The Guardian
topics

Leading Voices
How Twitter Can Become A New Breed Of Technology Company

Khris Loux is the founder and CEO of Echo, a commenting platform. He tweets at @Khrisloux.

With leadership from its founders and a significant infusion of cash from investors, Twitter has created an innovative no-charge service for users and industry-standard APIs for developers. But more recently, access to its data through those APIs has been fairly inconsistent, with particularly opaque procedures for getting at its most coveted dataset, its full stream of Tweets.

Twitter has recently begun selling publishers, big and small, access to all its Tweets. Its licensing of the “full firehose,” as it is also known, to Google (NSDQ: GOOG), Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) and Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO) marks Twitter’s first big move towards monetization. The micro-blogging company has yet to make public the terms of these deals, but according to one report, Twitter is bringing in a combined $25 million from those agreements. Meanwhile, Twitter has granted small startups access to the same data at rates “proportional to the size of the company,” according to Ryan Sarver, Director of Platform at Twitter.

This points to a potential conflict: Quiet deal-making, variable pricing, and uneven access across Twitter’s partner base could create questions about the commercial viability of the entire ecosystem. Twitter has an opportunity to maximize its own value and retain its inter-galactic goodwill with users and partners alike by fostering a new level of transparency around the licensing deals.

How to do that?

Twitter should license the full firehose to publishers, whether directly or indirectly through partners, in a real-time feed that includes all the elements of the Tweets, like geotargeting, time stamp, etc. And the communication between Twitter and those potential partners over pricing, process and terms should be open and transparent.

Similarly, Twitter has an opportunity to create either value or angst for the developer community. The Twitter platform has led to countless third-party innovations, resulting in a rich set of applications that enhances the core platform. And Twitter has publicly encouraged these developers to join in the “gold rush” of opportunity and build businesses on its platform.

Indeed, the staggering growth of the service and a healthy ecosystem of complimentary applications have made Twitter a sort of benevolent king.

Now the hard part: building a business without becoming a tyrant.

Twitter’s recent release of Twitter Lists, for example, undercuts the work of partners like TLists and shows the tightrope that Twitter (indeed all proprietary platforms) must walk to both grow their core platforms while also making sure that developers have an incentive to build on top of those platforms. Twitter’s failure to strike that balance could alienate a prime engine of its long-term value and growth.

These issues are obviously not unique to Twitter; many successful companies (especially on the web) face these same challenges as they mature. But for its part, Twitter has an opportunity to figure out that happy medium in a way that has eluded companies such as Microsoft and Facebook. And if its executes well, Twitter can establish itself as a new kind of technology company.

In short, it’s the ultimate opportunity for Twitter to create a radically open business model, one that mimics the open nature of the Twitter service itself.

Related Stories
Mar 18, 2010 8:30 AM ET

Khris Loux

Share

Posted In: Features, Leading Voices, Media & Publishing, Companies, Twitter

  • sammy

    Google's stock took a hit when they hired a few more people a few months back.  Imagine what hit it would take if they spend billions, and hire tens of thousands of employees to run a national wireless carrier, starting with zero subscribers?  It took the current wireless industry 20 years, from home plans, to national plans, from a few subscribers to hundreds of millions.  Google need sto buy a carrier with customers and operations already in place if they are serious, like T-mobile or AllTel.  You cannot start from scratch in this hyper competitive industry. You need millions of customers just to make your rate plans competitive. (Not every customer Verizon makes $$ from, but out of 60 million, they can hedge their bets and offer unlimited N&W;and M2M plans to all of them)

  • JP

    Tapster - re: "I just think comparing this opportunity with the failures of ampd/espn/disney/helio" - well played sir…well-played ;)

  • tapster

    yep, but we're not talking about an MVNO. This is a new opportunity utilizing a new spectrum, for a completely new mobile network. I don't really disagree with many of your points (apart from aligning my comment with this idiotic administration that is).
    Agreed, it's absolutely a massive challenge, but I don't see anyone else with anywhere near the capabilities to do this.
    I just think comparing this opportunity with the failures of ampd/espn/disney/helio (oops, preemptively added helio for those reading in a few months) is off track

  • JP

    Not to distract the conversation, but the case against Saddam was a "slam dunk" too and look at the trouble it got us into ;)  Comparatively, there is a lot of data showing that nothing related to launching an MVNO is a 'slam dunk'.  Can it be done?  Just maybe…but it has to be meticulously planned out and carried forward by the right company, with a clear and long term commitment and the resources to support that commitment.  Google fits that description but still lacks the know-how of running the nuts and bolts of a carrier operation.  I might start by dipping my toe into the water by launching a phone(s) distributed across multiple carriers and focusing on core competencies, as Tapster has acknowledged for Google is "services company".

    As brillaint and successful as Google's track record is, they are not infallible and an MVNO (or more accurately MNO) would be an enormous challenge, even for them.

  • tapster

    I have to disagree here to a large extent. the 700mhz spectrum affords a unique opportunity that fits Google's DNA exceptionally well. Apple is a hardware company, which is why the iphone model fits them (although not sure what Virtual Mobile Virtual Network Operator can mean :)
    This doesn't apply to Google in the slightest. They are a services company, and as such wouldn't be able to operate under the constraints of current carrier infrastructure and layers of bureaucracy
    Looking at Ampd and ESPN both suffered from abysmal management, arrogant in the case of the former, plain dumb in the case of the latter.
    For Google to scoop up the new spectrum and launch their own service would be a slam dunk in my opinion

  • JP

    Amen James, Amen. 

    Amp'd, ESPN, Disney (and whatever MVNO drops nexts) have all shown that straying from core competancies and thinking you can run a carrier business is an unnecessary and foolish risk.  Like Apple, Google would be well received by carriers.  If they could deliver a killer device like the iPhone, leverage the best networks (not the lesser ones like the iPhone runs on) and concentrate on the "add-ons" (especially those supported by Ads) they would have a great shot at success.  I should also add that having devices at all the major carriers (I love the iPhone but will not go through the girations necessary to switch carriers), AND coming out the gate with competitive pricing would greatly enhance that success.

    Hindsight being 20/20, Google has LOTS of case studies that show the pitfalls and missteps; if they do not get arrogant ,the mobile world could be their oyster.

Unhealthily Obsessed With Mobile Content | mocoNews Newsletter

Know something we don’t?

Send Us a News Tip

All tips are anonymous and untraced.

Sponsors

Contributors