3/ They are destined neither for commodity status as private sector technologies, nor for utility status as public services.
Conversation
Replying to
4/ What they do instead is *create* frontier land, sparking land-grab economic races.
1
5
24
Replying to
5/ Twitter "running a clown car into a gold mine" is closer to Columbus (yeah yeah) discovering America than a company executing on an idea
2
9
20
Replying to
6/ Unix shell is a more subtle example, but I mean it in the sense of "every shell command becomes a unicorn business" (who said that? PG?)
2
6
15
Replying to
7/ One reason these entities "fail" as both business and utility entities is that they discover territories too vast for one entity to own
2
8
28
Replying to
8/ Pattern already clear with Craigslist: it doesn't get "disrupted". Instead companies like AirBnB bite off chunks small enough for 1 corp
2
4
23
Replying to
9/ Twitter "failing" to own the revolutions it obviously caused (messaging, bots) isn't a failure really if viewed that way.
2
4
26
Replying to
it seems weird to me to credit Twitter for messaging and bots. I mean those have been central to tech culture since the 80s
1
2
Replying to
. Not in the modern form. I see more Twitter DNA in Slack than I see IRC DNA. But yeah, some justice to that.
2
3
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
. I'm not interested in genealogy of ideas as much as scaling and spreading of a pattern into mainstream
Replying to
Surely the company responsible for taking N-to-N messaging mainstream would be AOL chatrooms, no?
2
1
2
Replying to
possible to carve something too big to nail out of something too big to nail: AOL -> Twitter -> Snapchat -> ?
2
3

