Twitter's future: How high can it fly?
economist.com
economist.com
Plus, there's the fact that it's a banal and mostly useless communication medium and an echo chamber. But I might be projecting on those last two.
When your offering is personalized RSS feeds with char limits, you have got to hold on to what you've got. I think the ultimate thing that could damn the company is that they won't adjust their functionality to keep up with various market trends (e.g. the way Facebook and Linkedin have).
They probabily will, in fact; the real question imho is whether they try to build it on top of the Twitter serviceor in spite of it.
Obviously an idea that runs contrary to the usual thinking around here, but something worth a quick muse over.
I don't like my technologies (especially the ones I invest heavily in) to be owned by particular companies that need to please investors / shareholders. I know that my needs will always come second to their financial goals--this is particularly true for unpaid services (twitter, Google, Facebook, etc.).
I don't know why we were so quick to abandon "outdated" technologies in favor of corporate owned ones. It short of seems like we forfeited our data and collective ownership in open platforms / public utilities in favor of things that were easy and looked cool.
Also the fact that the ads aren't as targeted as Facebook or Google hurts it's advertising capabilities. Still I don't think Twitter will go anywhere anytime soon, it seems like the go-to social network for power brokers, the press, and the intellectual elite. That's gotta count for something, right?
For me it's the cleanest user experience. And as opposed to Facebook, get's better with the more people you follow instead of worse. It's also got less spamming ads than Facebook and much more interesting content.