A Pictorial Review of My Twitter Followers

As I crossed over 4000 followers on Twitter, I thought I would go back and see exactly who has been following me and my tweets. Sure, there are a lot of "normal" people that are following me (and I am following them too), but I have also noticed a lot of other...umm... interesting tweeters that are also among my followers. 

Here is a quick pictorial review of some of those folks. Thanks again to all of you who have decided to share your insights and ideas with me. And thanks also to um...everyone else

Twitter Bird: Apparently, this is the preferred Avatar of much of Twitterdom. Come on people!

Twitter Thingies: The second most popular image. Um...nice try.

Fruits and Vegetables: Huh, who knew that fruits and vegetables were also into Twitter

Children: Looks like current generation is starting early with their Twittering

Hot Girls: Lots of hot girls seem to want to follow me. Shame that Twitter didn't exist when I was in college.

Shirtless Guys:  Well, um, Okay. I mean, seriously?

Scary Dudes: Whatever I did...I am sorry. Please leave me alone.

Animals: Apparently, everyone is joining Twitter now. 

Money: Well, if it is on Twitter...it must be true. 

Famous People: Some how I doubt that I am this popular. But hey, Einstein is cool.

So...who are your best followers? Any other great ones out there?

Twitter is DEAD! Long Live Twitter! Thoughts on Scott Fox's Recent Post.

Great post and great series of question from Scott Fox regarding Twitter and if it has "jumped the shark"...making itself irrelevant in the future of online communication and marketing. Entitled Twitter has Jumped the Shark, Mr. Fox lists five reasons why he feels that Twitter is "over" and this is the beginning of the end. His reasoning is very interesting...and includes (along with the great Among his reasons are:

1. Twitter's usability threshold is too low: Basically, the combination of 140 characters, zero cost, and semi-legal moral standing has overwelmed the benefits of the service.

2. Twitter's value assumes synchronicity...where in reality, it rarely is. In short, Twitter requires both parties to be actively involved to be valuable. That is very hard to do given the world we live in.

3. Twitter is ruled by the elites: Those that "have" thousands (or millions) of followers get proportionally better clicks / follow-up. Those that don't...well, don't. Given that no one auto-follows anymore growing beyond a few thousand users is an almost impossible feat.

4. Twitter is F*ing everywhere: Twitter's APIs are awesome...but the tools that have spawned from this level of access are almost out of control. As Mr. Fox notes, "it easier than ever before to pre-schedule, re-tweet, and manage multiple Twitter accounts with little added value (or human presence!)."

5. Twitter things it should advertise too: It was one thing when individual Tweeters made money through the likes of Sponsored Tweets or Be-A-Magpie, but now Twitter itself wants in the game. All that means is more noise in the already crowded Twittersphere.

So...what do you think? I think Mr. Fox has done a great job asking if the Emperor really has no clothes, though I am not sure I would declare Twitter dead just yet either. From a business standpoint, I find great benefits with Twitter in finding new ideas, sharing thoughts / articles / blogs and finding new contacts and professionals in my area of expertise. Yes, a lot of this communication is "one-way"...though that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Frankly, I don't always want (or need) a two-way conversation and Twitter helps me share information in a reasonable manner. While occasionally I may "miss" something on Twitter, I have learned that the most interesting things tend to show up more than once...and sooner or later I catch on.

That being said, do you agree with Mr. Fox? Is the future what he stated: "Will Twitter evolve to be just another alerts service? Or simply a quick delivery mechanism for 140 character teasers of meatier content posted elsewhere?"

Having Ideas Versus Having a Vision. Thoughts on Roberto Verganti's Recent Post

Just wanted to share a great blog post that I recently read on Harvard Business Review. Entitled "Having Ideas Versus Having a Vision," Robert Berganti in one short article breaks down the difference among those of us that have "ideas" vs. those that are truly "visionary." In Mr. Verganti's article, the difference is quite explicit, though often, we fail to see that difference in our daily actions. 

Specifically, Mr. Verganti defines "ideas" as something that occurs "fast" and are very "numerous" where the more occurrences, the better. Whereas in contrast, "visionary leadership" requires a relentless exploration of one direction with a "deep and robust understanding" of the issues and direction. More specifically, he makes clear that this profound difference is not only in the process, but the very way in which we think. Especially when it comes to making real change. In short, he believes that to be a visionary you must do things completely differently. That thought is neatly summed up in the following quote:

To generate fresh ideas we have been told to think outside of the box and then jump back in; vision building destroys the box and builds a new one. It does not     play with the existing paradigms; it changes them.

What struck me as most interesting about this article was the way in which it highlighted the "trap" that many employees and employers fall into regarding change in an organization. While many of us like to think of ourselves as visionary, the fact is, most of us are simply throwing ideas at a problem hoping that one answer "sticks" and solves the problem of the day. The implication of this fact of course, is that rarely does an organization spend the time to deeply understand an issue, putting all concerns (or sacred cows) on the table, in order to effect change. This happens even in the face of real and substantial challenges that organizations face. 

In my personal experience, I couldn't agree more with the way in which the definition of ideas and vision. Frankly, much of my day job is filled with proposing ideas to problems and only rarely do I seek to develop a true vision. In fact, there are probably only three or four situations that I can honestly say I acted as a visionary in the way Mr. Verganti defines. Interestingly, those experiences are the ones that I consider to be the most fulfilling...where I have seen real change, real opportunity, and have really made a difference.

So how about you? Are you an "ideas" person? Or a "visionary?"

Why the iPhone User Experience Really Struggles. Response to Ars Technica's Recent Analysis.

 VS 

Great article last week from Ars Technica postulating on one of the other major reasons why iPhone users are having problems with their network service and performance. Entitled "How smartphones are bogging down some wireless carriers," Chris Foresman hypothesizes that the real cause of the iPhone problems on the AT&T network can be traced to the way in which the iPhone pulls information in "short bursts" from the AT&T network for texting, web browsing, etc. According to Mr. Foresman's theory, it is this move among active and dormant state...which also helps to preserve battery life...that results in the widely recognized poor user experience that many iPhone users (especially in large cities) complain about.

As for what I think of this article, from a purely theoretical basis, I think it is a fun read. It draws on some interesting tidbits regarding the deployment of the iPhone globally and an interesting engineering-level perspective on how wireless networks operate. It also draws out some nice commentary regarding network design.

From a practical level however, I think that the proposed hypothesis is frankly, bogus. Blaming the atrocious experience that some iPhone users experience in cities like New York and San Francisco with the way in which the iPhone moves among active and dormant communication states on the AT&T network is not grounded in the reality of wireless networking. This opinion is centered on three main facts. 

# 1...If the problem was this simple, it would have been fixed by now: If this network switch was the real cause of poor performance, don't we really think that AT&T or Apple would have made adjustments by now? Especially given the incredible pressure to improve user experience? Fact is, wireless carriers and their device suppliers spend an inordinate amount of time stressing over the balancing act of performance vs. battery life. If the powers-that-be could fix their performance issue with such a relatively simple fix, it seems to me that they would have done that already. Yes, it might impact batter life of the iPhone, but poor battery life is a whole lot better than poor service altogether.

# 2...Why aren't all iPhones (throughout the US) having this problem? By all accounts, the worst iPhone experiences are in the largest US cities like New York and San Francisco. iPhones in Tampa, Washington, D.C., and Poughkeepsie seemingly have no issues. Frankly, if Ars Technica has found the magic iPhone glitch, then one would assume that all iPhones everywhere would have the same bad experience. Since they don't, it must mean that there is some other cause.

# 3...But wait, what about O2's network in the UK? I am no expert in the O2 network, but the fact that their users in the UK (specifically London) are experiencing the worst service speaks most strongly to the fact that this is not an active / dormant state issue. In fact, this seems to prove the idea that there is combination of other impacts that are resulting in bad user experience. In particular, network capacity and management (combined with high numbers of users) resulting in network stress.

So, does that mean the switch among active and dormant state is not an issue at all? In fairness, there is probably some kernel of truth, but I would offer that it is probably one of the smallest impacts related to user experience. More likely, this is a classic case where the writers are making the mistake of concluding that correlation implies causation. Yes, it sounds a bit strange that AT&T and O2 would have similar issues...but it is highly doubtful that the iPhone's switch among active and dormant state would be the reason. 

In fact, the more likely reasons for service problems with the iPhone can be gleaned from where the biggest complaints occur. After all, the common denominator with this problem is not the iPhone...but the use of the iPhone in a large city, with lots of users, challenging spectrum / coverage models, highly centralized user base, limited RF spectrum, and difficult economic considerations impacting network upgrades. These characteristics are all things that New York, San Francisco, and London share...and likely the cause of the poor experience for iPhone owners in these areas.