Apple should buy Twitter, and they should do it now(patrickbgibson.tumblr.com)
patrickbgibson.tumblr.com
Apple should buy Twitter, and they should do it now
http://patrickbgibson.tumblr.com/post/36041799210/apple-and-twitter/
19 comments
I am generally wary of these self-proclaimed "experts" writing about topics they don't have much idea about.
1) This guy is not a part of* Twitter, so he knows nothing about what Twitter's situation is from the inside.
2) This guy is not a part of* Apple, he has no idea about what Apple's budgets and plans and areas of interest are.
If I were an executive from say, the buyer, that is Apple, give me one good reason why I should listen to this guy's advice?
Writing controversial headlines is good for pageviews, but if you don't know what you're talking about, you might as well not create a stir in an otherwise peaceful community.
(*part of = part of the organization)
1) This guy is not a part of* Twitter, so he knows nothing about what Twitter's situation is from the inside.
2) This guy is not a part of* Apple, he has no idea about what Apple's budgets and plans and areas of interest are.
If I were an executive from say, the buyer, that is Apple, give me one good reason why I should listen to this guy's advice?
Writing controversial headlines is good for pageviews, but if you don't know what you're talking about, you might as well not create a stir in an otherwise peaceful community.
(*part of = part of the organization)
Respectfully disagree.
Twitter and Apple exist in the public sphere and they have many stakeholders. The public regulates corporations on many issues (down to the local planning board) so to limit discussion of a corporation to only those on the inside denies the reality that they have effects on the outside.
To take an extreme example: Nader and his book Unsafe at Any Speed.
Twitter and Apple are integrated in our lives (some more than others). Like Luther nailing his Theses to the church door, creating a stir is sometimes necessary.
To say one shouldn't create a stir seems conservative - if not defensive.
(If the author owns one share of Apple would that give him the right?)
Twitter and Apple exist in the public sphere and they have many stakeholders. The public regulates corporations on many issues (down to the local planning board) so to limit discussion of a corporation to only those on the inside denies the reality that they have effects on the outside.
To take an extreme example: Nader and his book Unsafe at Any Speed.
Twitter and Apple are integrated in our lives (some more than others). Like Luther nailing his Theses to the church door, creating a stir is sometimes necessary.
To say one shouldn't create a stir seems conservative - if not defensive.
(If the author owns one share of Apple would that give him the right?)
You're conflating social upheaval with uninformed blogspam? I think Luther was intimately aware of the ongoings of the church, and Nader wrote a reference-backed book on the subject - he was an expert.
"To take an extreme example."
I am not defending the piece as some monumental treatise.
BUT...
by this argument, an environmentalist asking for protection against pollution could be dismissed by a CEO who claims the market for pricing those externalities can't/aren't understood by those outside of the shop.
And...the corporation today could be easily compared in its breadth and omnipotence to the church of the 16th century.
I am not defending the piece as some monumental treatise.
BUT...
by this argument, an environmentalist asking for protection against pollution could be dismissed by a CEO who claims the market for pricing those externalities can't/aren't understood by those outside of the shop.
And...the corporation today could be easily compared in its breadth and omnipotence to the church of the 16th century.
I'm not sure why you are downvoted, but I sincerely value your opinion. Thanks.
If Apple uses its vast cash reserves to buy (for whatever silly reason) a few of those billion dollar social start-ups,(Twitter, Color, EverNote, Tumblr.. ) that could give fresh air to start-up financing. Look Yahoo, Microsoft do it, and kill them afterwards but a lot of VCs rejoice.
Interesting that the first "other problem" Apple has is listed as
* Apple can’t update its online store without taking it offline first.
In my experience it's a minority view that Apple are unable to do this. It seems more likely that it's a pure marketing decision, built around Apple's very successful hype machine approach.
For all of Apple's failings it's a stretch to suggest that they aren't technically competent enough to build an online store.
* Apple can’t update its online store without taking it offline first.
In my experience it's a minority view that Apple are unable to do this. It seems more likely that it's a pure marketing decision, built around Apple's very successful hype machine approach.
For all of Apple's failings it's a stretch to suggest that they aren't technically competent enough to build an online store.
According to Gruber, they actually aren't technically competent enough to build an online store that doesn't require taking it down: http://twitter.com/gruber/status/264135810566209537
This was true a few years ago. I have a friend who works on it, and got him drunk enough one night to admit this :)
I don't think Gruber is correct on this one. The add minor items all the time without taking it down.
They add items all the time. Taking it down is just more hype and probably gives the IT team a nice way to do a double check before they get hit with a high load event.
> Android is still ugly, but it’s much less ugly than it was a few years ago.
It this opinion common? Trying friends' iOS devices, I can't say I've ever thought "gee, this is so much prettier than my Android phone".
It this opinion common? Trying friends' iOS devices, I can't say I've ever thought "gee, this is so much prettier than my Android phone".
It is because it's deep in people's mind like the hate for IE, it is much a better browser now but people are hard to change their mind. So is for Android, it has evolved a lot but people still think Android is the one that was on the G1. It is not, it moved on, it's nicer and much easier to use. I can't believe someone who says that he can't use it. If you have problems with (the latest versions 3+) Android, you will have problems with iPhone and even a toaster. If then you choose to hate it and keep your mindset than that's another discussion.
This is so true.
I hated android based on my experiences early on. Then I tried a Galaxy Nexus on ICS. Almost overnight I dumped my iPhone and switched.
I hated android based on my experiences early on. Then I tried a Galaxy Nexus on ICS. Almost overnight I dumped my iPhone and switched.
Extremely. It's not so much that the iOS devices are prettier - although their UX simplicity is hard to argue with - but that Android's extra power and flexibility also comes with more interface complexity. People find it hard. To the point that my parents and girlfriend all have trouble placing phone calls with my Galaxy S2.
I still love it, but it's got a way to go.
I still love it, but it's got a way to go.
It's not just the stock apps - there is a culture amongst Apple 3rd party developers to discuss, refine and push design and interaction forwards.
The only time I've seen it amongst Android devs is for that alarm clock app [1], whereas it's a regular talking point about iOS apps (the latest being Paper discussing their colour-picker [2]).
[1] http://dewith.com/2012/an-android-design-process/ [2] http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/31/3578672/paper-1-3-color-p...
The only time I've seen it amongst Android devs is for that alarm clock app [1], whereas it's a regular talking point about iOS apps (the latest being Paper discussing their colour-picker [2]).
[1] http://dewith.com/2012/an-android-design-process/ [2] http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/31/3578672/paper-1-3-color-p...
There's been a lot more activity lately about app design and quality in the Android community. Google esp. has made a big push to start talking about these things in accessible formats, the most notable format being live streams, G+ hangouts, and youtube archives of said streams and hangouts: http://www.youtube.com/user/androiddevelopers
Things aren't perfect, but things are getting better and we are starting to see a community come together that wants strong, high quality design.
Things aren't perfect, but things are getting better and we are starting to see a community come together that wants strong, high quality design.
http://www.androiduipatterns.com/
Granted, the community is smaller and the starting point is substantially lower (e.g. getting developers of iOS ports to read the Android design guidelines in the first place), but it is the same kind of culture.
Granted, the community is smaller and the starting point is substantially lower (e.g. getting developers of iOS ports to read the Android design guidelines in the first place), but it is the same kind of culture.
I agree, I think it's got to the point now that it's a choice between two visions rather than better and worse.
When I use Android it feels like it puts a lot of flexibility and choice in my hands, that I can probably do more with it that I can with iOS but that there's additional work involved in that, both in that customisation but also the small amount of additional drag that comes with the additional choices available.
When I use iOS it feels like there's more simplicity but if I don't like that simplicity then tough. Don't like the iPhone? Tough. Want better integration between apps and services? Tough.
Personally my position right now is that I want iOS (I have kids, a job, a house and a million other things that take time and I have no additional bandwidth to invest in getting something just so, even if there would be benefit in doing so).
Ten years ago that wouldn't have been the case and I'd have found Android a more compelling choice and would have revelled in the flexibility, the handset options and everything else.
But overall that choice seems good for all of us. Better two visions offering genuine options than two identakit versions of the same thing, or worse still one monopoly player and no choice.
When I use Android it feels like it puts a lot of flexibility and choice in my hands, that I can probably do more with it that I can with iOS but that there's additional work involved in that, both in that customisation but also the small amount of additional drag that comes with the additional choices available.
When I use iOS it feels like there's more simplicity but if I don't like that simplicity then tough. Don't like the iPhone? Tough. Want better integration between apps and services? Tough.
Personally my position right now is that I want iOS (I have kids, a job, a house and a million other things that take time and I have no additional bandwidth to invest in getting something just so, even if there would be benefit in doing so).
Ten years ago that wouldn't have been the case and I'd have found Android a more compelling choice and would have revelled in the flexibility, the handset options and everything else.
But overall that choice seems good for all of us. Better two visions offering genuine options than two identakit versions of the same thing, or worse still one monopoly player and no choice.
Interestingly, it took me a while to figure out how to call a contact from a friend's iPhone.
Do they use iPhones? I'm not really sure how placing a call is harder on a SGS2 than on iOS.
I really have no dog in this fight, but placing phone calls consist of about 1% of what I use my smartphone for.
If we're talking about most Android devices out there I have to agree completely. Samsung's skin is especially hideous.
The Nexus version of Android is what it should be. It looks great. It's clean. It's functional. It's even better than iOS is.
The Nexus version of Android is what it should be. It looks great. It's clean. It's functional. It's even better than iOS is.
Yes: if you use a Google-branded Android device or have rooted it, you have a good experience unshared by most Android users who are stuck with vendor-crippled UIs and, at least in the US, carrier-marred devices which are rarely improved after purchase. (yeah, yeah, you can probably jailbreak it: most people can't and many who can don't want a second job subsidizing their carrier's policies)
If Android devices weren't blocked from receiving software updates and the stock Google experience was the default, Apple would have a much tougher fight.
If Android devices weren't blocked from receiving software updates and the stock Google experience was the default, Apple would have a much tougher fight.
I agree with the fundamental observation: Google is getting better at a lot of the stuff Apple does faster than Apple is getting better at the stuff Google does. This isn't surprising, Apple is a very, very focused company.
Here's where the article lost me: "They (Twitter) own scale". Seriously, Twitter has gotten shaky under load despite not doing push or even live updating its web page (compare this to Facebook's timeline).
For that matter, iTunes represents scale on a level unimaginable to Twitter. How much data does the writer think Apple is vending to support all the on-demand video, app purchases, and whatnot? Sure, iTunes goes down now and then, but so do Netflix and Hulu.
But there were a number of incorrect but less annoying observations beforehand. E.g. Apple doesn't NEED to take its online store offline to update stuff. It updates stuff all the time. Consider the rumor factory around Apple, I suspect the main reason is to stop folks spelunking the Apple Store constantly (especially during the lead-up to announcements) -- which they do ANYWAY.
Here's where the article lost me: "They (Twitter) own scale". Seriously, Twitter has gotten shaky under load despite not doing push or even live updating its web page (compare this to Facebook's timeline).
For that matter, iTunes represents scale on a level unimaginable to Twitter. How much data does the writer think Apple is vending to support all the on-demand video, app purchases, and whatnot? Sure, iTunes goes down now and then, but so do Netflix and Hulu.
But there were a number of incorrect but less annoying observations beforehand. E.g. Apple doesn't NEED to take its online store offline to update stuff. It updates stuff all the time. Consider the rumor factory around Apple, I suspect the main reason is to stop folks spelunking the Apple Store constantly (especially during the lead-up to announcements) -- which they do ANYWAY.
I gave up taking the article seriously after I read the statement about WebObjects. The first release of WebObjects was in 1995. It's gone through some radical changes since it was first introduced. The biggest of them was the conversion of the framework from Objective C-based to Java. Just because a framework is old, it doesn't mean that it's bad.
This was a bit of a bust for me as well. Talking about Apple's web services being terrible and then slamming the technology that has made them oodles of money and rarely - if ever - has problems... It seemed a bit extreme.
> Talking about Apple's web services being terrible and then slamming the technology that has made them oodles of money and rarely - if ever - has problems...
You can make oodles of money off of crappy infrastructure[1]. The fact of the matter is that Apple's web services really are terrible – especially from a developer's perspective. Why do I have to use Apple's tools to add a device to my iOS Developer account[2]? Why isn't there an API for retrieving reviews for my apps? (Yes, I know about the RSS feed – it's terrible and currently broken once you get past page 10.) Or app rankings? Why isn't there an API to retrieve my app sales reports? Why isn't there an API to iTunes? (Yes, I know about the Enterprise Partner Feed – that's not the same thing.) Don't even get me started about Radar, their bug reporter[3]. The list goes on and on.
1. The infrastructure isn't necessarily "crappy" for them – it apparently works well enough for them internally. The problems begin once you try to interface with them as a third party.
2. There are some web scraper tools that allow you to do this, such as @mattt's Cupertino: https://github.com/mattt/cupertino/
3. bugreporter.apple.com
You can make oodles of money off of crappy infrastructure[1]. The fact of the matter is that Apple's web services really are terrible – especially from a developer's perspective. Why do I have to use Apple's tools to add a device to my iOS Developer account[2]? Why isn't there an API for retrieving reviews for my apps? (Yes, I know about the RSS feed – it's terrible and currently broken once you get past page 10.) Or app rankings? Why isn't there an API to retrieve my app sales reports? Why isn't there an API to iTunes? (Yes, I know about the Enterprise Partner Feed – that's not the same thing.) Don't even get me started about Radar, their bug reporter[3]. The list goes on and on.
1. The infrastructure isn't necessarily "crappy" for them – it apparently works well enough for them internally. The problems begin once you try to interface with them as a third party.
2. There are some web scraper tools that allow you to do this, such as @mattt's Cupertino: https://github.com/mattt/cupertino/
3. bugreporter.apple.com
Crappy infrastructure != crappy code and web application design.
- No API for app reviews? Business decision. - No API for app rankings? Business decision. - No API for... you get my point.
If apple saw a reason to have these things, they'd have them. Blaming the WebObjects stack just _doesn't_ make sense.
bugreporter.apple.com? I'm with you, it needs to go the way of its 10 year old capsule buttons.
- No API for app reviews? Business decision. - No API for app rankings? Business decision. - No API for... you get my point.
If apple saw a reason to have these things, they'd have them. Blaming the WebObjects stack just _doesn't_ make sense.
bugreporter.apple.com? I'm with you, it needs to go the way of its 10 year old capsule buttons.
Do you think you'd have to wait 6 weeks before apple approved your tweet and let it go live?
No, but you will be assigned 6 pre-approved tweets per month (for a modest $99/year fee).
The best product company should acquire one of the weakest ones?
In my opinion it's Square, not Twitter that makes sense for Apple the most.
Payments has the potential to be a multi billion dollar business for them if executed correctly.
Payments has the potential to be a multi billion dollar business for them if executed correctly.
This is largely nonsensical. Apple has trouble with "The Cloud", so it should buy a company that doesn't solve any of its problems, as a signaling device to potential future hires? What? And I take second place to no man in my disdain for WebObjects, but I know for a fact that a) Apple has very good engineers working on tooling and b) it really doesn't matter to the problems as stated, which are much more about executive attention.
The cloud stuff doesn't make money. Apple is (or was, when I was there last) an extremely profit conscious organization. The reason that the various previous internet initiatives were failures is not because Apple can't hire good engineers, or uses yesterday's technology, but rather because no executive was going to make it to VP by spending a bunch of money and more importantly engineer time on something that by design loses money, and has only the vaguest connection to driving adoption of hardware.
This latter has certainly changed -- if the OP has noticed that Android "Just Works" in ways that iOS doesn't, rest assured that Apple knows.
The cloud stuff doesn't make money. Apple is (or was, when I was there last) an extremely profit conscious organization. The reason that the various previous internet initiatives were failures is not because Apple can't hire good engineers, or uses yesterday's technology, but rather because no executive was going to make it to VP by spending a bunch of money and more importantly engineer time on something that by design loses money, and has only the vaguest connection to driving adoption of hardware.
This latter has certainly changed -- if the OP has noticed that Android "Just Works" in ways that iOS doesn't, rest assured that Apple knows.
Thinking that Apple should buy an overpriced company (in billions) that doesnt have a sustainable business model to improve their web serices is ludicrous at best. If you are going to spend money in that scale, buy TomTom. At least you would get a super profitable business and solve a real problem Apple has (worldwide maps and amazing geodata collection teams)
I always thought the Apple webstore going offline was more a marketing hype thing, rather than a technical one.
But does Apple need to build that level of scale? The article makes valid points about Apple needing to beef up its web teams - but a $1bn acqhire seems excessive. Better cherry picking some top quality individuals to drive a vision and letting them lose on talented developers than buying an entire infrastructure that isn't really what Apple wants.
Plus Apple could never kill off Twitter. It's too "hot" - an with that comes attention. Apple's pockets are deep enough for all and sundry to sue, or governments to get in glossy fits over (allegedly) blasphemous/libellous tweets.
Can someone give a rough range for how much Twitter would cost to buy? Instagram was $1bn, and I'd say Twitter is at least an order of magnitude higher, no?
Im sure for around a Billion dollars they could probably do some pretty crazy stuff in-house since advertising/media isnt really their thing.
Apple would be far better off buying Joyent.
I rather spend $10B in producing ten million TVs and selling them at 50% profit.
Jobs would agree.
Jobs would agree.
Duckduckgo would make more sense in my opinion.
What? Seriously? Apple should acquihire Twitter?
> The social network is basically an added bonus.
I think we're done here.