<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is there a need for twitter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jonners.org/b/1031/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jonners.org/b/1031</link>
	<description>A journey through marriage, publishing, motorracing and gaming... The adventures of Lofty and Stumpy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:21:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: craig</title>
		<link>http://jonners.org/b/1031/comment-page-1#comment-3975</link>
		<dc:creator>craig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:21:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonners.org/?p=1031#comment-3975</guid>
		<description>For me Twitter is a reverse Facebook. At its core it is a social network, it allows people to communicate with each other and stay in touch.

However, by being a reverse Facebook it started with too few features, hell, it only really started with one feature. And while this one feature worked very well, one feature isn&#039;t enough for a social networking site. Now they have had to stick other features onto an interface and a design that was never designed to cope with them.

Facebook by comparison has all the features of Twitter and so many many more from day one. Facebook has also innovated (in many ways moving towards the over simplification of Twitter (which has to be a bad thing)).

While Twitter is a nice simple service, it is it&#039;s simple nature which ultimately leads to it being pointless. So far as the statistics have shown, it is just a hype, a featureless hardly used hype.

Anyway, as soon as we have the true semantic web there will never be a need for such aggregation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For me Twitter is a reverse Facebook. At its core it is a social network, it allows people to communicate with each other and stay in touch.</p>
<p>However, by being a reverse Facebook it started with too few features, hell, it only really started with one feature. And while this one feature worked very well, one feature isn&#8217;t enough for a social networking site. Now they have had to stick other features onto an interface and a design that was never designed to cope with them.</p>
<p>Facebook by comparison has all the features of Twitter and so many many more from day one. Facebook has also innovated (in many ways moving towards the over simplification of Twitter (which has to be a bad thing)).</p>
<p>While Twitter is a nice simple service, it is it&#8217;s simple nature which ultimately leads to it being pointless. So far as the statistics have shown, it is just a hype, a featureless hardly used hype.</p>
<p>Anyway, as soon as we have the true semantic web there will never be a need for such aggregation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

