Anyone who reads my blog probably knows about app.net, so I won’t go into details about it. I already linked to an article by Dr. Drang yesterday.
What’s been bugging me is that lots of people in the blogsphere have been complaining about Twitter, on Twitter – with app.net in mind.
I get that the changes Twitter is making are not everyone’s cup of tea. I really do, but I’m with Dr. Drang on this one: No one is forcing you to use Twitter, seeing 10.000 retweets about Miley Cyrus new haircut, or Justin Bieber’s latest bs. I also see that most people who complain about the changes are either devs, or folks who have been on Twitter for a long time and don’t like the changes the company is making.
But I think I know why they have to make them: Independence.
Twitter wants to stay independent. They’re not looking for a buyer, so they have to make money. They want to build a sustainable business, and to do so they are starting to enforce policies that are not to everyone’s liking.
Think about it: When was the last time you heard of a company out of Silicon Valley that was aiming to stay relevant and independent? Anyone?
So, after going through my Twitter feed for a few days, and growing increasingly frustrated with people complaining about Twitter on Twitter, I shot off a tweet. Jason Snell of Macworld was the target.
I didn’t pick him for any particular reason other than he was the last one in my feed. Here’s what he said, and my reply:
Harsh, I admit, but it wasn’t really directed at Jason, whom I admire greatly. It was just me venting my frustration over so many people complaining about Twitter. Apologies to Jason.
Then, the always awesome Harry C. Marks (@HarryCMarks) of curiousrat.com chimed in, after I asked him what his beef with Twitter was. He managed to bring me back to a more reasonable myself – thanks for that! You can follow the conversation we had on my feed (@TLITD69).
Again, I get why some people are complaining, but I also get why Twitter needs to do what they are doing. I’d rather have them stay on their own and make money, then have them swallowed up by a big tech company because the best-case scenario in that is that the service remains “free” for, say Google users. The worst-case is an aqui-hire. No matter what, the best possible outcome would be worse than what it is now.