Twitter is infamous for hampering content aggregators, but even if you use one, you’re still viewing Twitter content. There have been a ton of social media site start up attempts, but they fail because no one migrates to them. If you’ve built up a network, base of content, and reputation on a site, it’s very difficult to jump to another unproven (and unpopulated) site and start over. People have been vowing to leave Twitter and Facebook for years, but most of the newcomer sites just don’t “gel” and they quickly get abandoned.
You could use a different app to access Twitter, but you would still be a twitter user. All the costs relevant to the operation of the service you’re accessing would be paid by Twitter, and Twitter would still be in 100% control of their means of making money.
The only thing the third party app could do in addition would be to charge you or show you extra adds, and they would still be entirely dependent on the continued existence of Twitter.
A 3rd party could supply additional content, but of course that costs money, and I’m not sure there is much additional content users would want anyway. So yes, unless you can provide additional value to the customer somehow, significant value, you won’t be able to overcome the momentum of an existing successful product.
Twitter’s more like a giant worldwide website that posts your text messages and lets people subscribe and be notified when you post something, as well as comment/reply to your texts.
Tik Tok is more perplexing- I haven’t figured out how it differs exactly from Instagram, Snapchat, Vine or YouTube exactly- it seems to be a matter of degree or something. I’m 47, so I’m way too old to know or care though.
Ultimately though, apps tend to build their own momentum and once some kind of tipping point is reached by an app, it snowballs from there, and that app becomes dominant. That’s what happened with Microsoft Word- it was competing with WordPerfect until some tipping point, and then Word just hammered the crap out of WP. (and no, it wasn’t some sort of monopolistic stuff- you’ve always had to pay big bucks for the MS Office apps). Once it’s past that tipping point, network effects are what drive that dominance and snowballing- basically everyone is doing it, so if you want to be relevant, so do you. I imagine that’s even more vital in the world of social media than in say… productivity apps.
Same thing with plenty of other apps; a lot of the time it’s the second app in the space that wins, in that they can take advantage/avoid the mistakes of the first-mover.
This is the part that made me wonder, that’s often the case but I hadn’t noticed it with these apps. But then again, Instagram and Tik Tok may be those apps that come into the space, in their case adding pictures and video. Maybe if I was a kid using these apps it would be obvious to me. I suspect there is more than the basic utility that matters to their users and I’m too old to get it.
I’m too old too, but I’m still struggling to understand what you find puzzling.
To me it all seems trivially obvious, not mysterious. They were (mostly by luck) the first in their category to get enough popularity to snowball up to huge popularity. And something better / more compelling hasn’t shown up yet to dethrone them. Yet. That is all. Nothing to see here; move along folks.
Meantime of course the companies are jealously guarding their revenue stream by all possible means both fair & foul. Like pro athletes, they know their time centered in the gravy train is very finite. So they’re milking it for all they can as fast as they can.
If you had a magic wand to make your whims happen or clairvoyance to see the future, what do you think should / would be happening instead of what you think really is happening with Twitter, etc.?
Sorry to be obtuse; I’m not trying to be argumentative or play stupid. I’m just baffled and that’s an unsettling feeling.
There are usually competitors and second into market successes with software that can be easily duplicated. I hadn’t seen this happening in this kind of app, but it looks like a variety of market forces come together to make these apps successful, and then to maintain their market position. No big deal really, I figured there must be something.
I think what you’re missing is that the software doesn’t matter If no one is using it. It’s not about the features, it’s about the users. If no one is there to see your off-brand tweets, then why bother? It’s the social in social media that’s important.
I’m also not sure what you’re asking.
Is it “Why isn’t there another service where you can post short messages that anyone can read?”
If so, there are. There are tons of them. But none of them has twitter’s audience. So if you want lots of people to read your brilliant (but short) idea - you’re better off using twitter because that’s where people read short thoughts from strangers. If you have a world changing idea (or just a funny joke), very, very, very few people are going to see it if you’ve put it on mastodon. Similarly, if you want to read that kind of content, there’s a lot more of it on twitter.
If you’re asking -
“can you read tweets from a non-twitter app?” Again, the answer is “yes.” Lots of people do. But the data is still being collected and stored by twitter and twitter is still part of the content delivery model. If twitter shut down, the app wouldn’t have content.
I think you may be thinking of twitter as a message delivery service from person A to person B. It isn’t. It’s closer to a bulletin board with person A to twitter & person B( & C & D & E) from twitter. But it’s a bulletin board with very specialized rules and some odd conventions. (Tiktok is kind of the same, but with different rules and conventions). The reason they have market dominance is because those are the bulletin boards that “everyone” uses.
I understand how you all see this. I see these apps as databases, you and others provide the content, they don’t seem to be adding content. And it’s not like it’s inaccessible, it’s free, you can get it, and you can add content to it, as you realize and I have learned plenty of other apps can access it and add new content. This to me looks like a great opportunity for someone to take advantage of the data and market that someone else developed, but it is more complicated than that even though there isn’t much of an interface required,
I don’t even think content is what matters here, after all how many valuable Tweets are there? It’s about the instant communication, and that’s the kind of thing for some reason more likely to maintain adherents than valuable content. And if that is the case then I want to find out more about why. However, I am retired, I am not going back into the software business, I spent enough time at that, I’m just curious here.
Now there’s a lot of great stuff people are telling me here, and I’m not complaining about any of it.
I can understand viewing it as a database, but in that case - neither database access nor the data on the db are free. They just appear to be so. Twitter’s lawyers have very tight rules on how the data can be accessed and what it can be used for. I don’t see the opportunity to take advantage of those without paying dearly or getting shut down quickly.
I would agree with you that content isn’t really what matters (nor is instant communication. Most people read tweets asynchronously). At this point, they’re selling their audience size.
This product manager who used to work at Hulu Beijing just published a piece that goes much more in depth over how TikTok managed to grow it’s userbase across the globe:
I kind of suspect that with social media, there’s a huge component of you know, social stuff, and their success can’t really be identified in the same way that you could identify what made say… a new variant on some consumer good successful or not.
I mean, I think that there’s a certain “this app is cool, and that one is not” business going on with social media apps that is rather middle-schoolerish. That’s why some are popular with some age groups, and others are not, and vice-versa. For example, my niece and nephew (15 and 18) scoff at the idea of using Facebook or YouTube; they’re about Tik Tok and Instagram and other platforms like that. Meanwhile people my age don’t even know what Tik Tok really is, in spite of all of them more or less doing the same thing when you get right down to it.
VHS was licensed to any manufacturer who wanted it. Sony kept Beta for its own, and limited itself to one hour of recording. So Beta went from 100% of the market to next to nothing before closing down.
Right, I think this is where the disconnect is. You can only access Twitter’s data in very strictly proscribed areas and if you go beyond that, you get sued. You can’t just take someone else’s data without their permission.
why does trump hate Tiktok?
Because Tiktok users trolled him and requested all the tickets to the Tulsa rally to make him look bad.
Also because of the brilliant Sarah Cooper (Twitter link, but she started on tik tok).
Then they’re just using Twitter still, so Twitter remains just as big. If I can post on Twitter and have it go to Flitter (but not the other way around) I have no reason to post on Flitter ever.
You’ve asserted something like this a number of times, but it is not correct. You can only access Twitter data via API if Twitter agrees to let you, and anyone trying to scrape the data without Twitter’s permission will find themselves cut off quickly.
The fact that individuals can access Twitter in a number of ways is because it is in Twitter’s interest to get more eyeballs on the data they control. A 3rd party that tried to insert themselves between Twitter and its users is not.