> And as a counterpoint, Snap has not crossed the chasm, despite a $25b IPO.
I think it is a bit too early to call this one. I'd rather give Evan Spiegel and his team a few more quarters to see what they've got in store against Facebook now with IPO money in the bank.
> And arguably, neither has Twitter, despite over $2bn in revenue and being public for years.
Granted you qualified your statement with "arguably", but why do you think this when there is no corollary for "tweeting" outside of Twitter's service? If Twitter goes belly up today, who will step in their place?
I don't mean to say that Snap won't cross the chasm, just that it hasn't yet.
If it had, its position against Facebook would have been strong enough that Facebook would not have been able to clone its core feature into Instagram and cause Snap's growth to stall.
Twitter is a more interesting question.
Twitter's product and position are unique, yes, but IMHO, the company pursued a market (advertising) where they had no clear advantages over Google or Facebook.
The result of that mistake has been stagnation. Barely evolving product, flat user growth, declining revenue growth, and no clear path to long term profitability.
In other words, Twitter not only did not cross the chasm...they fell into it and got stuck.
I think it is a bit too early to call this one. I'd rather give Evan Spiegel and his team a few more quarters to see what they've got in store against Facebook now with IPO money in the bank.
> And arguably, neither has Twitter, despite over $2bn in revenue and being public for years.
Granted you qualified your statement with "arguably", but why do you think this when there is no corollary for "tweeting" outside of Twitter's service? If Twitter goes belly up today, who will step in their place?