Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Communications Google Social Networks Networking The Internet Twitter

Is Twitter Rendered Obsolete By Google+? 456

suraj.sun writes with a ComputerWorld piece predicting the end of Twitter, at least in its current form. From the article: "It's only a matter of time before Twitter becomes a ghost town. While Google+ will soon do all the things Twitter does, Twitter can't support a long list of the things Google+ supports. Also on Google+, you can post pictures and videos directly in posts, launch immediately into a video chat, send your posts to nonmembers and even present all your posts marked 'Public' as a blog available to anyone with an Internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Twitter Rendered Obsolete By Google+?

Comments Filter:
  • Long answer? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:45PM (#36878910)
  • Long Live Twitter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:46PM (#36878922)

    But on Twitter I can use any name I wish ...

  • by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:47PM (#36878930)
    If were about "doing more," people would still just be using email (and email lists) over twitter. It's all the restrictions of twitter that prevent it from being a nuisance that made it stick.
  • But... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrEricSir ( 398214 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:55PM (#36879000) Homepage

    ...will Google lock me out of Gmail and other services if they decide my Twitter account violated the TOS?

    No? Well in that case I'll keep using Twitter and they can keep Google Plus.

  • by aiken_d ( 127097 ) <brooks@tang[ ] ['ent' in gap]> on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:55PM (#36879010) Homepage

    That means it's sure to win. This reminds of of when OS/2 mopped the floor with Windows because it had superior multitasking and memory management!

  • by rueger ( 210566 ) * on Monday July 25, 2011 @10:06PM (#36879084) Homepage
    Where Twitter loses is in monetizing traffic. In other words, Google knows how to use your traffic to feed you ads that sooner or later you click on. They do it well enough to make a lot of money.

    This works for Google because all of their products draw you into their web space, and you can't avoid being presented with Google Ads.

    The weakness of Twitter is that in many ways it's easier to use from a phone, Hootsuite, or some other client - even Google Plus with an add-on. There's never any need to actually visit the Twitter web site.

    Consequently they're stuck with those idiotic "Promoted Tweets" - which in my experience are so far removed from anything that interests me that I really think they're using chimpanzees instead of algorithms to place them.
  • by grumbel ( 592662 ) <> on Monday July 25, 2011 @10:48PM (#36879444) Homepage

    I really can't see Google+ replacing Twitter anytime soon, as Google+ has a strict requirement for real names and will even close accounts based on it. Twitter on the other side is fine with pseudonyms and gets used a lot with them, not only from people that want to keep their real names private, but also organizations and companies that use it as their news feed or just from fake personalities for commedy purposes.

    Google+ seems to have some plans to allow business use in the future, but right now they doesn't and it's not clear if they only allow that for money or also for the average make-shift organization (i.e. Anonymous, Wikileaks, Free Software stuff, etc.).

    As far as I see it, with it's requirement for real names Google has essentially taken a first real step to being evil, while Twitter on the other side seems to be a much more open platform that is used by a lot of people that don't want their real names to be known for one reason or another.

  • by KikassAssassin ( 318149 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @01:33AM (#36880306)

    You don't lose access to Gmail (or Docs, Calendar, Blogger, or any other Google service that doesn't require Google+) if you're banned from Google+. The only way you can get a full Google-wide ban is if you're caught breaking a Google-wide policy such as spamming or illegal activity. They've also changed their policy so they give you fair warning to change your username before they lock your account, and there's an appeals process in place to get your account back if you do get banned for using a fake username.

    They also won't ban you just because your name doesn't match your birth certificate. They're only locking accounts for people who are using obviously fake names.

    There's a long blog post from a Google VP that goes into a lot of detail on the issue here: []

  • Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geminidomino ( 614729 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @02:16AM (#36880472) Journal

    Read article, still scares me. If I get reported for something, they will shutdown not just my G+ account, but could possibly block all linked accounts?

    Which article did you read? The one at the top of the subthread specifically points out that that is not the case. If you get all linked accounts blocked, it's because you were doing something that would always get all linked accounts blocked.

    When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that donâ(TM)t require a Google+ profile are not removed. Please help get the word out: if your Google+ Profile is suspended for not using a common name, you won't be able to use Google services that require a Google+ Profile, but you'll still be able to use Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Blogger, and so on. (Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.)

    NB: I don't trust Google any further than I can throw a Quantum Fireball underwater, but there are plenty of legitimate issues to worry about without clouding the issue with bogus ones.

    What started that, anyway? The only mass-block I heard about (admittedly, I'm not following it closely) was that twelve-year-old kid who didn't lie about his age and got blocked because the TOS of all google services says you have to be 13. Is that where this came from?

  • Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @02:29AM (#36880532)

    who is google to tell me what my name should be? I'll put whatever I want in there.. their policy is asinine, quit defending it.

  • by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @03:25AM (#36880744)

    Twitter is about a uni-directional attention-whore self-absorbed broadcasting medium. Let me broadcast as much inanity and bullshit about my life to tens of thousands of people who are hanging on my every word, because I have a podcast, a tech blog, an album, or a pair of tits. Twitter is about catering to attention-whores and their sycophants and as a result, there will always be a place for *any* utility that facilitates the experience of said attention-whore the broadest and easiest.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @04:24AM (#36880968)

    They're only locking accounts for people who are using obviously fake names.

    The entire point of the internet is pseudo-anonymity. This is how Twitter became a central news source to the political dissent surrounding the Arab spring.

    Google+ is something designed by and for valley dwelling, prius driving, aspergers-suffering dullards. Google+ may even be perfect for the inane, self-absorbed and narcissistic. It's never going to be as important as or a replacement for Twitter unless it allows user to hide behind aliases.

"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"