Comments on: Comparing Twitter Growth to FBook, GOOG

By: susan kuhn frost

susan kuhn frost — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:31:48 +0000

I agree with Milind Shaw's point that twitter's learning curve slows pace of adoption. And I agree that that growth dynamic is about to change.

Twitter is a protocol that "plays well" with others. It's just been added to Salesforce.com so brands can respond to customers through Twitter. And with $30+M in venture capital, Twitter has the resources to figure out its business model.

The early adopter phase is ending, and the mainstreaming has begin.

By: Brian Duggan

Brian Duggan — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:01:01 +0000

Given the Facebook to Twitter comparison here, I think this visual of the increase in the word "Twitter" showing up in Facebook's Lexicon is pretty revealing:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/narendra/3376975555/

(originally posted on Flickr by Facebook third-party app maker Narendra Rocherolle and blogged about by Kara Swisher in http://kara.allthingsd.com/ )

By: Juki

Juki — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:33:47 +0000

I think it's a bit unfair to compare unique users. Services are totally different and number of internet users was quite different in -98 than it is now.

It would be interesting though to see the growth curves of Fbook and Google. Anyone have stats on this?

By: mlvlvr

mlvlvr — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:48:03 +0000

If this were a log plot, I could see that it is exponential, or not. Absent that, all I can see is that it’s got a positive second derivative. To compare the three, exponential growth rates and meaningful initial conditions would be helpful. Whatever, I wish I had growth like any one of ‘em.

By: Calcius

Calcius — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:42:16 +0000

I would best compare Twitter to Blogger.com. Twitter is for people who is always online, reading, sharing, taking pictures with their mobile phones… Facebook, however, is more similar to 1999 Hotmail. Everybody knows it, has an account and uses it to stay in touch with friends.

By: Joe Pemberton

Joe Pemberton — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:17:37 +0000

Twitter started out solely as a purely mobile SMS service, not a web site. Comparing web traffic hardly gives you an apples to apples comparison?

By: Liliane Rausch

Liliane Rausch — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:12:42 +0000

Love your article. Thank you! Liliane Rausch, The Ultimate Self, http://www.the-ultimate-self.com

By: Milind Shah

Milind Shah — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:51:46 +0000

Something everyone forgets is that Twitter actually has a learning curve, despite its simplicity. At first, most users find it pointless. And it is unless you follow people and learn some of the features, like hashtags and search, that make Twitter effective. Like chat rooms, it has some of it own language and therefore takes time to embrace. People (especially early adopters) are starting to learn and make use of Twitter in ways that wasn’t imagined initially. As such, Twitter growth will increase exponentially as its utility is defined and redefined. @milindshah

By: Matthieu Catillon

Matthieu Catillon — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:43:13 +0000

Hey Roy,

I think you are absolutly right, the momentum has yet to come in the US...

Obama helped Twitter 10 months ago, it is big in the US already but I am sure Europe is 18 months behind.

This baby is lovely, Twitter will be good for this industry...

Cheers and thanks all,

Matt

By: DominateFacebook

DominateFacebook — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:52:52 +0000

Twitter does the job.

I have my blog post to Twitter and Twitter autopost to Facebook, so Twitter works well for what I do.

But I rarely go on Twitter's website,as apposed to Facebook, which I use everyday.