Twittered

If there's one interweb innovation that really divides people, then it's isn't MySpace, or Facebook. People have got used to those. It's Twitter. For ages, I had people go on about it, and around Christmas, I finally succumbed. I find it a good way to vent things I can't usually - I actually got it to voice frustrations about work, because at the time I was being driven mental. So, for that reason, you won't be seeing my updates here, thank you very much. (For those who actually know me, my username is my real name plus the year of my birth.)

Most people just don't get it. And, to be fair, I don't blame them. I didn't, either. What could be so compulsive about 140-character updates from your pals? But I discovered more people using it, and got into it. And it's an occasional sanity-saver. Big media organisations love it, some are obsessed by it, some use it in place of RSS feeds, but try getting mainstream journalists that aren't even sure about blogging to get the most out of the format, and you're on a sticky wicket. There is an art to the single-thought message.

But behind all that is a company. Which can't be making very much money. Hey, Blogger was like that once. And today, it squeaked, because people were using Twitter in a totally different way to me.

I only used Twitter to glance at occasionally in moments of boredom, a kind of beefed-up version of the Facebook status line. Other people used it to communicate instantly - because it sent you text messages when your friends updated. Last month I met some pals in the West End, and one sent me a text message to say she'd be running late. So was I, I responded. No matter, she said, she'd send them messages on Twitter. None of them got them, to her surprise.

As of this morning, Twitter stopped sending SMS alerts (in the UK and other European countries) whenever your pals updated. Cue outrage and, yup, a campaign to get things changed. The main trouble lies in the different mobile phone cultures here and across the Atlantic - we don't get charged for receiving texts like they do, so there's no money in it for them. (As sensible voices point out, perhaps they should have thought of this in the first place - a premium Twitter for a few quid a month?)

The whole thing's a bit of a mess. What Twitter calls its "UK number" is actually an Isle of Man number, and Manx Telecom's numbers don't count in, for example, T-Mobile's call bundles. So it costs 35p to text Twitter anyway. So that's a deterrent from using it unless you're abroad (when the cost is the same) or can't get mobile internet.

Maybe this is all a catalyst and in a year or two's time Twitter access will be bundled and promoted in mobile phone packages, like Facebook is now. (And then we'll be grumbling that it's gone mainstream, and embarrassed when we find people's friends are using it.) Or maybe Twitter will have waned outside North America, and its users headed off somewhere else. I suspect the former, but this debacle shows what happens when US tech outfits don't/ don't get time to work out how their businesses will work outside their home territory.

But still, I'm just amazed it's caused such a fuss. I mean, you'd go mad if you kept getting messages all day, wouldn't you? Oh, hold on, the phone's just gone..

Comments

[Girl with a one track mind]

Ah, but where Twitter excelled was in its Direct Messages sent via SMS, not in receiving people's updates. Personally, I can take or leave hearing what people are up to, so I never had Tweets pushed to my phone via either SMS or via my email/data plan. But I DID have all Direct Messages sent to my phone via SMS, for the following reasons:

1) Only people who YOU follow can direct message you. This immediately eliminates messages from strangers and it therefore personalises the DMs. Opt-in, if you like.
2) People use DMs for private messages; or for messages that are time sensitive. Knowing that someone received the message on their phone as an SMS meant that often, people used DMs over email, if they needed to get a quick message to someone; and the majority of people have and use SMS on their mobile phones, unlike push email/Blackberrys.
3) DMing someone via SMS meant you got a message out to them whilst they were out and about and on the go. If you didn't know someone's phone number, this often could be the quickest way to inform someone you are running late.
4) DM via SMS meant not having to know someone's phone number, but still being able to send them an instant, private message on their mobile phone*. This is helpful, because you might want to follow 100 (say) people on Twitter and are happy to receive private messages from all of them, but you might want none of them to know your mobile phone number. DM/SMS enabled access, but full privacy.
5) In terms of sending SMSs to Twitter, yeah, I didn't do that often (due to the cost) but when I had no data signal, or was abroad (and didn't want to pay extortionate roaming fees to check my Tweets), texting came in very handy.

*Of course, this is dependent on the other people having their DMs being sent to their phone as SMSs, and, unlike the USA, many Brits don't. ;)

[Shazzer]

I had SMS notifications activated for maybe 3 people I was following, tops. (Two are close friends in the US who don't tweet often and the other is Barack Obama's presidential campaign.) The Direct Message feature is the HUGE loss for many folks because Twitter interacts with lots of other tools via DM. I was using it to connect to both my Google calendar and my To Do list on Toodledoo...crazy useful when you're out and about. I'd be more than happy to pay for that if Twitter would allow me to do it.

[Inspector Sands]

Girl - Ah, I getcha :-) Didn't realise it was *that* big a thing with people, I just treated it as a nice add-on (which has been nice to me :-)).

Hello Shazzer - didn't realise DMs were that versatile either.

Damn, they really do need a business plan, don't they?

[Girl with a one track mind]

Like hell, yes! Sign up for the Beta of this here, if you're interested in still having SMS/DMs: http://www.tweetsms.com/