June 2009 - Page 3 of 3 - Stay N Alive

Twitter a Ubiquitous Utility? Open Up a Little!

electricityI’m completely stumped by the recent media blitz by Twitter co-founders, Ev Williams, Biz Stone, and Jack Dorsey.  They seem to be traveling the nation like rock stars, willing to say anything and everything about whatever the media wants to hear, as their service sits broken on the sidelines and the world wonders where their much needed Twitter has gone, or why their favorite app is down.  Hey, it’s not my company though, so I’m sure they have their reasons, and good for them for enjoying and celebrating their success.

But then we see statements like that of Jack Dorsey, a reputable coder like myself, and someone I highly respect, stating, “I think Twitter’s a success for us when people stop talking about it, when we stop doing these panels and people just use it as a utility, use it like electricity…It fades into the background, something that’s just a part of communication. We put it on the same level as any communication device. So, e-mail, SMS, phone. That’s where we want to be.”  Of course he’s saying this while his co-founders are touring the nation, visiting Oprah and Ashton and every major News outlet on the planet trying to get people to talk about Twitter.  The thing is, I don’t care how useful Twitter is or has become (Despite the negatives that I’ve written about Twitter, I’ve written just as many positives), Twitter will never become a “Utility” until they open up a little, and I don’t just mean from a PR perspective (actually, I don’t mean that at all). I mean from an architecture perspective.

My friend (and fellow LouisGray.com co-writer), Rob Diana, thinks that Twitter is on its way to becoming infrastructure.  I’m not arguing that’s not possible.  In fact, I really think Twitter has the masses to make that happen.  However, to make it the caliber of a “Utility”, or like “Electricity”, to me seems far-fetched when in the end, there is always a Twitter brand wrapped around it and no way for the public to have any control of that data.  Until they remove those chains, Twitter is and always will be just another communications Service, not a Utility.  Twitter will never blend into the background until they open up some.

Let’s look at some example utilities:

Electricity

We’ll start with the most obvious.  Electricity is a natural force.  It can only be created by utilizing existing energy.  Various “Utilities” have found ways to harness this energy to create this electricity and deliver it to your home.  However no single company owns that electricity, and each company is using the existing, open, laws of physics to harness and deliver such electricity to your home.  No single company controls how electricity gets created or delivered.  In fact, depending on your own local laws, you could even create your own electricity, and live independent from any single “Utility” company that also provides such service.

Water

Water is very similar.  Each company provides a “service” or “utility” around cleaning the water supplies and routing them to your home.  However, there’s nothing stopping any individual (other than government) from collecting their own water, and purifying it themselves for consumption.  It’s bound only by the laws of Physics, and lives on a completely open model.

Phone

Perhaps even closer to Twitter’s turf than Electricity, the Phone is an open communications process.  A “utility” company delivers the lines to get a signal from the sender’s phone, to a routing operator, and over to the recipient.  However the underlying technology sending a phone’s signal from sender to recipient and back is not proprietary to any one single company.  It’s simple Electricity (there’s that word again) and open protocols, and based on completely open (the most open) standards, bound simply by the laws of Physics.

So how in the world can a company like Twitter become like “Electricity”, flowing as the infrastructure of communication with little to no knowledge of those using the service?  It comes down to the laws of Physics.  Twitter needs to stop making the rules.  They need to open up 100%, open up their code-base, release a protocol, and start letting people run their own Federated Twitter servers that can be run in any environment, speak the same protocol, and in essence, be invisible to those using the service.  Twitter’s current model will never take them there.

Google’s leading the way here with Wave.  The funny thing is Google employees aren’t going around bragging that their service will become like “Electricity” (okay, well maybe their name kind of implies that).  What will happen is that you’ll be familiar with the Wave Product, which will become like Gmail and many, many users will use it since Google was first-to-market.  However, what most users will not be aware of is that the way they communicate elsewhere will also be powered by Google Wave technology.  Google Wave is also a Protocol, and built on an Open-Source Architecture.  You’ll be able to run your own Wave servers, or even write your own services that speak the Wave protocol.  Your users will never even know their communication went through a Google product.

I’m afraid Twitter has some serious competition as long as they want to become a Utility and Google Wave is in open development.  Because they’ve waited to enter the Open arena, Google may just beat them to the punch on the “Utility” game.  Jack Dorsey’s a smart guy.  Twitter’s a great and powerful platform.  However, I’m afraid they’re focusing too much on the platform and the product and not enough on what should really be the “Electricity” of their system – the communication.

Twitter, it’s time to open up guys.  I’m itching to use some of that “Electricity” of yours.

Why Kara Swisher is More Wrong About Wronger

nails on a chalkboardSlow news day?  Let’s let aside the whole “Web 3.0” vs. “2010 Web” Debate.  They’re all just terms after all, right?  Let’s focus on something a little more important, like the fact that an established journalist like Kara Swisher can’t use correct grammar in her titles.  Let’s look at the definition of “Wronger”:

“One who wrongs someone; One who commits a wrong; Comparative form of wrong: more wrong”

Keep in mind that the only definition of “wronger” provided by Google was that one, by Wiktionary.com, something many would hardly consider a credible dictionary.  However in this case, even their definition states Kara is completely wrong on this matter.

What’s the deal with bloggers, journalists, and marketers feeling it’s okay all-of-the-sudden to relax their use of grammar?  These guys all have editors that check their work, and I wouldn’t hesitate to think they have all had much more English training than I have.  I mean, even Apple’s doing it – what’s with the whole “Funner” theme?  Does that terminology make it sound “more fun”?  To me, it just makes them look stupid.

I hope Kara’s use was just tongue-in-cheek, but let’s stop this practice.  It’s simply wrong.

Twitter Needs to Buy TweetDeck

tweetdeckWSJ today reported that China has blocked Twitter.com, preventing its 1.3 billion citizens from potentially accessing the site.  Iain Dodsworth, developer of TweetDeck, was quick to point out however (which I noticed on FriendFeed ironically) that his service is still reportedly accessible in the Mainland.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – Twitter, you need your own desktop client!

With everyone up in arms over how Twitter will monetize and when it will happen, there has been one obvious missing link from the start.  Twitter has never had control over how Tweets get to the users.  They themselves have admitted the API gets used much more than their own Twitter.com site gets used, showing, to me, that there is a way, currently, Twitter could be monetizing.  Twitter has made it clear they do not intend to advertise through Tweets, which would almost certainly be rejected by their current user-base, already annoyed by the abundance of spam on the site.  What Twitter could do however, that is assuming they have control over the main methods users receive Tweets, aka their desktop clients, is insert ads into such a desktop client and their own website, unobtrusive to users.  Users will probably not even care at such ad placement, considering Google gets away with it, Yahoo and Microsoft do within their own search products.

Other Monetization Strategies

According to a recent TechCrunch article, Iain Dodsworth himself is already looking to monetize via this method.  His method doesn’t even involve advertising, and maybe, in a world where advertising is beginning to prove ineffective, his method has even more potentially lucrative than the one I mention.  His method is, according to TechCrunch, to charge developers looking for integration into TweetDeck for integration into the product.  I think this is a great idea, and something that, with the popularity of TweetDeck, will prove quite profitable for him in the end.

Twitter could be doing this as well and perhaps even more effectively with the strong developer platform they have built.  Add to that ability to integrate directories of applications into such an application enable featured app listings, along with perhaps an advertisement here or there Twitter could very quickly become profitable just by having control of such an application.

Why TweetDeck is a Good Choice

This isn’t meant to begrudge any of the other apps I enjoy and use.  The fact is that TweetDeck is the most popular and most used Desktop app for Twitter right now (even though we can’t prove that at the moment thanks to Twitter API issues).  It has the most users and most adoption – it would be the quickest barrier to entry, and clearly has features their users like, as they seem to continue using the app.

Considering deals are already being made to monetize the application, and considering, based on the recent investment of $500,000 into the company, comparatively speaking to the amount of money Twitter claims to have, TweetDeck shouldn’t be that expensive for Twitter to buy at the moment.  Now’s the time Twitter. I wouldn’t wait much longer, as TweetDeck is about to become a whole lot more valuable.

More Distribution Options

Considering the recent issues in China, were Twitter to own the distribution channel, let’s imagine it’s TweetDeck, they would still have control of what goes out to China, and how to monetize off of those users.  Currently, TweetDeck, and any client for that matter, have no devotion to Twitter – it’s just the first service they’re servicing in a long line of other services they’re also adding to their clients.  Twitter should own this opportunity, and where they are claiming to be the next “AP”, if they’ve learned anything from the News organizations (I’ve worked in this industry), they need to control the distribution and not just the content.

I think Twitter is giving up an important opportunity by not having control of the desktop.  I could probably say the same for the mobile phone (especially the iPhone).  Perhaps their fear is that it would introduce unfair competition for the other desktop clients out there, but I don’t see any reason the other clients can’t compete as well, if not more than Twitter would provide anyway.  This simply provides an important distribution platform where they would be provided many more monetization opportunities.  I think it’s win-win.

Now, to get the guys at Twitter to start reading my blog…