Twitter, What's the Point?

You skipped point 4 of my list, so I'm going to respond to your #4 and #5 with #5 and #6, instead, to get it back on track.

1. An IRC channel has a higher barrier to entry on all fronts. a) you're Required to get an IRC client; Twitter can work in your browser, on IM and on your phone. b) there's a million-and-one channels on IRC to choose from, all major networks combined. There is only one Twitter channel, and that's your own, which contains only the friends you've added. That's impossible to do on IRC entirely. c) you can't keep track of what happens in IRC unless you're in there. Not the case with Twitter, where you can generally even keep track of things without being logged in, or without having an account at all.

2. That'll be the thing, then. You don't see the appeal in status updates, but people like me, do. Sure, a lot of it is useless information to me, but at other times it can be quite interesting. For instance, a tweet message like "Got an hour to waste in downtown London, anyone up for a drink?" can be most useful. A tweet like "Making a yummy sandwich" can inspire others to ask what's on it, for inspiration, y'know, to try out themselves.

Other stuff can just spark conversation or jokes. It doesn't have to be useful, and you don't really have to share every little thing you do — after a while, you'll probably figure out what works for you and what creates conversation.

3. To continue on from 2, as these two are rather related… I like getting an idea of what my friends all over the world are doing. It allows me to stay in touch with them in a passive way; I don't have to IM or email them asking what they're up to. I'll know just from keeping an eye on Twitter. It's a form of passive constant communication that offers benefits without having any real requirements. It gets more and more useful, the more people all over the world you know and who are on Twitter. The signal-to-noise ratio can be pretty poor at times, but — at least for a few of the communities I'm in that are largely on Twitter now — it gives us a sense of "bonding" that's far less demanding on your daily routine.

Case in point, my friend Craig C. from SF noted at SXSW Interactive this year in Austin: "Last year we had to spend a ton of time just catching up on what people have been doing, leaving less time for interesting discussions and brainstorming. Now with Twitter, I KNOW what everyone's been doing, as I've stayed in touch with everyone the whole time." (btw, that quote's entirely paraphrased, but I fleshed it out to make it more clear)

The kicker being: I'm staying in touch with hundreds of people on a daily basis now, but I don't have to actually talk directly to anyone necessarily. That would require a TON of time. With Twitter, it's not much more than a glance at my Twitterrific every so often.

4. (not responded to)

5. I wasn't suggesting that Twitter would replace or be an alternative to social bookmarking tools — I guess I phrased it a little poorly. Basically, Twitter is good for non-permanent bookmarks, stuff you don't want or need to store beyond an hour or two, but stuff you want to share with others at the same time nonetheless.

That 140 characters constraint is not a big issue thanks to built-in URL conversion to TinyURL's (at least in Twitterrific, but I believe it's in Twitter itself). Also, it's a linguistic exercise. It's a good mental exercise to try and convey the entire core of your message in a very limited space (believe me – I did game journalism where we had to practice by doing reviews in exactly 100 words. It's a good practice in general)

6. It's definitely faster than blogging. When you blog, you don't immediately see the result; a page load is more intensive and time-consuming than a simple RSS parse by an app like Twitterrific. However, the REAL speed difference is in propagation. With Twitter, all your friends who are keeping tabs on Twitter at that moment will see it generally within a few seconds. With a blog post, forget it. Unless someone is actively subscribing to your blog and refreshing feeds constantly (which probably still won't be quicker than every 15 minutes or you'll risk server-ban), there's no way it'll get to them as fast.

However, blogging should really be used for crafted posts, not for status updates and mass-communication. The appeal of Twitter is that it's a mass-IM system where anyone can enter and leave the "conversation" without a problem. Anyone can chime in. All that doesn't exist in blogging; in a way you could say it does, but it does so over the period of DAYS, and not minutes. For what Twitter is used for, days are absolutely not an option. For what blogging is generally used for, minutes are not an option (as it offers no benefit to be that fast).

That said, my point was primarily about the time-consuming nature of blogging. Any decent blog post that shouldn't be shot down from the interwebs has a title, at least a hundred words of a post (but preferrably a few hundred if not a few thousand) and some tags. It has value of some sort that would make it useful for people to read now as well as ten days from now, if not longer.

Twitter doesn't aim to do that at all. Twitter aims to fill the void of things that don't have much value as information ten days from now, but that can be valuable right now.

Also, it can be a lot of fun just for the occasional random silly stuff. A tweet from mere moments ago:

drewm says: May the 4th be with you.

Now tell me.. that sort of stuff, would you really want your friends making entire blog posts out of that? They'd still need a title… what use is a title on a joke like that?

I didn't think it was intentional, I merely pointed it out to prevent any further confusion among readers :-)

As for that example, it's more useful for people who are a) in the area and/or b) carry their laptop with them and use open wifi hotspots.

However, it is possible to get every tweet by your friends sent to you as a text message. This can quickly get very costly though, so having only Direct Messages sent to you on text makes more sense (unfortunately that system is a little broken outside of the US right now).

In general though, the people on your twitter list are friends, so it's fair to assume that if someone you know proposes going for a drink at random, you'll have their phone number and can just call or text them directly as you leave your desk and computer behind to meet up with them.

Personally, I don't get any twitter updates when I'm mobile. I'm cool with that. Such plans are generally made a little longer in advance anyway :)

(and yes, it's possible to twitter messages from your phone onto your public twitter stream, so communication CAN, if desired, continue entirely on phones via Twitter)

What real difference does it make what the actual user amount is?

If the service works for you, it works. Whether there's a grand total of 100.000 or 10 million users, no difference.

I can relate to your sentiment that it only appeals to a certain type of people, though. Same with so many of these new Web 2.0 sites and services. Dodgeball, Groovr, Virb, Plazes, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Right, so that's why over the past 6 months it has grown near-explosively.

It's all about that 7th month where things suddenly go downhill entirely, right?

Thats the nature of fads.......which is what I think Twitter is. First an "IT" is started and acquires a small quiet following. Then somebody with some mojo (like a Leo Laporte) finds out about it and starts talking about it and using it and suddenly it is everywhere and everyone is using it. Finally, most of those people who are using it because "everybody" is doing IT gets bored with IT and moves on to the next big "IT" idea, which often is an old "IT" idea with a new coat of paint.

Does this mean that Twitter is going to die? Probably not. Undoubtly there will be a core group that finds an actual value in Twitter and will continue to use Twitter once the fad passes.

As for my next month prediction. Meh - its just me picking a time frame. Might be done next month. Might be a year (although I doubt it will last longer than that) but if anyone in the collective consciousness thinks of it at all it will be "Remember Twitter, I wonder if anyone still uses it"

It isn't a slam on Twitter or anything else, just the nature of things.

By that reasoning, pretty much everything on the web is a fad, making for a rather diluted definition of the term entirely.

For the Internet as it has existed so far, nearly everything has come and gone, or is currently in its "coming" stage. Wanna bet that in an X number of years, people will say "Myspace? Oh yah, I wonder if anyone still uses that.." (I don't, for instance).

At what point is something no longer a fad, then? Does it rely on being "hip" for only a certain amount of time? Everything passes eventually, so what's the relevant timeframe? Is it something defined purely by its hip-ness and scale?

I kind of have a beef with the word fad, because it's by its very nature a worthless word. The dictionary describes it as "a temporary fashion…" — but what is temporary? Less than a year? Less than ten years? Less than a century?

People have been calling the iPod phenomenon a fad. They've been saying this for several years now, which to me just says that it's a ridiculous notion to continue saying it, because the very timeframe over which people have been saying it by all accounts dispels the validity of the statement.

I believe it'll be the same with Twitter. I'm betting that a year from now, it's a lot bigger than it is right now. I'm betting on that by saying this on the public record, and hopefully I'll remember to dig up this comment a year from now :-)

By that reasoning, pretty much everything on the web is a fad, making for a rather diluted definition of the term entirely.

To a large degree much of what is on the web is a fad (and to be quite honest most things in life). I like what Wikipedia had to say on it:

A fad, also known as a craze, refers to a fashion that becomes popular in a culture relatively quickly, but loses popularity dramatically.

I think this is what will happen to Twitter, probably sooner than later.

For the Internet as it has existed so far, nearly everything has come and gone, or is currently in its "coming" stage. Wanna bet that in an X number of years, people will say "Myspace? Oh yah, I wonder if anyone still uses that.." (I don't, for instance).

Myspace is already on its way out. Its being replaced by Facebook which itself can see sites up and coming to replace it. Does it mean that in a year or two they will be out of business? No, will they be making the news - probably not.

At what point is something no longer a fad, then? Does it rely on being "hip" for only a certain amount of time? Everything passes eventually, so what's the relevant timeframe? Is it something defined purely by its hip-ness and scale?

Yeah, pretty much I think so. I think what characterizes a fad is when you start seeing something as being everywhere within a given segment. That the media is buzzing so much about it that it attracts people who are looking at it not for its merits but because everyone else is looking at it. They end up using whatever it is for a little bit but get bored with it because it doesn't really appeal to any of their real interests. They set it down and moving on to the next big thing.

I kind of have a beef with the word fad, because it's by its very nature a worthless word. The dictionary describes it as "a temporary fashion…" — but what is temporary? Less than a year? Less than ten years? Less than a century?

Can't answer that for you and it may be undefineable. It is just one of those things. I imagine there may be a word for a trend with some staying power but I can't think of it at the moment.

People have been calling the iPod phenomenon a fad.

I think the iPod is a fad, but that it is moving to where it is a point where it is ubiquitess. What I mean is that when people say they are going to buy an iPod they mean they are going to buy a MP3 player. It will probably remain that way till some new paradigm is invented.

I believe it'll be the same with Twitter. I'm betting that a year from now, it's a lot bigger than it is right now.

It could be but I doubt it. I get that you see a value in Twitter and that it fulfills some function in your life. Excellent. However, I'm willing to bet that most currently interested in Twitter are merely entertained by it. That it doesn't really add anything or fulfill a want or need in their life. When that entertainment value fades the crowds will move on. I admit I could be wrong about this. It is entirely possible that Twitter (or some service similar to it) will become as common as IM's and email.

I'm betting on that by saying this on the public record, and hopefully I'll remember to dig up this comment a year from now :-)

Think you'd be willing to revisit this and admit you were wrong (if it works out that way).

Think you'd be willing to revisit this and admit you were wrong (if it works out that way).

Of course :) If I forget but you don't, feel free to send me a message. I'll come back in and make my statement and admission of being wrong.

However, I agree that it won't quite become a thing for everyone and anyone to use. Not even Myspace and Facebook are, so...

You know I've been wondering about this thread and actually been meaning to revisit it. I hate to admit it but I was wrong about Twitter. I'm not quite convinced it has made it into the mainstream (point in case - I could talk about Twitter with friends and family but then I'd have to explain it) but it does certainly dominate among the technorati (most of the podcasts I listen to tend to mention Twitter ad nauseum). Certainly President Obama and and other celebrities have gone a long way to taking it past geeks and nerds. I'm just not sure it has broke into the mainstream.

I suppose the question is how widespread is Twitter outside of Twitter.