This is an interesting sabotage to any figures that want to maintain their presence.
If you search for "brandname twitter", you're probably going to get what you want. "brandname x" will be a SEO catastrophe.
Maybe they hoped to drive people to navigate through their own site and search facilities, but generally, not being where people are looking is a terrible strategy even on a chain of bad strategies.
These design examples are really interesting to me. I would hazard a guess that these types of designs are only popular right now because they are common among rapid design software packages/subscriptions used by companies who don't want to hire real designers. I don't think the styles are inherently bad but they certainly are lazy.
@BudgetBandit@samsy, it is not an X, when designing the logo he only thought that by drawing another one at a right angle at each end of the line, it would have been too obvious.
Trademark not copyright. Copyright only applies to entire works like a song text or the code Twitter has produced. For example the song title alone is not copyrighted. A trademark realistically only expires when it gets contested in court.
There's a similar law where you must at least defend a trademark against misuse to keep hold of it. That was the reasoning behind this music video for Velcro:
So, based on that, maybe they won't lose it just by not using it. But if someone else tried to establish a Twitter product, they may lose the trademark if they don't fight it.
Just from an economic standpoint, it's such a terrible decision. The Twitter bird is iconic to the point where the trademark itself is worth a considerable amount. This is like Disney dumping Mickey Mouse for a side character in The Dark Cauldron.
Sometimes I wonder if the Claudian letters stuck and, just like we got X for /ks/ (or /gz/... or /ʃ/... or whatever, this letter is a mess), we also got a Ↄ for /ps/. Maybe modern people would be also spamming Ↄ for this sort of "rule of cool"?
He's kicking into x.ai. There are good reasons to think that he bought Twitter to use its massive data-set of human language to train an ai - NOT because he gave/gives a shit about Twitter as a profitable company.
If it becomes a paid competitor to OpenAI, it solves its profitability issues without enhancing "Twitter" as a social media site. Anything he said about improving Twitter was likely a lie designed to prolong usage of the platform and enhance the dataset.
Lawsuit protection and the pairing of tweet data with internal demographics data? There's no telling what Twitter knows about its users from being installed on their phones(geocoding, network analyzation, etc.) to analyzing their advertisement engagement to sentiment analysis of word choice and it goes on and on.
As stupid simple as the tweeting/re-tweeting mechanisms are, that doesn't mean they don't have serious targeted marketing algorithms and other high end data analysis tools behind the scenes. It would be silly if they didn't.
Why would you think access to Twitter users nonsense is in any way an improvement over existing training data let alone enough make spending tens of billions for Twitter a good deal. He bought it because he said stupid shit and when he thought he could back out they were suing him to uphold the deal he made to buy it and they were going to win.
I don't know, I think he was trying to get the price down because why pay more than you have to?
Also, I think a decade's-worth of notable human discourse in discreet packets of n-characters in an already hierarchical organization paired with deep demographic metadata could be seriously valuable.
The internet hasn't even been around that long I wonder how long a web platform can even exist? The have certain been generations so far. It feels like we are changing generations now