The other day I claimed that Twitter is supplanting RSS, and that long term that’s a bad thing. Andrew Weissman had a very reasonable response:
Twitter is the most open application people are currently using. It’s open on the way in and the way out. The variety of applications using the Twitter api are astounding in that they cover many use cases.
Given that, why will Ashton and Oprah someday care?
The problem is Twitter isn’t really open. For Twitter to be truly open, it would have to be possible to use “Twitter” without an any way involving Twitter the institution. Instead, all data goes through Twitter’s centralized service. Today’s dominant core internet services – the web (HTTP), email (SMTP), and subscription messaging (RSS) - are open protocols that are distributed across millions of institutions. If Twitter supplants RSS, it will be the first core internet service that has a single, for-profit gatekeeper.
Why would this matter to Ashton or Oprah? Imagine if Microsoft Exchange server wasn’t just an instantiation of SMTP but was a centralized service that all email had to pass through. A single institution is never as reliable as a system distributed across millions of institutions. Nor is it as secure – for example, a distributed denial-of-service attack can much more easily bring down one service than the entire internet.
But most importantly, having one company control a core internet service hinders competition and therefore innovation. To continue the Microsoft Exchange analogy – do you think in that world we would have such a diverse email ecosystem if everyone had to go through Microsoft to build stuff?
And this is all true while we are still living in the fantasy land where everything involving Twitter is free. At some point Twitter will need to make lots of money to justify their valuation. Then we can really assess the impact of having a single company control a core internet service.
Related posts:
View Comments ↓
Exactamundo. Twitter is showing us the way, but is not the end in itself. In the future many web services (implicit networks/platforms) will be accessible from many different entry points, but they will not be centrally controlled. Wave is also a step in this direction.
On the other hand, if I can export and read my Twitter flow with the RSS (and I can) and If I can post on non-Twitter systems (but let them publish in Twitter) then this will add a lot more flexibility and openess to the all Twitter system, right ?
Again, you and I think alike, if Twitter is killing RSS, then recently announced Twitter Lists is signaling the death of the BlogRoll: http://bit.ly/4A9P09
It's funny how many RFC's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments) were created during the Golden Years of the internet, for the sake of the entire medium's growth, compared to now where altruism is in rare supply. Sadly, API's are the new RFC, but there's a huge difference between a proprietary REST call and an open protocol.
I believe there's still life is some of those old, forgotten protocols like USENET, talk, and most recently, finger. Google's WebFinger project could be very impressive indeed if not only made open source, but also truly IETF approved.
Not arguing with the core point of your post, but I'd argue two points.
First, I don't think RSS is totally being killed by Twitter. I really like to use them for two different things: RSS for subscribing to content and Twitter for sharing. So it doesn't matter to me if Google has lame sharing features. I can use Twitter or Facebook or anything else to share.
Second, if somebody came along and made RSS as easy to use and understand as Twitter, and differentiated how to use both technologies, I think RSS could thrive.
For context: I use RSS as an inbox for content. I don't like content cluttering my e-mail inbox. I also don't have time to read Twitter 24/7. So Google Reader is sort of like my content inbox with read/unread status. I can declare “blog bankruptcy” in during very busy periods without worrying about missing something critical, whereas I simply can't do that with e-mail.
So I think there is space for both technologies, and don't forget that RSS also feeds a lot of content onto Twitter! Every move Twitter makes has to be weighed against free competition from RSS for subscribing to content. I would argue that the network effect only applies to the sharing and communication aspects of the service.
do you feel the same way about facebook? doesn't their implicit ownership of the social graph create the same problem? and, if so, where do you draw the line?
It would be very interesting for all sorts of commercial as well as social applications to have an SMTP equivalent for Twitter – XMPP? Much of 'Twitter' functionality depends on its database; getting open access to many large databases is a challenge.
Good question. I was debating that in my head as I wrote this post. I guess it just depends on how important the social graph is. I tend to think it's pretty core. It would have been better for the web if those FOAF things took off.
It is interesting that some innovation is spawned and developed in the sprawling openness of the internet, and some innovation within the closed garage walls of a startup. It would be fascinating to explore the characteristics that push innovation down one road or another.
One thing is certain, innovation occur in incremental steps. Considering this whole web experiment is still in the early teenage years of its long lifecycle, my money says there will be mid- / longer-term opportunities for the open web to reclaim such critical fundaments such as the social graph and microblog piping.
I agree with much of what both you and Chris are saying. I love Twitter, but I'd never use it as a substitute for the RSS feed aggregation through Google Reader–and not just because Twitter is proprietary. Google Reader may not be the best search tool, but it's much much better than Twitter Search–at least today. In particular, I like searching the contents of posts, not just the tweets that link to them.
Still, if the data shows that Twitter is in fact displacing RSS readers, then I'll accept that my perspective is unrepresentative. Hopefully that doesn't mean that my tools will also be displaced by inferior ones.
Yep, mine may be unrepresentative too. RSS is not widely known (although I'll argue that iGoogle and My Yahoo are…my folks are in their 50s and have those set up).
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Scott Francis. Scott Francis said: Good points…RT @cdixon: Why does it matter that Twitter is supplanting RSS? http://www.cdixon.org/?p=1296 [...]
Sure it would be ideal for both the social graph and Twitter to be completely open but I actually don't think the switching costs are so great for either. On average I've reconstituted my social graph probably once a year since 1995 (new jobs w/new emails, new phones, new sites) – while a pain it's not that hard and has gotten easier. In the past six months I've completely abandoned my ~11 year-old MyYahoo! page for Twitter and that's been pretty easy too. When the day comes for Twitter to monetize, I don't think they'll be able to gouge away…
I'd wager you are in the minority in your willingness to swith.
Agreed. It probably exists but I just don't know about it…?
[...] Read more from the original source: Why does it matter that T… [...]
Twitter is not killing RSS. Some RSS reading is shifting to Twitter.
Re: lists- so instead of managing feeds, now we'll manage Twitter lists and accounts . So, Twitter becomes another Reader of sorts.
I think the smart way to go is using a combination of Twitter and smart aggregators. RSS is behind the scenes.
If anything, Topic streams and curated aggregation might be replacing RSS, but even those can use RSS in the background. So RSS is going from being in the forefront to being in the background, as a utility.
[...] http://www.cdixon.org/?p=1296 a few seconds ago from xmpp [...]
while that implicitly feels right to me on some level, it would essentially turn two of the web's (arguably) most important properties created over the past number of years and relegate them to utilities. and if we begin to remove google from the equation as you suggest in a previous post by harnessing the purchase intent implicit in content and content creators, then where are we? gotta leave something for the private sector to create value. a very interesting discussion indeed…
I am just pointing out the trade off between private value in one company versus public infrastructure – which btw can potentially create lots of private value (how much value has http created?).
I don't think my arguments re: google are saying they are getting too much – more that higher in the funnel is getting a bum deal.
[...] http://www.cdixon.org/?p=1296 a few seconds ago from choqoK [...]
Chris, these are very provocative posts. I'm learning a lot, including from the contributors to your comment stream. Simple minded question, provoked by Anne Johnson's comment and your reply: what's to keep a group of universities, or some kind of consortium (maybe of private and public institutions), from promulgating what Anne is calling XMPP? The academic or research purpose would be to have a utility to connect researchers for all the same purposes to which Twitter users put Twitter; but, the database that gets built up over time would be housed everywhere, potentially, and no one could restrict any access to it.
One more thing: I also share bsiscovick's optimism, and am fond of thinking (using the long era of railroad building as an analogy) that we are only about 15% of the way into this. And I'm thrilled to have picked up a couple phrases from this thread: “social graph” and (this latter one may be bsiscovick's original coinage?) “microblog piping.”
agreed. i just think it's important to ensure that we don't push too far
towards public infrastructure, which i fear is a potentially dangerous
overarching trend right now…far beyond internet matters.
Perhaps I'm more flexible than most but I'd wager that the trigger for the average FB/Twitter user would actually be shy of having to pay for either service.
I wouldn't be surprised if this happens over time, in the way that XMPP arrived some ~4 years after AOL IM. While still claiming large market share, there is more competition & portability. I'd be curious if there is a move to more formally standardize the Twitter protocol over time. I would think this would be more likely as Twitter/status protocols matures (like recent geo, groups addition) or is threated repeatedly by a DDoS attack like the recent Russian one that hampered Twitter.
Do you consider Google “owning” search quantifiably different? While they don't own a search protocol, the barriers to competition are extremely high.
I apologize for being late to the conversation (vacation will do that to you) but this is fascinating. Historically, in what other ways have public utilities heavily dependent on network effects been built out by private interests? Telecommunications and railroads come to mind. Is there precedent for the government stepping in and forcing a private protocol into a public communications standard?
Well, the government regulated and then broke up AT&T.
I discovered this post in Google Reader, not Twitter, so something is keeping me there. Maybe it's just temporary, maybe not.
The “social graph” is not important at all, at least from a user perspective. Humans are good at keeping their social graph in their heads, we don't need or want Facebook to turn it into lifeless, marketable data.
As for RSS, the problem is that its user experience *really* sucks. Only nerds could ever figure it out, while following via Twitter or Tumblr is easy and fun.
Also, Twitter and Tumblr have sharing, retweeting, and making friends baked in, while RSS has a one-way “broadcasty” feel.
[...] From cdixon.org [...]
Chris, you're so right. I sure hope long term real, open Twitter-like protocol will gain ground. Few months ago I wrote a post about the possibility of using Twitter as an RPC platform (http://bit.ly/1a6Tq9), and had a similar rant:
“So what is my only issue with this rosy picture? It's the fact that Twitter is a service built inside a single company, that has full control over how people are using it. Envision a world without e-mail. Now think today someone will come up with this cool idea of a one-to-many push idea and name it “Twiemail”. How comfortable would you be living in a world where there's that company that is the sole proprietor of your main way of communicating with people, and can ban you out any minute, censor your messages or what not? Why are we still comfortable with it when it's “one-to-many pull” rather than push?”
It was especially vivid when Google released Wave and showed how it's done, with Wave Federate etc. (unrelated to the fact that Wave itself is a bad idea
[...] to something another blogger writes, I’ll do so in the comments section there, but two of Chris’ recent posts inadvertently touched on a theme I’ve spent a bunch of time thinking about over the last [...]
We still have choices.
Identi.ca, real time RSS with pubsubhubbub, and RSSCloud.
Friendfeed was an awesome variation/improvement conversation tool but has been picked up by Facebook.
Google tried the open social protocol not too long ago. A social protocol is still not only likely, but inevitable. Bypassing gatekeepers is what the Internet does best. Even our legislation bends to keep it that way. Net neutrality will not only pass, but be actively pursued as a technological embodiment of liberty.
Great post, thanks for keeping your eyes open.
We still have choices.
Identi.ca, real time RSS with pubsubhubbub, and RSSCloud.
Friendfeed was an awesome variation/improvement conversation tool but has been picked up by Facebook.
Google tried the open social protocol not too long ago. A social protocol is still not only likely, but inevitable. Bypassing gatekeepers is what the Internet does best. Even our legislation bends to keep it that way. Net neutrality will not only pass, but be actively pursued as a technological embodiment of liberty.
Great post, thanks for keeping your eyes open.
[...] a new format that’s failed to go mainstream: usage of RSS readers is in decline and Twitter is supplanting it as a mass-market feed delivery channel. But there are definitely similarities between the formats, [...]
[...] elaborates: The social graph (Facebook) and push notification system (Twitter) should have been open protocols like SMTP, HTTP [...]