Why Doesn't Twitter Improve Its Crappy Editor?
Sometimes not building a perfect product can be a good strategy!
Ever wondered why the Twitter editor is so frustrating?
Imagine typing a tweet and accidentally hitting a link - poof, your tweet disappears. Or having to stay awake until midnight just to post for followers in different time zones. Plus, the basic analytics won't even let you see which tweets got the most likes.
Most of us end up using other 3rd party apps to manage our Twitter accounts. I use one called Typefully, and there are many more out there. They offer what Twitter doesn't seem to get right: a better way to write tweets, understand our audience, and schedule posts in advance.
But these are core features of Twitter, then why they don’t improve them? Especially when they're asking $200 a year for a Premium account?
Thinking about it, I realized it’s a savvy business decision, kind of like the strategies our government uses.
Understanding the Business Strategy
Twitter offers two main things: its social media platform and something called an API (Application Programming Interface).
The social media part is what we all use to tweet, retweet, like, and scroll through. It's meant for everyday users like you and me. It is their core product.
The API, on the other hand, is for tech-savvy folks, especially developers. It lets them use Twitter's data to create new apps or tools. For this access, Twitter charges a hefty $42,000 a month.
Now, think about it. If Twitter had everything perfect - great writing tools, detailed analytics, easy scheduling - would anyone bother with other tools like Typefully?
And if nobody used those third-party tools, those companies wouldn't make money and wouldn't need Twitter's API. So, by not being perfect, Twitter ensures there's a market for its API.
But there's more to it:
Pricing for Features: Twitter could charge us for better writing tools, but that wouldn't look good. Plus, most regular users wouldn't want to pay, especially if they're not making money from Twitter.
Encouraging Innovation: By letting other developers create tools, Twitter's overall service gets better. And if a tool becomes really popular, Twitter might even buy it. They've done this before with Tweetdeck, a tool for managing multiple accounts, and Revue, a newsletter platform.
Dependency: These third-party developers rely on Twitter to exist. They don't threaten Twitter's business; instead, they add value to it. It's a win-win situation for Twitter.
Let’s discuss what we can learn about human psychology from this case study.
Psychology Behind Human Contentment
The mismatch between expectations and reality often leads to unhappiness. And our expectations are shaped by past experiences and the alternatives available to us.
Dedicated Twitter users, for instance, find themselves in a unique position. There's no real alternative to Twitter for them, leading to a certain acceptance of the platform's flaws. This acceptance is something Twitter might be quietly capitalizing on.
But imagine if Twitter suddenly stopped allowing new tweets, or if essential features became paywalled through services like Typefully. Such drastic changes could test the limits of user tolerance, highlighting the fine line between maintaining user satisfaction and pushing them too far.
This balancing act isn't unique to Twitter. Governments employ similar strategies, aiming to appease key voter demographics without overcommitting. Policies often target the most influential groups; for example, focusing on youth employment in areas with a younger demographic or enhancing women's rights as their influence in society grows.
This delicate balancing act is mirrored in the workplace as well, particularly in how salaries are distributed. Employers often calibrate wages to hit that sweet spot - enough to keep employees content and deter them from leaving, but not necessarily so high that it significantly impacts the company's bottom line.
The goal is often to do just enough to keep the status quo intact, ensuring a baseline level of contentment without necessarily striving for universal satisfaction.
Insights from Historical Empires
The role of third-party apps in enriching Twitter's ecosystem can be likened to the medieval concept of vassalage.
In the days before modern communication, managing vast empires posed significant challenges. To address this, empires were divided among lesser rulers known as vassals. These vassals governed their territories autonomously, pledging allegiance and paying tribute to a sovereign overlord. While they wielded considerable power within their domains, they weren't strong enough to challenge the central authority.
This ancient system finds echoes in contemporary scenarios, such as in rural India. Here, local leaders wield significant influence, as the community may be distant from the intricacies of national politics. These leaders, much like the vassals of old, exercise considerable control locally but lack the power to confront the central government.
This continuity suggests a timeless aspect of human psychology: our approach to management and power structures has underlying patterns that transcend time and technology. By studying history, we can uncover these patterns, offering valuable insights into both past and present systems.
Summary
Twitter isn't alone in its strategy. OpenAI follows a similar path.
At its core, OpenAI offers ChatGPT for everyday users. But there's also an API, much like Twitter's, that powers a variety of third-party services. Tools like Copy.ai for copywriting, Jasper for AI-assisted writing, Replika for virtual companionship, and Algolia for search capabilities, all rely on OpenAI's technology.
This approach reveals a surprising truth: sometimes, not creating the perfect product is actually smart business!