Now there’s one thing I can guarantee you. You won’t get as much as an arched eyebrow from me if you say you just posted your billionth tweet, on Twitter of course. And that’s for reasons obvious.
What Twitter has is what Google craves. Numerous users who add on to the knowledge base of the system, and, not to forget, in realtime! Some time back, Google started using Twitter’s data to provide realtime searches. Type in your query and there’s a separate section of the Google search page that shows you realtime tweets, as recent as seconds, scrolling in the page and updating you on what you were looking for. Pure awesome!
Twitter called it off soon enough. Google’s live search was rendered handicapped. Google Inc. shut it down soon. I still wait for Google to resume something like that.
Of course, Twitter sees Google as a web competitor, and vice-versa, no matter how giant the latter has gotten over time and innovations, whether someone confesses it or not.
Then Google launched the much hyped (like any of the previous Google fails as well as masterpieces) Google Plus, to replace the feeds it received from Twitter. But it’s yet to pick up the required userbase to catch up and provide what Google needs. Twitter has become something probably the creators didn’t even intend or expected it to be. Many governments (including our own) regularly ask for data from the search giant, Google, for various intelligence purposes. Some minor, some as sensitive as close-range, high resolution pictures of the President residence and nuclear reactors are seen, processed and requested to be removed/ masked by the governments frequently. Fervently, the world has to spin, be it Google or Twitter. (Remember how the frustrated Google quit China?)
Ask an IT industry expert about what Twitter is, even ask the creators of Twitter themselves! All they say is that “We’re yet to figure out what it is and what it can be.”
That’s no diplomacy or modesty, but the fact. Google offered to buy the Twitter services for its livesearch, but Twitter declined. And that was absolutely the right thing to do and it’ll get more obvious in the long run. Facebook saw a similar phase. It had the stubborn shoulders of Zuckerberg that prevented it from selling out. Alright, he’d have got millions, if not billions (and so it true for Twitter owners), but they’d have given away something that was yet priceless. Yes, literally, the price was yet to be determined.
Some argue that Google had the tools to put to use the resources of Twitter, and so, for the greater good, and of course, gigantic monetary benefits, Twitter should have let them have the services. But I choose to stand by the stance assumed by Twitter. They should let it grow, build tools, discover more possibilities and expand gradually.
Times are always shifting. So are relationships in the corporate niche. Apple is suing Samsung over touchscreens, economy is dipping, shares are fluctuating, ratings are getting altered, threats are being delivered.
Google is like the IT bull. It buys things. Like, BIG things. It bought Orkut (this one’s not so big though), Youtube, etc. and recently, it acquired Motorola Mobility. And though lately it has accumulated a LOT of criticism from the web community for certain strategies, there’s no turning down the fact that there’s more to come.
But at times, someone might have just what the bull doesn’t!