Says Twitter: "We're working through tweaks to our system in order to provide greater stability at a time when we're facing record traffic ... As we go through
this process, we have uncovered unexpected deeper issues and have even caused inadvertent downtime as a result of our attempts to make changes."
Notes The Times' Bits blog: "Twitter has said in the past that the company has a difficult task at
hand: trying to update and manage the site as it continues to grow at an intense pace."
Still, "It's a big embarrassment for a company that, over the past year or two, has
managed to clean up its reputation for technical instability and that this spring one-upped critics by unveiling a business model that looks like it might actually work," writes CNet's The Social blog.
"Short-form, rapid-fire digital communication, particularly in a form easily
translated to rudimentary mobile devices, is here to stay, and Twitter will invariably be remembered as the company that birthed this phenomenon," The Social adds. "But we've seen before that the
company has been thrown into situations for which it was neither technologically nor logistically prepared."
Under the headline, "Does the World Need More Than One Twitter?" GigaOm asks: "Can Twitter handle its emerging status as the world's real-time communications network, or does it need
help?"
Put another way, "Could one company handle all the email in the world?" GigaOm wants to know. "If [microblogging is] as important a service as it seems to have become
(or is becoming), should it be looked at as part of a larger infrastructure, the way Ethernet or TCP/IP was in the early days of the Internet, or like IMAP and POP for email?"
Yet, for
this grand speculation and condemnation, The Los Angeles Times says simply: "Most users shrug off the glitches."