<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ZEE4 &#187; buzz</title>
	<atom:link href="http://zee4.com/tag/buzz/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://zee4.com</link>
	<description>Zoltan Hunt, web-designer and developer in Toronto, Canada</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:06:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Why no Buzz for Google&#8217;s Twitter</title>
		<link>http://zee4.com/2010/02/why-no-buzz-for-googles-twitter/</link>
		<comments>http://zee4.com/2010/02/why-no-buzz-for-googles-twitter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:13:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[buzz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://zee4.com/?p=135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google launched Buzz last week to generally better press than Apple received seems to have received for it's iPad, though I wonder if there are some similarities. While Buzz offers more features, it might turn out to be less fun. <a href="http://zee4.com/2010/02/why-no-buzz-for-googles-twitter/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google launched Buzz last week to generally better press than Apple received seems to have received for it&#8217;s iPad, though I wonder if there are some similarities. For one thing, both of these are kind of re-imagines of already successful products. The iPad is basically the iPhone on a grander scale; if you watch Apple&#8217;s videos it&#8217;s clear they are thinking, &#8220;This is what we did with the iPhone- but what if we had a bigger screen?&#8221; Google&#8217;s Buzz of course is kind of reminiscent of Google Wave which was promoted famously as &#8220;What if we where inventing email today?&#8221; Buzz might well be asking &#8220;What if we invented Twitter today?&#8221;</p>
<p>There&#8217;s plenty of ways that kind of thinking can go right or wrong, but I&#8217;m wondering if what made Twitter what it is today was that it was kind of retro to begin with- and that&#8217;s what makes it fun. I&#8217;ve tried to explain Twitter to people for about 2 years now. The 140-character limit is kind of arbitrary- <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/05/invented-text-messaging.html" target="_blank">text messages can be up to 160 characters</a> and  computers-type limits would be multiples of 8, resulting in numbers like  128 or 256 characters.  So yes, it&#8217;s a bit of a toy, but it&#8217;s limitations are what make it a challenge, you can&#8217;t be sloppy with Twitter, it takes a bit of thinking to pack much  meaning into 140 characters &#8211;spaces and punctuation included&#8211; and that in turn that appeals to <a href="http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061897276" target="_blank">certain people</a>.</p>
<p>Google Buzz does away with that limit of course.  While  Buzz of course has no limits on text, it lets you add photos, links, probably video too. It&#8217;s certainly probably more practical, but it might not turn out to be as much fun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://zee4.com/2010/02/why-no-buzz-for-googles-twitter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

