Recently, there’s been more than the average level of moaning about how Twitter isn’t what it used to be. The moaners being the tech-savvy crowd who adopted the service early on. They’re not keen on how Twitter’s selling itself to the mass market.
Anil Dash has given a rather pragmatic explanation of why that complaint is wrong and (to the extent that I can muster the energy to care either way) I broadly agree with what he says. Only I would explain it in different terms:
Twitter is Marlo Stansfield; the early adopters are the security guard.
It’s not just that quote either:
- Marlo wants to control how his drugs (tweets) are distributed via corners (apps/third party website integration)
- His motives can put him at odds with the dealers (or developer community)
- His name is his name – sounds like tightly controlled brand/logo usage guidelines to me
I’m sure you could come up with your own. As far as comparisons go, I reckon this one works.