Desktop Twitter Clients Are Pointless

TwitterOne of the driving forces behind Twitter’s popularity is access to their API. This openness has allowed users to access Twitter via a variety of third-party clients rather than the standard method of accessing a web-based service solely in a browser. A number of clients and services thrive as a result of this rather unorthodox approach to the service. What I find fascinating, and at the same time quite unappealing, is this focused reliance on using a desktop client to access Twitter.

At first, I thought the idea was quite novel. Why use a web browser to access Twitter when there are all these nifty desktop clients available? After all, the myriad of clients are generally designed such that they blend in with the operating system and offer a boatload of additional functionality not available through the standard Twitter web-based service.

When Twitterific first launched, I jumped on the bandwagon – I thought both the idea and execution were brilliant. I stuck with Twitterific for a few weeks before ultimately giving up and returning to web-based Twitter access. What I found is that I fell in love with the idea of using a third-party client but actually despised using one.

So why did I opt to forego the client method and stick with using Twitter inside Firefox? Ultimately, for me, it boiled down to a few simple issues.

  • Process Flow. I spend the vast majority of my time working inside a browser. Rarely do I venture outside of Firefox unless I am performing non-internet related tasks. The use of a third-party Twitter client required me to rethink my process flow – I now had to forcibly change my habits if I wanted to see what was going on with my Twitter stream. Not only did I find this uncomfortable, I also found it cumbersome. What benefit is there in modifying the way I work just so I can see a few additional tweets here and there?
  • Information Overload. If you use a third-party Twitter client, replete with all the bells and whistles turned on, then you are constantly bombarded with information – in many cases pointless and useless information. It is mostly counter-productive to attempt to process all that information. I found the constant, never-ending exposure to information added no value to my Twitter experience. There is a delicate balance between not enough information and too much information – Twitter clients seemingly fall in the latter category. Matt Haughey recently wrote a similar rant about this specific topic.
  • Pointless. The majority of Twitter clients offer no novel features warranting everyday use. TweetDeck comes the closest in terms of offering a unique experience, however it ultimately falls short for the reasons already mentioned. The Twitter web service provides everything any average and power user needs.

I am quite certain there are countless folks out there who believe the exact opposite – that Twitter use is far more productive inside a client than in a web browser. There are certainly compelling cases to be made on both sides of the argument. However, I really find the additional, constant exposure to information a hindrance offering little or no value.

There is definitely application for third-party Twitter clients outside of the desktop. The iPhone has a plethora of exceptional clients that are far better at presenting information than the standard Twitter iPhone version The native iPhone clients are generally faster than the web site and are far more capable than the web site could ever dream of being. Perhaps the iPhone is the killer platform for Twitter? Was Twitter designed with mobility in mind?

I understand why people use desktop Twitter clients even though I find them quite irritating on my desktop. Some clients offer dual functionality – allowing for the aggregating of data from a variety of sources, or allow posting to multiple destinations simultaneously like Twhirl does. In these cases, it may make certain sense to use a desktop client if you find your situation calls for such features and if you can fit a desktop client in to your process flow. Ultimately, I find this to be the exception not the rule.

With integrated real-time search coming to Twitter soon, I find desktop clients becoming less and less relevant. The tide will shift back to the web-site, with only a handful of people using desktop clients to access the service from their desktop.

Do you use a desktop client to access Twitter? If so, what client do you use and why do you find that a better method of accessing Twitter? Inquiring minds would like to know!

  • http://www.joshuajonesdesign.com/blog JoshuaRJones

    I agree. The most I ever pursued when coming to a desktop client was using Quicksilver to Tweet. Never got it working, so stopped trying. The Web site works fine for me. You hit it dead on when talking about information overload.

    The majority of my Twitter use is via iPhone when I'm on the go, which has always led me to believe that Twitter was created for mobility. They always have had the ability to update via txt messaging as well.

  • YorickPeterse

    I use Twitter the old way, through a browser. Main reason for that is that I simply don't need a special client for it, it's a total overkill :]

  • http://am0.co.uk Xander / Narfmaster

    To some extent I agree with you, lots of Twitter desktop clients are just overbloated and ultimately make using it less productive. I tried Tweetdeck and while it's functionality was impressive, I can do everything with the Twitter homepage.
    I use the Twitterific app on my Mac because of it's simplicity- your main stream and a submission form. Being able to click it's icon in the top bar and input it there and then is personally a lot quicker than heading to twitter.com, and it hides itself when not in use. That's all I need from an App.

  • http://flyosity.com/ Mike Rundle

    So I'm a guy that 1) doesn't use desktop Twitter clients, but is 2) writing a desktop Twitter client for the Mac, one that I'll actually use.

    Say what?

    I totally agree that most desktop Twitter clients are pointless because they don't *add* any functionality or provide any kind of unique experience. They don't expound on the feature set already included in the web version of Twitter, they normally just let you access the data in a slightly different way. On the iPhone it's a matter of convenience so you can get away with a similar experience, but on the desktop, there should be something additional since you can just as easily and quickly access the web interface.

    I'm writing my own Twitter client because it does something that I can't get on the web interface — it lets me temporarily hide tweets from certain people I follow, and highlight tweets from other folks I follow. It lets me more easily cut through the chaff and get to the good stuff which is especially useful when I only check Twitter occasionally since I'm trying to get work done during the day.

    So in my mind, the bottom line is that unless a desktop Twitter client offers a feature (or features) that makes it *more* useful than the web interface, then there's just no point.

  • http://www.pntaylor.net Pete

    I currently do use a desktop client in the form of Tweetdeck for a couple reasons. Firstly it has the in-built ability to do URL shortening which I find extremely useful. Ok I could go to tinyurl and do it myself but it's nice to do it inside the one app. The other reason I think I use it probably why you don't, I'm not always browsing.

    When I'm at home I do some browsing then go off and do whatever, I leave tweetdeck open in my 'Chat' space on my laptop and check it to keep up with what's going on as I watch TV or whatever. I think that's where they're useful. At work, I use either the site or Twitterfox as I can't install any applications.

    As you say the are valid points either side though I think the one achillies heel for the desktop application is that there is a limit on API calls. Once exceeded you have to use the website till it resets an hour later. So if you tweet a lot, the web method is your friend!

  • MonTemplar

    I'm currently using TweetDeck, and the ability to separate out tweets from my close friends, and also things like news feeds, into separate columns is very valuable to me. I can quickly scroll through messages, answer some, favourite or retweet a few more, then mark them all read and move on. :)

    I was using Twitterfox before, but as I don't always have Firefox open or in the foreground during the work day, I tended to miss out on tweets. With TweetDeck, they're all stored up for the next time I click on the little birdie to bring them to the foreground.

    There are a few things I would like to see, most notably the ability to expand short-urls when I hover over them in TweetDeck. Other than that, I'm pretty happy.

  • http://finkels.net/scott finkel

    I find the grouping feature of Tweetdeck pushes it my to the top of my list of preferred Twitter interfaces. Notifications and alerts can be turned off easily enough. I was about to create separate accounts for follwoing @breakingNewsOn and the like, because they were saturating my feed, and I was losing track of my friends, but they still provide information I want to see. This was compounded by the following of several design magazines and coding sites and services. I use IconFactory's fine Twitteriffic client on my iPod touch, and it is a great interface for when I am away from my desktop (nights and weekends). But until clients and/or the twitter web site itself provide the simple function of grouping your followers into categories, Tweetdeck's going to stay at the top of my list, because segregation of content via grouping is easier than using/managing multiple accounts.

  • http://demiurgiclust.net shelly

    I use TweetDeck currently. In the past, I've used Spaz and Twhirl. I prefer a client over updating via the web (though I've done both).

    * One can see new tweets instantly, and reply to or retweet them instantly.
    * I don't check the website often, unless I want to see any new followers, or if I need to block someone (usually a spam account). Without a web client, my Twitter use would be lessened.
    * The ability to make URLs shorter is built in.
    * When using Twhirl and Spaz, I could also post to Pownce (when it was around), if I wanted to.
    * Tweetdeck separates regular tweets from replies and re-tweets, which I find much more organized.

  • http://techmiso.com Scott Jarkoff

    Never tried using Quicksilver for tweeting. Although, I never really got in to Quicksilver – can't, for the life of me, understand how to use it to my advantage.

    What Twitter iPhone client do you prefer?

  • http://techmiso.com Scott Jarkoff

    Thanks for stopping by Mike. Glad to see you around this part of town. :-)

    I've been following your client development on Twitter, and am quite eager to see what you've put together. It sounds like you *are* doing something novel, which is way more than can be said for most Twitter clients these days. Any ETA on a beta?

  • http://winksite.mobi/pswansen/paulsmobile Paul W. Swansen

    Since the Adobe AIR apps don't work on either my Intel iMac or my Netbook running Windows XP, desktop apps are where it's at.

  • http://www.joshuajonesdesign.com/blog JoshuaRJones

    I couldn't live without Quicksilver. Did a post on what I use it for most if your curious – http://joshuajonesdesign.com/blog/?p=60

    I fell in love with Tweetie, but still want to see some improvements added to the device.

  • http://techmiso.com Scott Jarkoff

    The problem I ran into with the URL shortening services is that even though they're “built-in” to the client, you still can't really tell if you've hit the 140 character limit because the shortening is taken care of after you submit your tweet. To me, that seems entirely counter-productive.

    I've also felt the wrath of being rate-limited due to massive sequential tweeting. Not a good thing methinks!

  • http://techmiso.com Scott Jarkoff

    It is for that reason why I listed TweetDeck specifically – it seems to have a better handle on how to handle Twitter when compared to the other existing desktop twitter clients out there.

  • http://techmiso.com Scott Jarkoff

    How come Adobe AIR apps are non-functional on your workstations?

  • http://www.pntaylor.net Pete

    TweetDeck doesn't do that, when you shorten the URL it puts it in your tweet and you know how many chars you're using so the only downside I see is the API limit.

  • http://skyeatsart.com Josh

    I use tweetdeck.

  • http://www.caroline-korsakov.deviantart.com Caroline_K

    i used tweetdeck for like 2 weeks. I found the alerts are so anoying!! I get stuck with brizly cause i like the images look in the same page. But sometimes it doesn't update your status (in fact, several times per day) so I finally decided to used chrowerty for google chrome, and i'm quite happy witjh it.