I recently decided to try out the budding webservice Twitter. The idea is basically a social networking tool, with one function: status updates. You may be familiar with Facebook, and their status update function, but what makes Twitter so popular with journalists is that they can use it with their co-workers, while not revealing the photos of their last vacation.

However, although the technorati have adopted Twitter as a communication tool, it will eventually fade into the netherworld of the internets to prance through the clouds with pets.com. Why would I make such a bold claim? A couple of reasons.

1. It's trendy. Just like all trends, it has a shelf life. To try something new that many other people are trying is fun and exciting. However, anything that rapidly comes into popularity, usually falls just as fast. As I used Twitter, I quickly became tired of hearing about the inane details of people's lives who I only know from podcasts, newspapers and TV. The only people I wanted to hear about were my friends, but I have Facebook for that. Which brings me to my next reason:

2. Facebook. They recently removed "is" from their status update template, opening up the functionality of the feature. By removing that one word, they have duplicated nearly all of Twitter's functionality to anyone already on Facebook, which last time I checked is THE ENTIRE EARTH POPULATION. Most people, i.e. "non geeks" don't want to update more than one status at a time. That means that most people who use Facebook, won't get a Twitter account.

3. It is based on the illusion that people want to hear what you have to say. Most likely, if people really want to hear what you have to say, you have some other outlet. You may write for a newspaper or blog, and so you have a readership there, and it is directly proportional to your position in the public eye. There is nothing wrong with having a small mommy blog for your family to see your baby pics, because that is all it is meant to be, small and personal. It doesn't matter if you only have a few readers.

However, there are many people that clamor for followers on Twitter like it means something. David Pogue, Tech writer for the NY Times has a large followship, but it is not because of what he says on Twitter alone. People who follow people just to get others to reciprocate usually end up with a list of people just like them, who don't actually want to read what the people they are following have to say, they just want to be heard, but because of their followship, aren't. That was probably confusing to anyone who hasn't used the service, but we will continue.

4. They aren't making any money. They currently have no revenue. Hopefully you don't have to be told why that is a bad thing. They have plenty of money to survive for now because of venture capitalists, but if they don't figure out how to make money, they will not survive. The problem is, that as soon as they start charging users or adding advertisements, people will leave in droves because of the nature of their users (people who love free things, like every other person in the world), and they would have to survive this.

The funny thing is, that others are profiting off of Twitter. Makers of Twitter desktop clients and iPhone apps are selling their software for a fee that accesses the free service. That must be frustrating!

5. Their service is easily duplicable. If they start charging to use their service, someone else will come along and be the hot new thing. I mean, it is a 140 character micro blogging service! How hard could it be?

Don't get me wrong, Twitter is kind of fun to use, and would be useful for journalists to communicate without getting to personal, but like internet trends of the past, it will flicker then fade, leaving a group of rabid die-hards defending it's honor.


For more reading, head over to Valleywag for an article I found while looking for a picture to include with the post.