A couple weeks ago I posted a whimsical (and very slightly sardonic) article on the Internet of Things with a view on what an average day could be like if everything (even your shower soap tray) was network connected and capable of programmed rules or even decision making analytics.
It spurted a generous number of small Twitter conversations and a spot on a couple Internet of Things aggregators. But just a couple days ago I saw an interesting tweet:
— Matthew Knight (@webponce) April 18, 2013
I had heard of Branch before, and I had understood it as a place where you can have conversations about a topic with more than 140 characters. One of the things I noticed was that I was unable to initially reply to the branch conversation; instead, I had to ask the original conversation author to invite me. It was described to me by @branch thus:
@OracleAlchemist The former. Gives you the ability to host little "dinner table" conversations, if you want to think about it that way.
— Branch (@joinbranch) April 18, 2013
It turns out the reasoning for this is pretty cool. Have you ever been involved in a conversation on Twitter and wanted to take it offline? That’s where Branch comes in. It’s still in the public eye, but now you get 750 characters per response. The people who were on the Twitter conversation with you are still part of the Branch conversation, and other people can ask to be involved. A dinner chat indeed! You can also share any point in the conversation back to Twitter, even a single sentence of someone’s contribution. And the conversation as a whole can be embedded into any site. Here, for example, is the one regarding my Internet of Things article:
It is a fairly cool platform, and I could see it being incredibly useful in the IT world thanks to our long product names, syntax, and tendency to talk too much (okay, maybe I’m projecting).