Hahlo 3.0: Twitter freak's new best friend
The whole point of Twitter is that it's fast and mobile: if you see something interesting, you can post about it right away and see the responses right away. That's why it's been so frustrating that no Twitter client for iPhone and iPod Touch has distinguished itself with a good-looking user interface and all the features the advanced Twitterer demands. Well, problem solved: meet Hahlo 3.0.We've been playing with the beta version of Hahlo 3 for a few weeks now, and it has everything iPhone Twitter apps have been missing. The navigation is quicker and more intuitive than in previous versions, user profiles look better, you can view your direct message outbox, and following and DMing people from Hahlo now works flawlessly. This stuff should be the bare minimum for a good Twitter client, but there's more.
Hahlo now has built-in support for Summize Twitter Search, and displays search results within the Hahlo interface. This is invaluable if you're as popular as we at Download Squad are (you're following us, right?), because you'll inevitably miss a few messages and find it handy to catch up by searching your username. Before Hahlo 3.0, lots of messages went unread, from friends who buried our @names in the middle of a tweet -- now we're not skipping a beat.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jenny Berry said 10:58AM on 5-07-2008
What about twinkle? I actually like the twinkle app way better than halo app (which I used to use before twinkle)
Reply
Peter Parker said 4:44AM on 7-03-2008
------------------------------------------------
Dave Winer, father of RSS says “Twitter, as it was conceived, was never meant to live.”
“It’s very possible with better engineering its architecture might have gone on for a few more years, but eventually it would have hit this wall, where there were too many people posting too many twits to too many followers. The scale of the system as conceived rises exponentially.”
So is the end of Twitter getting near? I hope not. Twitter I hope that you are listening and you better start taking things more seriously.
-----------------------------------------------
Here's my two cents.
For instance there are about 100m users of yahoo messenger and usually 2-3 of them talk at a time that means scalability of 300m conversations. On the other hand with 100m twitter users who usually send messages to 100-10,000 other users the scalability required is 10,000m to 10^6m I have never known any current architecture based on webservers to handle such a scale. So according to me Twitter was never meant to live. It is like a concept car that will never see production. Users of twitter don't understand this and they don't care.
They don't know whats happening when the website is down. The sad part is that the best analysts claim that Twitter is a billion dollar company in one year of operations. There is an old saying before the days of when people understood permutation combinations. One peasant asked a king to give him rice equal to the total amount gotten by placing double the number of rice grains on a chess square than the previous square, starting with one rice grain. There are 8x8=64 squares. We seriously need to visit grade 7 mathematics.
I know of only one News/Messaging system that supports around 1 billion users sending messages to all 1 billion users each. Thats a scalability of 10^12m. It is not Web based but rather on a massively scalable serverless P2P architecture based. The team is soft spoken and when I last talked to them I was told that they don't care about money or hype or fame but rather for just the passion of next generation global systems that will stand the test of worldwide use. Its called Mermaid News Mermaid
They have other softwares too but this post is about Twitter and Messaging. Once everyone comprehends basic mathematics that goes behind scalable algorithms they would go past the flashy screen and hype to actually want a system they can trust. To the analysts I would say it is easy to create a business plan, create a hype and raise $20m funding it is far more difficult to create something of use.
Reply