As technology continues to advance, social media platforms are constantly looking for new ways to generate revenue. Recently, Twitter has been shifting its focus towards subscriptions, which has raised concerns about the impact on its users. In this article, we will explore Twitter’s new subscription-based model, its potential impact on users, and how it compares to other social media platforms.
Twitter’s Shift Towards Subscriptions:
In an effort to diversify its revenue streams, Twitter has been actively pursuing subscription-based models. This includes the recent acquisition of the newsletter platform, Revue, which allows users to monetize their content through subscriptions. Additionally, Twitter has been testing its own subscription service, called Twitter Blue, which offers features such as an “Undo Tweet” button and the ability to organize bookmarks.
Impact on Users:
While Twitter’s shift towards subscriptions may seem like a positive step towards generating revenue, it could have negative implications for its users. One concern is that Twitter may start prioritizing content from users who pay for subscriptions, leading to a two-tiered system where some users have an unfair advantage over others. Additionally, the introduction of subscription-based features could create a pay-to-win environment, where users who can afford to pay for premium features have an unfair advantage over those who cannot.
Comparison to Other Social Media Platforms:
Twitter is not the first social media platform to introduce subscription-based models. Facebook and LinkedIn, for example, both offer premium versions of their platforms for a fee. However, the impact of these models on users has been mixed. Some users have reported feeling left behind or excluded from certain features, while others have enjoyed the benefits of a premium membership.
In conclusion, Twitter’s shift towards subscriptions could have both positive and negative implications for its users. While it may provide a new revenue stream for the platform, it could also lead to an unfair advantage for those who can afford to pay for premium features. Ultimately, it remains to be seen how Twitter’s subscription-based model will impact its user base and whether it will prove to be a successful strategy for the platform’s continued growth.
Consider this speculation until more sources are readily available
The VR Wars (as I am calling them), is very reminiscent of the console wars between Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo. Virtual Reality is the new king-of-the-hill battle royale.
First to market is Meta’s Oculus. It helps the tech was available to Facebook/Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg at $2 billion back in 2014. So they definitely have a leg up. Since purchase, they have released several iterations, most recent, the Oculus Quest 2, with rumors of the Quest 3 (“Project Cambria”) to be released within the next year. Apple is working diligently on their iteration of a VR headset and eagerly projecting a release date of late 2022 to early 2023. Google’s hat to be tossed into the ring Project Iris, is rumored to be in the works and is hoping to hit consumer markets in 2024. “Metaverse” is now looking to be more of a universal term for virtual reality versus Meta having the strong hold on the term as a branding ploy. Frankly, I would like to think the other two competitors would look for a more global term for virtual worlds rather than leaning into Meta’s infant foothold. This would allow for the average consumer to break free from the indoctrination of the term associating all virtual worlds back to Meta. This could very well be a far-fetched dreamscape as most consumers already relate anything VR to Meta/Facebook, but here’s to hoping.
Initial speculations are showing Google’s hesitation jumping into the ring, as previous works in VR/AR has not panned out well, or even performed to the minimum projections they had been hoping for. Think back to Google Glass, the wearable tech (eyeglasses) that would overlay what we now have in Google Lens in mobile devices. In practical application, it made sense, and showed plenty of promise and benefit. Personally, I think it was slightly ahead of its time and the average consumer wasn’t ready for it.
If it would have stayed in development, and released within the past couple of years to present, it would have done much better. Looking at everyone who has wearable tech now, primarily smartwatches. With that said Google does have historical repertoire in the space and have advanced a lot of their AR tech stack in mobile devices. They could easily play to their strengths building off their perceived failures and existing successes. Furthermore, Google already knows so much about all the consumers, it would make sense for them to leverage the harvested first party data. The ongoing joke that Google knows everything about everyone, might as well let them do as they wish and the end user reaps the benefits (along with the dystopian big brother fears).
The speculation around Apple’s development has been wildly varied. From cost, design, release, and specifications. The largest takeaway that is both alarming and undesirable is the rumored price point. Apple products for decades has been perceived to be luxury items. Always inflating their end user pricing, and within the past few years being an advocate of “user privacy.” Without inundating this post with my own personal opinions of the Apple model, there are two things concerning about the pricing of their offering. For one, it is presumed their VR/AR offerings could be in the ballpark of $3k (with a potential subscription service). The second point that is concerning (if this pricing model turns out to be legitimate) is people will pay this. Not for the tech, but because of the status appeal. Don’t get me wrong, they will have some top level tech in their devices, but I can only assume by the time they release their devices, there’s a good chance they have been surpassed by competitors. This has happened numerous times in the mobile phone arena.
Lastly, thinking to the point they are taking user privacy to heart is laughable. Again, attempting to restrain my personal opinions, but the only thing Apple has done is allowed their users to removed the ability for advertisers to personalize ads for their preferences. They have spun their agenda to make them appear to be the hero by removing ads from platforms altogether. They did not use that language explicitly, but Apple lied to their consumers. It seems like it worked, because from what I have seen only advertisers are upset about it. Which begs the question how attune are Apple users in general. But that’s a discussion for another time.
Meta has the upper hand with approximately 10 Million units sold by mid November 2021. In the next year or two when Apple and Google are geared to release their headsets, there’s a good chance Meta has doubled or tripled this number with the added new Quest 3 headset release. No matter which way you slice it, Google and Apple have an uphill battle. Both have their own illustrious brands with consumer perceptions. Apple as the “user friendly” and Google as the “know-it-all.”
If this war is to be won, will it boil down to price, tech, or status? There’s still a lot of time, questions, and development before we will see actual competitive answers/analysis. I could see Apple taking the short win using a subscription service, similar to their mobile pay-to-own plans and lumping VR into it. Which would give them ongoing revenue. Let’s not even think about insurance claims and protection plans. Contracts galore.
Google could cripple the market with their previous attempts at AR and including existing successful tech in their headsets. This working in conjunction with all of their owned/earned first party data. They could easily compile the experience to every end user, creating the best possible consumer curated experience. The internet is slowly abandoning the cookie, but Google has been making drastic strides focusing on the user cohort. This could make the bucketing of user data into the VR realm that much more customized and curated for every end user. All of this combined with the rumored price to be available to everyone. It is assumed this will be either at the same price of Oculus devices or less, to ensure market capitalization.
Overall it is a very exciting time. Like the early console wars, VR/AR is the new battlefield, and we will have to wait and see who will claim victory. As a Meta Oculus Quest 2 owner, I am excited to see what these competitors bring to the arena, and what they will do to shape the landscape.
There has been some real problems with Google ads recently. Every few days or so, the ads get disapproved from the landing page (destination) not working. Their words, not mine. I have gone round and round, attempting to alter the landing page, making sure the updated page has been crawled and indexed by Google, yet I am still faced with a disapproval. The quick fix I have found is merely duplicate the existing disapproved ad, and pause the original. So far it has done the trick. I have yet to have a duplicate be flagged as disapproved.
My concern is that the tracking template that is in place (before I started) is causing some breakage in the final landing page url. This has been something I haven’t been able to adjust because I have been told it is linked to other form fields in other platforms. Adjusting or scraping the Value Track parameters may break the systems in place.
The best thing I can do, is continue to research and understand what has been put in place and why. Then I will be more versed in how to alter the systems for the better.