Comments on: Should we pay to use Twitter? http://www.shinyred.co.uk/425/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/ Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:03:30 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Laura Johnson http://www.shinyred.co.uk/425/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-20144 Laura Johnson Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:13:32 +0000 http://www.shinyred.tv/2008/06/06/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/#comment-20144 Thanks Chris (Reed!) – You’re right, everyone loves a freebie and but most people tend to dislike advertising, so where do you join the line? Your Twitterfund sounds interesting, let me know how the results go? And in reply to Chris Gimour, that’s a good idea, as Charles mentions above, there are many models that Twitter could use to gain revenue to help the service but I agree, many of which do take away the simplicity of Twitter. Thanks Chris (Reed!) – You’re right, everyone loves a freebie and but most people tend to dislike advertising, so where do you join the line? Your Twitterfund sounds interesting, let me know how the results go?

And in reply to Chris Gimour, that’s a good idea, as Charles mentions above, there are many models that Twitter could use to gain revenue to help the service but I agree, many of which do take away the simplicity of Twitter.

]]> By: Chris Gilmour http://www.shinyred.co.uk/425/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-20003 Chris Gilmour Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:54 +0000 http://www.shinyred.tv/2008/06/06/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/#comment-20003 I've noticed that there seem to be a couple of folk on Twitter who are following tens of thousands of other folk, I dunno whether they're spam or not, but these are the guys Twitter ought to be charging. Getting anthropological on yer ass, they could just limit free Twitter accounts to only being able to follow 150 or 200 other people, if you want to breach your monkeysphere, you have to pay. Then again, one of the virtues of Twitter is its simplicity and adding a charging layer to it complicates the issue. I’ve noticed that there seem to be a couple of folk on Twitter who are following tens of thousands of other folk, I dunno whether they’re spam or not, but these are the guys Twitter ought to be charging.

Getting anthropological on yer ass, they could just limit free Twitter accounts to only being able to follow 150 or 200 other people, if you want to breach your monkeysphere, you have to pay.

Then again, one of the virtues of Twitter is its simplicity and adding a charging layer to it complicates the issue.

]]> By: Laura Johnson http://www.shinyred.co.uk/425/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-19999 Laura Johnson Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:22:22 +0000 http://www.shinyred.tv/2008/06/06/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/#comment-19999 Thanks for the comment and the clarification Charles, I've made an update to the original post. We're definitely curious to see how Twitter resolves its architecture issues and look forward to your thoughts in the future. Thanks for the comment and the clarification Charles, I’ve made an update to the original post. We’re definitely curious to see how Twitter resolves its architecture issues and look forward to your thoughts in the future.

]]> By: Charles http://www.shinyred.co.uk/425/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-19995 Charles Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:44:51 +0000 http://www.shinyred.tv/2008/06/06/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/#comment-19995 You didn't read the article carefully enough. I considered two possible models (many more exist): (1) charge people to use it - great if you want to loe 90% of your users, I pointed out. (2) charge those who access it via APIs, which would mean in effect charge the makers of software like Twitterriffic that mean you don't go to the website. And I pointed out that the latter model was used by Fraunhofer over its MP3 patents. It would be nice if you'd reconsider - perhaps even edit - what you've written in the light of that, rather than promulgating an incorrect description of what I actually suggested. You didn’t read the article carefully enough. I considered two possible models (many more exist): (1) charge people to use it – great if you want to loe 90% of your users, I pointed out. (2) charge those who access it via APIs, which would mean in effect charge the makers of software like Twitterriffic that mean you don’t go to the website. And I pointed out that the latter model was used by Fraunhofer over its MP3 patents.

It would be nice if you’d reconsider – perhaps even edit – what you’ve written in the light of that, rather than promulgating an incorrect description of what I actually suggested.

]]> By: Chris Reed http://www.shinyred.co.uk/425/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-19985 Chris Reed Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:17:17 +0000 http://www.shinyred.tv/2008/06/06/should-we-pay-to-use-twitter/#comment-19985 Nice piece - it really is a dilemma isn't it? And we're going to see it in the growing pains of any "free" utility which catches on so quickly it then creaks under the strain of it's own success. At what point do you start charging/accepting ads? Would be interested in your thoughts on whether it could be funded (once the current VC cash has dried up) by donations? I set up http://www.twitterfund.com to see a) if people would donate or b) whether people would be comfortable donating in principle. It's early days - but I think donations would/could be much more preferable to ads/paying. Chris Nice piece – it really is a dilemma isn’t it? And we’re going to see it in the growing pains of any “free” utility which catches on so quickly it then creaks under the strain of it’s own success.

At what point do you start charging/accepting ads?

Would be interested in your thoughts on whether it could be funded (once the current VC cash has dried up) by donations? I set up http://www.twitterfund.com to see a) if people would donate or b) whether people would be comfortable donating in principle.

It’s early days – but I think donations would/could be much more preferable to ads/paying.

Chris

]]>