What Twitter has that Facebook Doesn’t

After recently rejecting Facebook’s $500 million buyout proposal, micro-blogging phenomenon, Twitter has moved forth acquiring and hiring former O’Reilly CTO Rael Dornfest. This adds fuel to the debate on whether Facebook and Twitter are rivals competing for the same online attention, or if they are instead, two totally independent online communication / information outlets. These are two very interesting platforms, no doubt, with large and promising futures ahead.

It’s very interesting to analyze these two successful (not always measured in dollars and cents, mind you) businesses, and how very different they are. Most notably are their different approaches to openness and complexity. Facebook has operated, so far, in a complete “bubble,” remaining fairly separate from the rest of the web. I believe that this community that Facebook was able to build on the internet is one of the biggest draws, especially at its inception regarding the college campuses that it was penetrating – it served as a virtual campus, sheltered from the “real world,” or the web, in this case. Now, compare this to Twitter. Twitter embraces the web and everything it has to offer, and operates with virtually no boundaries. This coincidentally, has been one of Twitter’s greatest factors to adoption; its openness.

Facebook boasts a very complete, complex profile system chock full of applications, photos, videos, albums, messages, status updates, news feeds, you name it…chances are Facebook has it. The brilliant execution of all these features has made Facebook the top social network to date. As we take a look at Twitter, they retain a completely different mentality, taking the less is more approach and focus on simplicity. And it is this structure that has contributed to Twitter’s success.

It’s very interesting to see how two platforms such as Facebook and Twitter can both be so successful and yet operate so differently. Now, obviously, Facebook is far larger than Twitter, so a true comparison of the companies may be a bit premature for Twitter’s-sake, but it is definitely worth keeping an eye on…and Facebook clearly has. One look at Facebook’s ‘Status Update’ feature and its introduction just shortly after Twitter started to develop a following is testament to the very simple, yet effective platform that Twitter has developed. Which brings me to my final point: What Twitter has that Facebook Doesn’t…

And the answer, is quite simple : Twitter has the ability to connect an individual with anyone, anywhere, at anytime. The same cannot be said for Facebook, or most traditional social networks for that matter. Twitter has removed the need to “Add Friends” and effectively connects individuals regardless of specific networks or communities. To give a very small example of what I mean, Google Analytics reports 8% of my Facebook “Friends” have visited my blog off of a facebook.com referral. Now that number jumps to just shy of 60% when comparing visits off of a twitter.com referral. The point is, Twitter is designed to communicate, network, discuss, and share content on a much more individual level. The stripped-down, bare bones service helps Twitter break the boundaries often created with complex networks.

I think the most interesting thing is that both of these services can coexist without necessarily infringing upon each other (for now at least). It would be hard to find someone without a Facebook account that is on Twitter, and rightfully so. Facebook is an absolutely ridiculous social network that will continue to grow and dominate mainstream. With that said, I can see Twitter accounts being distributed as commonly as email addresses are today — something that Facebook accounts just don’t have the flexibility in executing.