From the department of Twitter Client Analogies that Include Farraris, comes Ben Brooks’ AppSuration and Unique Traits.
Is a Kia automatically better if it is made to look like a Ferrari? Perhaps to a few people who want a slow Ferrari, but to most I would guess they wouldn’t care all that much — most are buying a Kia for reasons other than looks. 2 Especially if the one that looked like a Ferrari is a more expensive option.
Hey, at least he’s not saying Tweetbot is “engineless” like Nettles Fadden did. But a Kia? Come on, that’s just mean-spirited.
He says:
Too often though — as I believe the case may be with Tweetbot — we get a new app in a crowded category that offers no unique feature, thus they just serve as more clutter.
Okay, I see Ben’s point. He’s saying that Tweetbot is offering nothing unique to the landscape of Twitter app for iOS – where apps like Twitterrific and Echofon both have respective functionality not found elsewhere.
Frankly, I had the same perspective before thinking about it more. While testing Tweetbot, I asked myself what it offered that, say, Twitterrific didn’t. Twitterrific has a beautiful UI, too, remember. My thought was, if you’re a user looking for a Twitter client with a beautiful UI, why would you choose Tweetbot over Twitterrific? I think the answer is in the UX style.
The problem I now have with Ben’s perspective is that he’s confusing UI style for UX style. For instance he’s quick to dismiss some of Tweetbot’s features (like swipe to view conversations or list-as-timeline) as “a wrapper”, but I think those are true features – original functionality, unique to the app.
I think Tweetie provided the same sort of UX stylizing when it first introduced pull-to-refresh. Could other clients refresh their timelines too? Of course. The function wasn’t new, but the experience was. Tweetbot provides the same sort of new experiences for the same functionality.
I don’t think Tweetbot is “clutter”. I think it’s a breath of fresh air.