.....

Re:Twitter + (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879462)

...seeing as how most people are treating it as Facebook without the privacy issues.

Which is pretty bizarre when you think about it.

Re:Twitter + (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879578)

+1,000,000 Insightful. All the karma you want for that one baby.

Re:Twitter + (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879606)

seeing as how most people are treating it as Facebook without the privacy issues.

Without the privacy issues? Unless you are careful, Google knows what you're searching the web for. It knows what locations you're asking directions to. It may have your e-mail on its servers. And now it has your social graph.

Google+'s privacy issues are an order of magnitude greater than Facebook's, just because it's Google.

Re:Twitter + (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879618)

You're assuming Google+ users are also Facebook users and will make some errors due to confusion. I think there will be lot of non-Facebook users on Google+ who won't do stupid stuff like Weiner-gate because they've never used social networking before and don't go into it with the assumption that only friends see my stupid stuff. People who like Facebook will keep using Facebook, they don't need two sites to monitor every minute.

Tag it! (1)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878936)

And nothing of value was lost.

Not Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878940)

One Internet please!

Answer in less than 140 characters... (1)

H0D_G (894033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878946)

No.

Huh? (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878950)

I thought Twitter already obsolete.

Obsoletion, real names, and sockpuppetry (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879150)

I thought Twitter already obsolete.

You might be right. Have Twitter's sockpuppets [slashdot.org] posted anything in the past several months? But I guess the real name requirement will probably cut down on such sockpuppetry.

Nonsense! (1)

CheShACat (999169) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878966)

"While Google+ will soon do all the things Twitter does, Twitter can't support a long list of the things Google+ supports"

Since when has featureset been Twitter's strong point?! It's managed to own all other competition while staying remaining in and of itself a platform that you can post 140 characters of text on, nothing more.

Google+ is better than Ford Edsel (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878970)

While Google+ will soon do all the things Twitter does, Twitter can't support a long list of the things Google+ supports.

Yes, Google+ has almost has all the cool features, just like the Ford Edsel.

And its designed and marketed by a billion dollar company, so you know everybody will want it.

Also on Google+, you can ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878982)

..... lose everything without notice for choosing the "wrong" name.

Re:Also on Google+, you can ..... (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879080)

haha! but its true.

the ladyada situation (so to speak) told me more than I needed to know.

avoid google and especially g+.

(btw, how much is google paying everyone to hawk its wares? I don't get why there is so much yak about this bullshit. social networking blah blah - info grab is more like it.

hey, when you're young, you don't know any better. go ahead, tell the friggin world about your tiniest personal details. it can NEVER come back to harm you. (bwahahaha!)

suckers.

But... (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879000)

...will Google lock me out of Gmail and other services if they decide my Twitter account violated the TOS?

No? Well in that case I'll keep using Twitter and they can keep Google Plus.

Re:But... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879130)

See the answer straight from the horse's mouth: https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU.

Re:But... (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879188)

Mod parent up. Very informative reply by google.

Proper link [google.com]

Re:But... (0, Troll)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879348)

its still bullshit.

people NEED the freedom to pick aliases.

DUH.

I mean, duh! come on, google, I know you understand this.

so why all the fuss and fight?

what MOTIVES do you have, hmmm?

somehow, I assume bad motives. you try to remove all anonymity - but that is BAD for us. good for you, but uhm, we don't exist FOR YOU. you exist for us. until you learn that, I say

"goodbye google. and fuck you very much."

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879614)

NEED? Like you "need" to stfu, you mean? The only thing you NEED to do is pay taxes and die.
If you WANT that feature, don't use google+. Sheesh, that was hard.

Seriously, though, it'll stop a lot of abuse, and help maintain privacy. You can still use your alias on IRC, etc.

Re:But... (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879608)

At this point, the backpedaling by Google once again demonstrates they don't have a clue how to run a social network. The worst part is they seem incapable of admitting they made a mistake.

Re:But... (2)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879612)

Sounds like a good reason to not use google+...

I'll avoid any name conventions by sticking with gmail, thx

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879146)

How much does Facebook pay you per FUD comment, troll?

Re:But... (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879240)

About as much as you get paid for posting idiotic blather that has nothing to do with the topic, retard.

Re:But... (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879318)

This is the same reason I don't put all my games on the same email address for Battle.net.

Lets say the arbitrarily ban you. They can ban you for all your games, game over!

OMG, it's a superior product! (3, Insightful)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879010)

That means it's sure to win. This reminds of of when OS/2 mopped the floor with Windows because it had superior multitasking and memory management!

Totally agree (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879034)

In a related news story, apples will replace oranges, pineapples will be outmoded by the superior engineering that is the banana, and red bull will totally replace water... except in toilets.

Re:Totally agree (2)

petman (619526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879374)

Forget red bull, use Brawndo - It's got electrolytes!

sometimes I need two or three Internets (1)

buback (144189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879046)

when it's slow, i find the extra internets really help with the twittering speed.

Twitter's Business Model Anyhow (4, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879084)

Where Twitter loses is in monetizing traffic. In other words, Google knows how to use your traffic to feed you ads that sooner or later you click on. They do it well enough to make a lot of money.

This works for Google because all of their products draw you into their web space, and you can't avoid being presented with Google Ads.

The weakness of Twitter is that in many ways it's easier to use from a phone, Hootsuite, or some other client - even Google Plus with an add-on. There's never any need to actually visit the Twitter web site.

Consequently they're stuck with those idiotic "Promoted Tweets" - which in my experience are so far removed from anything that interests me that I really think they're using chimpanzees instead of algorithms to place them.

Re:Twitter's Business Model Anyhow (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879144)

I don't look at the ads. You learn how to ignore them as they're only mildly relevant. They make some people money in a vacuous ecosystem, but for many of us, they're just visual noise in the background.

Twitter doesn't have them, doesn't require a smartphone or above, and gets a lot of work done with great brevity. Google is like an army worth of features to get lost in, some good, some bad. Twitter is very and deceptively simple, and there's wisdom in doing at least one thing right.

Yeah, I've tried G+. No, it's not the great white hope. And I trust Google with privacy like I trust a 12 year old kid with a loaded riot pump shotgun. You just know they're going to pull the trigger. It's in their DNA.

Re:Twitter's Business Model Anyhow (1)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879254)

I don't think I've ever clicked on a Google ad (or any other ad for that matter), except by accident.

Re:Twitter's Business Model Anyhow (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879366)

This works for Google because all of their products draw you into their web space, and you can't avoid being presented with Google Ads.

so far, only on phones, do I get stuck with ads. and that's because I have not yet rooted my phone (will be, though, shortly).

they can try to deliver ads all they want. I'll never see them. most of us won't, truth be told.

google, to me, means 'select an element to hide' gets LOTS of exercise. and my cpu filters a LOT of bullshit from 'the internets'.

Google what? (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879086)

Does anyone even know what Google+ does? I got invited so I checked it out. I found it boring. As I was adding people to my circles, I discovered that most of them weren't even on Google+. There's no way to know for sure who's on it and who's not. That made no sense.

Re:Google what? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879182)

Sure there is. If they have a mail icon next to their name, they're not on it and updates you send them are e-mailed to them. If they don't have a mail icon, they're on it (you can verify that by hovering over them, which will give you a link to their profile).

Twitter works because its not a full socialnetwork (2)

nzac (1822298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879096)

I kind of look at twitter as an rrs hosting service (for personal use) that put a web interface on the top and made a purpose built manager and search engine. Its main success was that the account was secondary to the "tweets" (so you did not need to share personal information, and you knew what you were sharing) and that they got media endorsement. The limitations lowered the barrier for the general public to use it.

More like (1)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879100)

Is Google+ rendered redundant by Twitter?

Re:More like (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879226)

Agreed. Between Facebook and Twitter, why would I want to use Google+? So I can directly link my search, email and video watching with a profile visible to my friends and family? I think not. I'd much rather chose what I share. In fact I am happy to no-script google...

Re:More like (1)

dc29A (636871) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879420)

Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.

Good enough reason NOT [businessinsider.com] to use Facebook.

First step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879134)

First step is to let in the users. Need to get me an invite.

Nein! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879154)

Twitter doesn't mass delete profiles like Google Plus does, so no Twitter won't go away any time soon.

Re:Nein! (2)

NuShrike (561140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879416)

Yes, the issue of "real names" will keep Twitter more relevant. Twitter is what the Internet is about.

Google+ Circles is just hypocrisy. Real Name v pseudonym is just different Circles. Begs the question of Circles existence.

The lacking ability to filter on the receiving end (for the main Stream) doesn't help either.

Yes, for now (2)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879168)

If you look at Google+ and Twitter as APIs, then you can implement Twitter using the Google+ API but not the reverse. That doesn't mean things can't change, but I bet a few Twitter project managers have been sleepless lately.

Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879178)

Where would one acquire "an Internet" ?

Big impact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879222)

GOOGLE + there are resources in the strategy far more than the FACEBOOK and TT, although FACEBOOK lasted a long time but GOOGLE's too broad, and I would like GOOGLE + will still snatch a large market...
In the TT and GOOLGE + FACEBOOK also released my own site above information http://www.tanfoot.com, traffic is completely different, TT reproduced the largest number, FACEBOOK Click for a maximum, GOOGLE + comments for a maximum of

Twitter's virtue is its brevity (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879224)

People use Twitter for quick updates and news, not for life stories. It's RSS for everyone. As an aside, this comment would fit on Twitter.

Re:Twitter's virtue is its brevity (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879382)

People use Twitter for quick updates and news, not for life stories.

Some people use Twitter for incessant quick updates, which amounts to the same thing (but more annoying).

Plenty to go around (1)

Livius (318358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879228)

They can both be obsolete.

What about Diaspora? (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879260)

Twitter will take a hit, but it will survive. It is enough different from G+ and FriendFace that it will continue to fit the needs of much of its user base. What I find most interesting is that nobody has mentioned Diaspora since Google+ launched. Is it a dead project?

Re:What about Diaspora? (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879362)

What I find most interesting is that nobody has mentioned Diaspora since Google+ launched. Is it a dead project?

Heh, it's not like the world was all aflutter with Diaspora news before Plus, either. It was a non-starter from the beginning - classic example of "technical solution to a non-technical problem".

Re:What about Diaspora? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879510)

I used diaspora extensively and found it frustratingly incomplete. All of the things i WISHED it did (and where Facebook, et al were also lacking), I find G+ does those things.

I've never been a Facebook user. I have a page, but only so I can access calendars and things that some organizations post exclusively there.... but I've never posted on it. It felt too "public". I have to friend a couple of professional groups I belong to in order to see their schedule... I don't want them seeing my posts... so I can't post. Lame. Having two accounts? Double lame.

I love the idea of being able to do the circles. That's the defining feature for me. Win for G+.

Semi-anonymous coward (1)

eggman9713 (714915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879296)

I have a Facebook, don't use it. I don't need Google+. Twitter is a good niche for me because it allows me to keep some track of my friends without having to know every damn thing they are doing. It also lends to being more anonymous. I don't really want my real name out there except to people I really know well. But I have plenty of followers on Twitter who like what I post and don't care that much EXACTLY who I am. Twitter lends itself well to that since neither Facebook nor G+ allow pseudonyms.

Powerword: Real Name (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879464)

I don't really want my real name out there except to people I really know well.

Your Slashdot profile links to Jeremy Clark's homepage [snapshotnorthwest.com] . Is that you?

Hulu will kill both (2)

retroworks (652802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879320)

The hypno-toad always wins.

Twitter aren't arbitrary dicks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879328)

Twitter can't f*ck with my gmail account. I deleted my G+ profile specifically for this reason.

Shocking (0)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879432)

Shocking. A bunch of anti-social nerds post about how they hate social networking. I never would have seen these comments coming.

Not until Google+ allows pseudonyms (5, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879444)

I really can't see Google+ replacing Twitter anytime soon, as Google+ has a strict requirement for real names and will even close accounts based on it. Twitter on the other side is fine with pseudonyms and gets used a lot with them, not only from people that want to keep their real names private, but also organizations and companies that use it as their news feed or just from fake personalities for commedy purposes.

Google+ seems to have some plans to allow business use in the future, but right now they doesn't and it's not clear if they only allow that for money or also for the average make-shift organization (i.e. Anonymous, Wikileaks, Free Software stuff, etc.).

As far as I see it, with it's requirement for real names Google has essentially taken a first real step to being evil, while Twitter on the other side seems to be a much more open platform that is used by a lot of people that don't want their real names to be known for one reason or another.

people are wondering, what's the real deal, here (1, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879458)

a random comment from google's post (https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU#113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU):


Is this about advertising revenue and more accurate subscriber numbers to up ad revenue when introduced? Is the policy an attempt to give Google+ more credibility? Forgive my bluntness, but I don't believe for a moment that you truly think the naming policy is enforceable. What is the REAL reason behind the policy against anonymity here?

I think that guy hit it on the nail. google's ONLY customers are the advertising companies, the ad-men. they want to deliver 'more accurate' info to those bastards.

"oh, its so that everyone can trust each other".

liars. don't piss in my cornflakes and tell me its really milk. we are not that stupid.

and most of us who know better are NOT going to play your 'must use real names' game. the government and pretty much everyone else who wants to sniff the net LOVES the idea of removing anonymity.

don't give in. keep your pseudo name. its one of the few things we still have left in the 'free internet'. it was here long before companies came on and ruined things. we must demand that we not give this bit of freedom up!

fuck you google. just fuck you. the smarter ones here will not play your 'target me, better!' game.

Doesn't Understand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36879532)

Whoever wrote this obviously doesn't understand Twitter, or Google+- or even the Internet for that matter.

Twitter exists, and flourishes BECAUSE it's not all those things. Twitter works because it's not invasive- you share what you want 140 characters at a time, and only what you explicitly choose to share. Google+ and facebook create networks with tagging, friending, friends of friends and your choices and identity become out of your hands.

It would seem that suraj.sun needs to get himself an better Internet.

SMS ... (2)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36879548)

I use Twitter because of SMS, and it doesn't cost me a dime (since my plan has unlimited SMS whether I use it or not). So until Google offers SMS services, Twitter style, anyone going from Twitter to Google+ will be limiting their market. Then again, maybe I'm special.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?