1. There's no strong call to action other than Join for Free! It's fast and easy!

2. Everyone saw ALL recent public updates.

3. There's no real value proposition other than A global community of friends and strangers answering one simple question: What are you doing?

4. And the example they give -- Thinking about sending my little sister something -- is downright creepy and proves that no one on the founding team was a woman.

5. Who are those featured people besides Tom Coates?

6. Note that in the beginning you used to be able to tweet from instant message. About the weather. So they were encouraging boring tweets from the beginning.

Still, this is AFTER they replaced the slimy green TWTTR logo with the new blue TWITTER logo:

What's that? You never heard of the "slimy green TWTTR logo page"? Let me oblige you:

Here's what @arrington had to say about it in July 2006:

People are using it to send messages like “Cleaning my apartment” and “Hungry”. You can also add friends via text message, nudge friends, etc. It really a social network around text messaging – and is very similar to another service called Dodgeball.

There is also a privacy issue with Twttr. Every user has a public page that shows all of their messages. Messages from that person’s extended network are also public. I imagine most users are not going to want to have all of their Twttr messages published on a public website.

Good times. :)

Wow, can you tell Jack Dorsey is no webdev?

Well, @jack and team built original Twitter with 2005-era Ruby on Rails so the design reflects that choice.

There's a fascinating evolution of Twitter article that dates back to 2005:

this is when the era of designers came in :)

First 100 Twitter users: http://tweet.grader.com/top/earlyusers

First 140 Twitter users: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/jan/11/twitter-first-140-users-history

First 1000 Twitter users: http://listorious.com/top/longest?page=1

(I'm #293 on that list, oddly. You'd think I would have chosen a better username.)

Thank you @BrianNorgard for tweeting this Internet history, Twitter edition.

Now excuse us while we change the subject to monkeys...

I can only imagine what his design process must entail...

Of course, he had help from his colleage Ev:

Today I learned a new word: Poopendous.

The creative process is teeming with nuance and sophistication.

See also the Quora Yahoo answer to: Why do monkeys fling their dung?

While doing the research for this page I found a Sept 2011 infographic on the history of Twitter:

Fast forward 9 months and now 1 billion tweets are sent every 3 days.

I think that the 5% of Twitter users are responsible for 75% of the tweets is likely still close to true.

Can't view the source from here on my iPad - but correct me if I'm wrong... Does that info graphic say that Lady Gaga joined Twitter on 3.26.04? Because that would be impressive. Or impossible. I get them confused sometimes. ;)

Hi Lucretia!

2009, not 2004. The original is here: http://mashable.com/2011/09/30/twitter-history-infographic/

I often get impressive and impossible confused, too. :)

Thanks! I can't get the Mahable one to load... But I'm much less excited by the plebeian 09... I rathered enjoyed a time-continuum defying Lady Gaga better.

And when you get the two words combined, it's usually because you've done the "impossible" and it's very "impressive" to the rest of us! ;;)

I still like mashing up the words impossible and impressive.