Having it all doesn't make you better.
Is it me, or are the three big social media players all spending a ton of effort to be like the other guy instead of just being what they are good at?
Google+ has circles, so Facebook introduces smart lists; Twitter introduces “activity” similar to the Facebook news stream; and now Microsoft is reported to be developing a similar, competing social network.
What’s with the hodgepodge of features and platforms? Just a big race to mash-up everything and gobble up the competition? Do they really think this can be effective?
It’s like they are hearing a bunch of hype, and really not listening to anyone but each other and playing a big game of one-upmanship to try to compete for loyalty or new customers. I’m not sure if it’s current users or future generations of new users that they’re vying for, but from what I can tell, current users are not exactly “wowed.” No one is about to jump off of Facebook in favor of Twitter due to new features.
I love to shop at Target, but that doesn’t mean I don’t go to the Apple store for my iPhone.
We use what we do for a reason. Most people active in more than one network have predetermined the differences in how they’ll use each.
For many, it’s based on the people they interact with in each of the networks:
For others, it’s based on the variations of content they find in each:
And, for the most part, updated features come too late in the game to have any impact. No one is about to jump ship from one in favor of another.
Some use them all, some use one or two, but tacking on each other’s features doesn’t seem to be serving anyone other than maybe the egos of those developing them.
If you missed my Twitter crowdsource, chime in here…if you use multiple platforms, why? And, if the feature from one is offered on another, would or does it change the way you use it?