Twitter Confirms It Will Launch Its Own Link Shortener(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Twitter Confirms It Will Launch Its Own Link Shortener
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/14/twitter-confirms-it-will-launch-its-own-link-shortener/
42 comments
That's probably why Twitter has been visiting links in tweets recently: http://www.jongales.com/blog/2010/04/14/whats-twitterbot0-1/
Does anyone know why they haven't implemented the ability to insert good old-fashioned hyperlinks? Links embedded in the text would save some characters in the message and improve legibility.
Key point is that it has to fit in 1 SMS message, that's where the whole 140 character thing comes from.
Tweets already diverge from what will fit in an SMS. For example, 140 chars of unicode won't fit.
We go by bytes, not chars.
That's incorrect, Twitter goes by characters. I actually wrote an app to exploit this loophole:
http://tweetcompressor.com/
http://tweetcompressor.com/
It only has to fit in a single SMS message if the tweet is being consumed over SMS. There's no reason to do link shortening in other user interfaces.
yes but is it worth the illegibility and extra step of shortening? how many of those sms recipients make use of the link by retying it in a browser? if there is much of a use case why not have special handling for it?
I would like to know the percentage of tweets sent as SMS.
[deleted]
Also SMS fits 160 chars, not 140.
Because they retain control of the content when they use an in-house link-shortener.
This was entirely predictable.
Link shortening on Twitter only makes sense when it is provided by third-parties (to fit inside Twitter's length restrictions) or when tweets are being consumed over SMS (due to SMS length limits). If Twitter only shortens links when sending them through an SMS gateway, then this will be a very positive change over what 3rd-parties are able to provide. However, if Twitter's link shortening service continues to inconvenience all users just so they can try to build an analytics business around that inconvenience, then that will be a clear sign that Twitter isn't interested in optimizing the user experience--which they claimed was the reason for taking over the roles currently being occupied by 3rd-party software and services.
Also, if they're goal is top optimize UX then they'll need a very short domain name like 3.ly or j.mp. The domains suggested in this article don't make any sense for a link shortener since they're twice as long as necessary.
Also, if they're goal is top optimize UX then they'll need a very short domain name like 3.ly or j.mp. The domains suggested in this article don't make any sense for a link shortener since they're twice as long as necessary.
(I really wish I could fix the typos in this post.)
Why would they foster such a strong ecosystem of applications only to stab them in the back? I think purchasing existing third party apps to fill these holes would make more sense both in terms of fostering less ill will the community and getting better apps than they can likely build internall.
Edit: other posts* state that Twitter has not yet decided if it will use an existing URL shorter or build out its own.
* http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/04/15/twitter-launch-link-sh...
Edit: other posts* state that Twitter has not yet decided if it will use an existing URL shorter or build out its own.
* http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/04/15/twitter-launch-link-sh...
Because bit.ly took on a round of funding which probably made them too expensive for Twitter to buy.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/01/bit-ly-1-5-million/
Would you pay millions of dollars for an URL shortner or build your own?
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/01/bit-ly-1-5-million/
Would you pay millions of dollars for an URL shortner or build your own?
Unfair question: I'm a developer so I would very likely to build my own :) But from a business perspective I would definitely consider buying it; Bitly in particular has a lot of valuable technology that Twitter could monetize on.
Bitly seems to be the default in these discussions and it's clearly the market leader, but there are other companies to consider. I think even starting discussions with another company would force Bitly's asking price down considerably. They may talk about how Twitter is _only_ 30% to 40%* of their traffic, but no business wants to lose those kind of numbers.
* http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-...
Bitly seems to be the default in these discussions and it's clearly the market leader, but there are other companies to consider. I think even starting discussions with another company would force Bitly's asking price down considerably. They may talk about how Twitter is _only_ 30% to 40%* of their traffic, but no business wants to lose those kind of numbers.
* http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-...
Really? I mean to me, it seems like Twitter is really holding all the cards here.
Unfortunately, it seems like an acquisition of Bitly would really amount to charity because if they wanted, they could easily come out with their own competing service which would likely be adopted simply because it's easier to use. Presumably it would be right there on your twitter page or better yet, automatic.
Unfortunately, it seems like an acquisition of Bitly would really amount to charity because if they wanted, they could easily come out with their own competing service which would likely be adopted simply because it's easier to use. Presumably it would be right there on your twitter page or better yet, automatic.
Would you buy it if it was over valued? If Google and Twitter really considered acquiring bit.ly, they must have arrived at the same conclusion at the end of their due diligence that it just wan't worth it. Running the numbers for these types of deals isn't rocket science and if something costs too much, you're not going to buy it.
One word: Sharecropping.
This is my big concern with the current trend of turning websites into platforms. Any share-cropped idea that would be profitable to do in-house and is in line with the business goals will eventually be done in-house.
This is my big concern with the current trend of turning websites into platforms. Any share-cropped idea that would be profitable to do in-house and is in line with the business goals will eventually be done in-house.
Good point, however bit.ly has a good customer base for a very simple product. Besides, I imagine that Twitter will have an api for their shortener + analytics, so bit.ly can still integrate.
Also, bit.ly can make a play to service multiple social networks.
Simply put, they must innovate or die.
Also, bit.ly can make a play to service multiple social networks.
Simply put, they must innovate or die.
Also, bit.ly can make a play to service multiple social networks.
Is there a rich ecosystem of social networks who have all made the same design flaw that Twitter did, fixing which is bit.ly's only reason for existing? And did the social networks in this rich ecosystem all decline to fix the problem for themselves despite the fact that it can be hammered out by a junior engineer in an afternoon?
Is there a rich ecosystem of social networks who have all made the same design flaw that Twitter did, fixing which is bit.ly's only reason for existing? And did the social networks in this rich ecosystem all decline to fix the problem for themselves despite the fact that it can be hammered out by a junior engineer in an afternoon?
Well I was thinking they could evolve a bit. Maybe with their analytics?
They will die, as simple as that. Bit.ly was a short-sighted, stupid investment. I mean they took $2m in VC a year ago, and now another $1.5m in debt? To build a hash of urls, an ACL system, and some metrics?
If only there were an exchange on which we could sell short stupid, private companies.
Twitter is a business. One that is potentially on the same scale of bad investments like Napster or Friendster. At some point they're going to need to focus on features that will make them revenue, and they'll start looking at the "ecosystem" of 3rd party apps, figure out which ones are low-hanging fruit, and harvest.
If only there were an exchange on which we could sell short stupid, private companies.
Twitter is a business. One that is potentially on the same scale of bad investments like Napster or Friendster. At some point they're going to need to focus on features that will make them revenue, and they'll start looking at the "ecosystem" of 3rd party apps, figure out which ones are low-hanging fruit, and harvest.
I feel bad posting this (and will be voted down probably), but why is this significant?
bit.ly appeared to be the front runner for an acquisition in that Twitter arena.
Their analytics are impressive:
http://bit.ly/info/cjwkQI
http://bit.ly/info/oQJM
Their analytics are impressive:
http://bit.ly/info/cjwkQI
http://bit.ly/info/oQJM
Twitter already tried to acquire them and they declined the offer.
Whoops...
Source?
Thought it was just kind of well known. The first of many sources:
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-twitter-wanted-to-...
They also announced their own android app. Photo sharing is likely next.
Bad news for bit.ly, but it was pretty surprising that they held out for more money than what either Google or Twitter offered them.
I've never quite understood the URL shortener business model.
Why would Twitter buy bit.ly when they could have an intern write their own URL shortening service in an afternoon?
URL shorteners are the "Hello World" of webapp programming.
Why would Twitter buy bit.ly when they could have an intern write their own URL shortening service in an afternoon?
URL shorteners are the "Hello World" of webapp programming.
An intern? The entire bit.ly team doesn't even amount to one single intern, because they clearly needed more than that to build this service at scale. Cmon, seriously?
Besides, why would Twitter want bit.ly's thousands of corporate clients who have custom shortened domains. You know, like the one Amazon announced today? Bit.ly has enormous traction--that's why Twitter would want to buy them. Now, why they didn't buy them is anyone's guess, but it certainly isn't because they could "have an intern write their own URL shortening service in an afternoon."
Besides, why would Twitter want bit.ly's thousands of corporate clients who have custom shortened domains. You know, like the one Amazon announced today? Bit.ly has enormous traction--that's why Twitter would want to buy them. Now, why they didn't buy them is anyone's guess, but it certainly isn't because they could "have an intern write their own URL shortening service in an afternoon."
http://tw.it would be killer
This is a new and disruptive idea from innovators in the field.