Would You Trust Google With Twitter?

That's hard to tell...Google "could" bring a new sense of innovation to Twitter (TweetDeck continues to out pace Twitter in the features department) or could lobotomize the platform with a bad integration. Wish I had a crystal ball on this one.

I think the question is not really about "cost" but "value" and "commitment" $1.49 is less than a cup of coffee so isn't an arduous burden.

Why should they pay?
- Because they want real, stable metrics.
- Because they want support when they need it.
- Because we've innovated more in the last 10 days than FeedBurner has in the last two years.

Because, basically, the value we add is worth it.

Sure, It is a business decision, even at the $1.49 minimum. But adoption is accelerating, I'll tell you that. Banner day for us yesterday, today heading is already the same direction. FeedBurner has had it soul destroyed by Google. Time to move on.

FYI: Post on metrics and the "$1.49 question" here: http://blog.feedblitz.com/2009/04/on-rss-subscriber-counts-and-feedburner.html

I don't want google to have anything to do with twitter. I don't hate google but they own too many of the tools we use on a daily basis. And Danny raises a very valid point - they don't have adequate customer service for the size of the company - maybe this is because most of us use their tools for free.

Some days when I'm feeling paranoid-ish I think that in the near future every aspect of our lives will be brought to us by google - think of all the data they own on us already - might even be more than what the govt. has.

This deal isn't happening. I'll leave my big mouth open at that.
: )

Chris, I agree to an extent that Twitter is more than likely a fad, but then again, so are many of the tools of the social media. I honestly can't see Facebook being around in a few years time, but then that's the neature of this media type; things evolve, people move on and the cycle repeats itself. What the developers can do is ensure that they are at least able to keep on top of developments by having access to the capital required to continue growing; not necessarily in one direction, but growing none the less. Arguably this is a pattern that Google itself has followed in recent years to remain one of the world's most successful organisations.

Would Twitter be detrimentally affected by Google's ownership? I'm not sure. I agree with Tim; Gmail is a very useful email tool, whereas FeedBurner has lost credibility in recent times. Is this a result of Google's ownership, or simply one service being replaced by others that outperform it? If Google were to assume ownership of Twitter, the only concerns that I would have would gravitate around developments to the service. The beauty of the platform lies within its own simplicity. I fear that the capital available to Google may encourage them to 'enhance' the service, causing the simplicity thereof to become diluted.

TLR

I don't use Feedburner for my Blog. I am a newbie and I am not ready to sell my soul to Google. I know they will eventually track me down and they have my information via everyone else's Feedburner I use. I am just not ready to take that leap.
I don't have GMail but I am thinking I might because a Startup Detroit Statsbragger.com is using it to communicate but I can wait until they need me for better marketing strategies.
So NO. I don't think Twitter is a fad. It is more useful then Myspace and has a broader audience.

I don't really care, as I think Twitter is a fad. Google or no, Twitter won't be around in a few years.

Feedburner sucks now that it's part of Google. But Gmail is hands down the best email platform I've ever used and the only one I recommend. I don't care if it's alpha, beta, or delta, it's amazing!

It seems to be a gamble with Google. You either get full attention or you get thrown in the closet to rot. Twitter's pretty damn cool. I don't think it's worth throwing the dice.

Hi Danny,
You said you were going to mention Feedblitz "and a few others"...who are the few others?

Also, I have mixed feeling about the Google domination. On the one hand, I do agree that it does seem to eat its children. On the other hand, Google has fostered an ecosystem that even you are part of - many companies and individuals depend heavily on the Google love to keep everything going. I mean that in a literal sense (blogs running AdSense) and in a figurative sense (excitement in investment community to fund new ideas). So maybe their interest in Twitter could help give them a necessary boost to the next level.

One thing's for sure...Google is really taking a beating right now by everyone. Why is it we internet folks just looooove to kick the ankles of anyone who rises too high? I count myself in that mix, but feel somewhat ashamed.

Best,
Dana Todd, CMO
Newsforce Network

That's hard to tell...Google "could" bring a new sense of innovation to Twitter (TweetDeck continues to out pace Twitter in the features department) or could lobotomize the platform with a bad integration. Wish I had a crystal ball on this one.

I think the question is not really about "cost" but "value" and "commitment" $1.49 is less than a cup of coffee so isn't an arduous burden.

Why should they pay?
- Because they want real, stable metrics.
- Because they want support when they need it.
- Because we've innovated more in the last 10 days than FeedBurner has in the last two years.

Because, basically, the value we add is worth it.

Sure, It is a business decision, even at the $1.49 minimum. But adoption is accelerating, I'll tell you that. Banner day for us yesterday, today heading is already the same direction. FeedBurner has had it soul destroyed by Google. Time to move on.

FYI: Post on metrics and the "$1.49 question" here: http://blog.feedblitz.com/2009/04/on-rss-subscriber-counts-and-feedburner.html

I don't want google to have anything to do with twitter. I don't hate google but they own too many of the tools we use on a daily basis. And Danny raises a very valid point - they don't have adequate customer service for the size of the company - maybe this is because most of us use their tools for free.

Some days when I'm feeling paranoid-ish I think that in the near future every aspect of our lives will be brought to us by google - think of all the data they own on us already - might even be more than what the govt. has.

It's amazing nobody mentioned FeedBlitz as a rising alternative to the ubiquitous (Google) FeedBurner. I'm considering it, but not a fan of the 1) cost; and 2) 30-day redirection. For a detailed review, see what Louis Gray wrote a few days ago.

Second, everything on the web is beta. Heck, you could make the argument Web 2.0 is beta. A version.

Interesting news, I mainly use Twitter now to find out what music videos people are talking about; since Facebook has done such a good job at stealing the 'what are you doing now' concept and making it more relevant(I actually care what my friends and family are doing compared to random strangers), so I don't really care if Google acquires at this point.

Either way Twitter might become the next Myspace, so it would be a big loss of money for the Big G.

No.

This deal isn't happening. I'll leave my big mouth open at that.
: )

Chris, I agree to an extent that Twitter is more than likely a fad, but then again, so are many of the tools of the social media. I honestly can't see Facebook being around in a few years time, but then that's the neature of this media type; things evolve, people move on and the cycle repeats itself. What the developers can do is ensure that they are at least able to keep on top of developments by having access to the capital required to continue growing; not necessarily in one direction, but growing none the less. Arguably this is a pattern that Google itself has followed in recent years to remain one of the world's most successful organisations.

Would Twitter be detrimentally affected by Google's ownership? I'm not sure. I agree with Tim; Gmail is a very useful email tool, whereas FeedBurner has lost credibility in recent times. Is this a result of Google's ownership, or simply one service being replaced by others that outperform it? If Google were to assume ownership of Twitter, the only concerns that I would have would gravitate around developments to the service. The beauty of the platform lies within its own simplicity. I fear that the capital available to Google may encourage them to 'enhance' the service, causing the simplicity thereof to become diluted.

TLR

I don't use Feedburner for my Blog. I am a newbie and I am not ready to sell my soul to Google. I know they will eventually track me down and they have my information via everyone else's Feedburner I use. I am just not ready to take that leap.
I don't have GMail but I am thinking I might because a Startup Detroit Statsbragger.com is using it to communicate but I can wait until they need me for better marketing strategies.
So NO. I don't think Twitter is a fad. It is more useful then Myspace and has a broader audience.

I don't really care, as I think Twitter is a fad. Google or no, Twitter won't be around in a few years.

I wouldn't be surprised if Google tried to take over the earth :)

Feedburner sucks now that it's part of Google. But Gmail is hands down the best email platform I've ever used and the only one I recommend. I don't care if it's alpha, beta, or delta, it's amazing!

It seems to be a gamble with Google. You either get full attention or you get thrown in the closet to rot. Twitter's pretty damn cool. I don't think it's worth throwing the dice.

Hey Danny,

If it is going to be influential then there is a likelihood that we are going to have to trust Google with it for the near future. Since they have the cash despite this economy and they are openly investing in opportunities through a venture arm.

I just wrote about the amount of Google hate that exists. It's an interesting phenomenon and something we all will need to deal with.

Frank