(FILES) The Twitter logo is displayed at the entrance of Twitter headquarters in San Francisco in this March 11, 2011 file photo. KIMIHIRO HOSHINO/AFP/GettyImages
It was only a matter of time before Twitter would lose its halo.
More than any other social media company, Twitter occupied a special place in the hearts of geeks and Silicon Valley insiders because it seemed to reflect many of their loftiest ideals. Whether it was the company's technology, which let anyone build almost anything on its platform, or its staunch defense of free speech and dissident uprisings, Twitter was the tech company that served as an example of how to do things right.
So when Twitter signaled that it was going to institute new rules and place some modest restrictions on developers, it was inevitable there was going to be some anger and disappointment. But the swiftness with which insiders have turned on Twitter and the degree of their outrage has been surprising to me, and no doubt to the company.
In a nutshell, critics felt Twitter was putting its desire or need to make money over its obligations to users and the developers who built the applications that made the service so popular.
I'm not convinced that's the case, but even so, it would be naive to think the San Francisco-based company wouldn't at some point need to make changes that would allow it to continue to grow and make money. Thinking like a business still seems to be something many entrepreneurs feel is beneath them.
But I think the backlash represents something far larger in Silicon Valley. Twitter's timing may have been unavoidable,
but it also could not have been worse. For this has become the summer of our social media discontent. The Facebook IPO stumble, the Groupon floundering, the Zynga stock meltdown, all have cast a shadow across the Web 2.0 industry.Just a year ago, Web 2.0 businesses seemed poised for their big coming out party, with a string of highly-anticipated IPOs. Those would, at last, prove these companies that had changed so much about the Web had also matured into sustainable businesses and would become the dominant names of this decade.
Except they didn't. Their debuts have deflated that notion, and created more, not less, skepticism about social media's long-term business prospects. That, in turn, created a cloud over the countless social companies still private.
If Facebook isn't the business juggernaut we thought it would be, what does that mean for every other social start-up that is counting on advertising to pay the bills?
Like Twitter, of course, which is one of the largest social companies still private, and the one already hounded with questions about its business prospects. Facebook's flop would put more pressure on Twitter to find ways to squeeze money out of its service, right?
The Twitter changes played right into that conspiratorial thinking, and as a result have been portrayed in rather stark terms: They are giving developers the heel of their boot. They care more about profits than users.
A Twitter spokesperson declined to comment on this. But the company has noted its ad business is picking up nicely, thank you very much.
The truth, of course, is more complex. The company has for months told developers they need to steer clear of building certain types of applications, such as client interfaces, the tools that allow you to read and post tweets.
The problem, from Twitter's perspective, is that the many interfaces now available made for countless different ways people could use and experience the service. That might be exciting to early adopters, but it's ultimately confusing for the mainstream users Twitter needs to attract.
In a blog post explaining these changes, Twitter's Michael Sippey insisted the company would work with developers and was not out to crush those who had put their faith and energy into the Twitter ecosystem.
"One of the key things we've learned over the past few years is that when developers begin to demand an increasingly high volume (usage), we can guide them toward areas of value for users and their businesses," Sippey said.
That olive branch failed to mollify critics.
According to blogger Dustin Curtis, founder of the Svbtle blogging network: "The problem with this solution is that Twitter was built on the backs of the very developers it is now blocking. It now expects those developers to continue supporting Twitter ... but it no longer wants to provide any value to developers in return. This is an extremely dangerous position because it creates resentment in the minds of the people most likely to influence the future."
But Twitter was eventually going to have to come up with a common interface for each platform, and that's exactly what the company is moving to do.
Will that help it make more money and be more advertising friendly? Yes. Was this a move born of greed or callous backroom calculations? Doubtful.
Still, it's perhaps been a painful realization for many that Twitter is a business.
And with that, Twitter in particular and the Web 2.0 industry in general have lost their last hints of innocence.
Contact Chris O'Brien at 415-298-0207 or cobrien@mercurynews.com. Follow him at Twitter.com/obrien and read his blog posts at www.siliconbeat.com.
dakota fanning casey anthony video diary lamarcus aldridge jeremy renner justin timberlake engaged bluefin tuna jonestown
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.