<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Adobe Air</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://rarepattern.com/tags/adobe-air"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://rarepattern.com/taxonomy/term/309/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://rarepattern.com/taxonomy/term/309/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2008-06-06T20:58:59-05:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Plurk, and the value of a website without much webapp support (or people)</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://rarepattern.com/nodes/2008/plurk-and-value-a-website-without-much-webapp-support-or-people" />
    <id>http://rarepattern.com/nodes/2008/plurk-and-value-a-website-without-much-webapp-support-or-people</id>
    <published>2008-06-06T20:47:39-05:00</published>
    <updated>2008-06-06T20:58:59-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura Scott</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Adobe Air" />
    <category term="Plurk" />
    <category term="social networking" />
    <category term="Twitter" />
    <category term="Twitterific" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I confess: I like <a href="http://www.plurk.com/user/rarep">Plurk</a>. I like the timeline. I like the serenity of the GUI. I'm not sure how it would work with a lot of messages, but let's face it, <a href="http://twitter.com/lauras">Twitter</a>'s river of tweets can seem like a laundry list of random thoughts.</p>
<p>But there are two things that make Twitter better, despite its persistent performance problems and downtimes:</p>
<p>1 - Twitter has apps. I joined Twitter early last year, but I don't think I would be Twittering at all anymore if I didn't have Twitterific or something similar. I don't like to have to live on a website for high-traffic content. Now if Plurk had a nice desktop app -- preferably not requiring the clunky Adobe Air....</p>
<p>2 - Twitter is where the people are. Plurk has a nice GUI, but will people come? I've discovered some new people, but I don't know many people on Plurk. Cool GUIs don't quite make up for the lack of "social" in a social network app.</p>
<p>Still, I think Plurk is onto something. It's distinct. There are several web apps that could be called "Twitter alternatives" but they're pretty much the same, or very similar.</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I confess: I like <a href="http://www.plurk.com/user/rarep">Plurk</a>. I like the timeline. I like the serenity of the GUI. I'm not sure how it would work with a lot of messages, but let's face it, <a href="http://twitter.com/lauras">Twitter</a>'s river of tweets can seem like a laundry list of random thoughts.</p>
<p>But there are two things that make Twitter better, despite its persistent performance problems and downtimes:</p>
<p>1 - Twitter has apps. I joined Twitter early last year, but I don't think I would be Twittering at all anymore if I didn't have Twitterific or something similar. I don't like to have to live on a website for high-traffic content. Now if Plurk had a nice desktop app -- preferably not requiring the clunky Adobe Air....</p>
<p>2 - Twitter is where the people are. Plurk has a nice GUI, but will people come? I've discovered some new people, but I don't know many people on Plurk. Cool GUIs don't quite make up for the lack of "social" in a social network app.</p>
<p>Still, I think Plurk is onto something. It's distinct. There are several web apps that could be called "Twitter alternatives" but they're pretty much the same, or very similar.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
