Off the back of that conversation I was approached by 3scale, another API management provider. 3scale wanted to have a discussion around what they see as some issues around API management and in particular the flexibility that they believe customers really want.

The crux of the 3scale argument rests in the fact that, whereas other vendors approach API management with a proxy, taking all traffic from the API provider through their own platform, 3scale is a proxy-less player. What this means is that API providers integrate with 3scale using plugins based on 3scale’s own API. In this way 3scale believes that they deliver more flexibility and scalability than other API management platforms.

That’s a valid argument, and one which 3scale could use against their competitors. Until today….

You see yesterday Apigee announced some changes that answer all the concerns about a proxy service. As detailed on ReadWriteWeb, the API Delivery Network solves issues about both response time and availability – while still maintaining the advantages of a proxy service. Apigee is promising;

• A decreased API response time by 10X
• Improvement in API reliability and consistency by increasing the infrastructure availability to 99.99%
• Better scalability at a much lower cost

Steven Willmot, from 3scale raised some concerns about traffic still going through Apigee’s infrastructure for 100% of clients content – that seems a little bot of a red herring coming from a company that, after all, is all about abstracting non-core functions away from organizations.

Anyway – I took the opportunity to sit down and interview Sam Ramji from Apigee about the announcement – see the vid below;

ReadWriteWeb founder Richard MacManus then tweeted asking for peoples views on whether in fact @hadyngreen was correct in his contention that;

the constraint of 140 makes Twitter what it is

In his post, MacManus makes the valid point that we’re already used to clicking on external URLs within a Tweet – and think nothing about a pop-up appearing with an image or a video. He goes so far as to suggest that Twitter itself will expand its own character limitation in order to make the service easier to understand. He suggests that, in the same way that users of Twitter.com will be able to view expanded tweets within the website in the same way hat they view multimedia content there.

MacManus then makes two assertions;

1. That existing users will continue to post short tweets and only occasionally resort to longer ones
2. That removing the limitation will enable Twitter to go mainstream

It strikes me that these two assertions are somewhat conflicting. If indeed removing the limitation would introduce Twitter to the mass market then, by extension, the majority of tweets appearing in the Twitter stream are going to be from people unencumbered by the 140 character limitation and therefore likely more verbose.

The other point about all of this is that if Twitter really wants to expand their user base beyond the early adopters and really start to hit the mass public, they’ll have to do so in a way that works for the billions of people on earth who are constrained by interacting with Twitter via SMS. At the Mobile World Congress last week in Barcelona we saw announcements about Facebook being brought to standard phones via SMS connectivity. This is a massive area of potential for Twitter and, while MacManus is right in saying a longer message can simply be split into multiple SMSs, there are some serious issues around this.

What do you think – is the 140 character limitation a stumbling block to Twitter growth, or is it in fact a prescient limitation that will enable Twitter to grow, especially in the third world? Some thoughts from focus.com users on a question asking whether twitter should ditch the limit;

No. This is what makes it Twitter!!

No- The 140 character limit forces people to be more creative about what they write. Also makes it easier for people to read through posts.

Absolutely not! If you can’t say it or sell it 140 characters you simply don’t need too.

Once you start playing around with the core characteristics of Twitter, such as the word limit, then you gradually begin to erode what makes it Twitter. At that point it starts becoming something else.

If twitter does away with the 140 limit, it becomes a blogging tool.

No way. A tweet is 140 characters or less, anything longer is a post.

The jury, it seems, has decided.

One of the examples I hold up as a shining light to community building is Geekzone. Geekzone has created a locale where like minded people (admittedly early adopter techy types who are a sure bet to “do stuff” online) can meet, discuss, create forums, ask questions etc etc etc. Mauricio (founder of Geekzone) deserves mountains of praise for what he has achieved.

Anyway, a post over on Web Worker Daily absolutely resonated with me, it discusses some “rules” for online communities. Some of the points raised really hit the mark and I thought I’d repost them here;

You can’t own a community. A lot of people who start and build communities immediately assume ownership. They get lawyers to craft a Terms of Service that says that they own everything posted within a community. They set the rules in stone and police the community. While I understand why companies want to “protect their assets,” ultimately, online communities can be fickle and rebellious. They do not want to be owned. Trying to turn a community into a commodity is ultimately a recipe for failure.

This is a fantastic point – witness those who have failed trying to be a proprietary community. Online communities need to be Switzerland, neutral and open in word and deed. So many large organisation try to build communities as a shallow attempt to quickly and directly lead to sales. This ploy is pretty obviously false – the communities that succeed are those that encourage dialogue, even when it challenges the views of those supporting it. It’s interesting to note the number of high level executives from New Zealand Telcos who spend time on Geekzone – sometimes the discussions there challenge them but better to be challenged and know what the market thinks than to exist with a “head buried in the sand” attitude.

Every community needs leadership. I know some people will debate me on this point but I don’t think a community can survive without some person in a leadership role. They don’t have to be “boss,” they don’t have to be “dictator,” however, there is usually one person who initiates a community and is the driving force behind that community. The community leadership could consist of several people, but leading by committee can bog down a community’s growth. At the end of the day, the buck must stop with someone.

I agree entirely – Mauricio, whether you call him ambassador or figurehead or whatever of Geekzone, is front and centre as the leader in terms of direction and strategy. Similarly Richard McManus over on ReadWriteWeb.

A community dies if it is all about you. Often a community grows around a single person but that is really more “Cult of Personality” if the community continues to revolve around that person. Many blogs are activated by Cult of Personality. Successful bloggers nurture their comments sections so those who comment get the spotlight as well. Online communities may need a leader but they should not be reliant solely on a single person to survive. When that person goes, what happens to the community?

Again both Gekkzone and RWW are examples of communities where it’s not necessarily about the figurehead. One runs a fine line between lack of direction and too much control. Online communities have a lifecycle and they reach a point at which they can be cut loose from their figurehead somewhat.

Community building is not all about the tools. But the right tools do help. These days, the right community building tools seem to be social networking features (friends), blogs or microblogging features, and even SMS features so the community conversation gets carried onto your mobile device. Bells and whistles don’t make an online community, but as people get used to using new networking and communications, they’ll come to expect them in the platform where they choose to start a community

It’s all about the solution – Geekzone is kind of plain in execution, but it serves a purpose and that build it’s following. Many communities are heavy on features but light on delivering users wants and needs.

The entire article really struck a chord with me, especially after a couple of discussions with people over the last couple of days who similarly appreciate the value of community.