Why twitter is going to beat facebook - and force me into buying an iPhone

Twitter's mobile app is a bit on the crummy side. I can't find new friends on it, I can't send private messages, I can't pick them up.
But it doesn't stop me using it - way more often than I do the facebook mobile app at the moment (see the Armano illustration...hmm).

Why? I think it's because Twitter's 'What are you doing' updates have so much more value than facebook's status updates. They have something Linkedin, and anyone else who thinks low-effort microblogging has tapped into a rich vein, should seriously consider. They have the option to point to something outside of Twitter - to the rest of the known and being-rapidly-discovered-by-my twitter-friends universe of digital stuff.

In short, urls work as they should in twitter. The only time I see them work as they should in facebook status updates, by comparison, and not without irony, is when they are are an rss feed from another application - such as twitter.

Links are immensely conversation-enabling. By pointing at something you flag it as a conversation starter. And the more conversation enabling, the more in tune with the power of the network.

What is it that stops facebook status updates turning into a conversation? Is it simply the clutter of all the other updates streaming through my news feed?
I don't think so. There's plenty of 'clutter', if you mean stuff I'm not going to give my attention to, on my twitter feed. Is it a disinclination imposed by the design of facebook?

Perhaps.

Perhaps facebook turns us into little broadcasters? I announce: "my status is x. I don't want to talk about it. I just want you to know it. If you'd like to talk about it... message me."

This indicates the facebook newsfeed is less conversation enabling - and therefore ultimately offers less value in a networked world. Conversations aren't shared so others can't contribute so the Reed's Law value growth enabled by self-forming groups is harder to come by (though granted, far from entirely precluded by other aspects of facebook).

The fact that we move to private messaging when we want to talk on facebook, rather than share an open conversation, indicates to me that facebook risks growing its value according to the law of one-to-one communication networks value (Metcalfe's Law) rather than the exponential growth of Reed's Law (Group Forming Network Theory).

A blog is way more conversation enabling.
Is facebook microblogging at all? Or simply microbroadcasting?
The distinction is writ large by the whole facebook premise. It is about privacy over openness.

Blogs and Twitter (despite the ability to block followers - which again, you can't do on the mobile version of Twitter) are about openness. I haven't received a single private message on twitter since I joined (though I did send a few before I worked out for myself this wasn't really the place). When we require privacy we use different modes of communication.

Conversations are there for all to see and join in. And on twitter they can start from anywhere and from anyone (on a blog its more centralised, more where the author leads).

Perhaps we should describe Twitter as decentralised microblogging?

This makes it exceptionally conversation enabling and a great fit with the networked world - which I think is why the net gen love it so.

Why does that make the inevitability of my acquisition of an iPhone greater by the day? Simply that whenever I click a link in a tweet on the mobile version of twitter I have no guarantee of being taken to a mobile-optimised page or a mobile internet page. I get the 'real internet' on an iPhone or indeed on any good tablet style wi-fi enabled device. Without being able to follow the links I'm unable to join the conversation. 3G mobile isn't enough. So I guess mobile had best stick to broadcast, cracking text plays, and that brilliant services thing - but that's a post for another day...

By the way, follow me. I'll follow you.

A digital idea is a digital idea. Mobile and internet are one and the same

In the media world, delivering brands through channels is so cool it's hot. But I'm not entirely sure this emphasis on channels is particularly helpful.
At least, it isn't while we continue to see mobile and internet as separate channels.
In a world of digital land-grab, a blind charge to deliver the idea is often happening without a thought for its appropriateness to 'the channel' you happen to focus your world around.
This is most glaringly obvious in the mobile domain. A mobile play should focus on Tomi T Ahonen's 5 Ms. In short, it should take advantage of what differentiates a mobile device from a standard pc.
This means that if you have a great idea for a new digital delivery of your brand you shouldn't stuff it on to mobile just because you can. If it suits a fixed line play best, then deliver it there. If it offers advantages to the mobile user, make them available to the mobile user, too.
Seems obvious.
But the confusion is endemic and I'd hazard a guess it is structural. If you persist in running units focusing on mobile and other units focusing on 'internet', it's bound to occur. Indeed internal competition may actively encourage this to happen.
I can't think of a single mobile play which wouldn't benefit from the option of access via a 'fixed line' website. I can't conceive of a website which wouldn't benefit from being optimised for your mobile, or which wouldn't accelerate its performance by allowing UGC (user generated content) and social networked interaction via mobile too.
3G Mobile internet screws up the dividing line. Wifi-enabled smart phones erase it entirely.
Fingers crossed for change.

Nokia announce skype phone, I-phone due this week, BT announce 12 'wireless cities' plan

It's all kicking off for mobile operators. Free calls on your mobile is right here and right now.
Over on Forum Oxford, Tomi Ahonen revealed that Skype and Nokia are collaborating to develop a new mobile Skype experience on the Nokia N800 Internet Tablet, introduced on January 8.
This is different from Skype on your mobile via your 3G internet connection (though that's possible, too, just as it is on the N73 in 3's X-Series deal.) This is making use of the N800's effective wi-fi connectivity to give you really fast skyping - so video calls should be as easy as voice.
And that's inspired a flurry of speculation that the long-awaited I-Phone from Apple (though I don't expect it to be called that, someone else registered the name long ago...) will be announced this week too (the CES conference is on in Las Vegas this week where such things occur, I am reliably informed).
And, Stef Coetzee tells us, BT has announced its Fusion phone is now going on sale in Phones4U stores and that they are rolling out 12 'wireless' cities where by March next year there will be consistent wireless coverage in city centres. BT offers calls on this wireless network at the rate of four mins for the price of one of their ordinary ones. It's hoping the growth of wifi handsets will inspire lift off.
So not only do we now have free-at-the-point-of-use internet access on 3G (X-series on 3), we're going to get wi-fi coverage (at least in cities) which should offer really fast access in double quick time.
Surely it's now just a matter of time before an operator offers a fixed charge for it all - mobile web, calls, text, wi-fi.
It's one more reason why your mobile will become not only your primary communications device but also your primary point of access to the internet. And it's happening faster by the day.
Plan for this, design for it too.