Per Twitter convos, I’d also consider the Lite version to be not only useful for those on a slow connection, but for people who are sick of the constant interruptions. Chat, apps and pages that may otherwise clutter up your home feed – its a streamlined version with easy access to people and news rather than toys and brands. Initial results seem to be a slow adoption, probably of curious Twitter users checking out the hype.
It seems odd that the Lite version is lacking in brand presences for businesses when Facebook is trying to feign Twitter like functionality for businesses to reach consumers. Although they’ve introduced new functionality, it seems those who chose to use Facebook Lite wont be able to interact with brands as easily. Considering that more serious social media users may chose the pared down version of Facebook to avoid extraneous posts, it seems that early adopter types may be the ones that are being missed by businesses who could lose the opportunity to interact in ‘Lite’.
Facebook also finally sees Twitter as a legitimate threat, but, does Facebook Lite make sense if the audiences and reasons for use are different? Those that enjoy multiple applications and quiz results most likely are not Twitter users who enjoy the more pared down communication that Twitter provides. For the Twitterati, Facebook seems to be a place to hold pictures and video, interact with those who are not Twitter users, and to feed Twitter updates and information to.
Could Twitter replace Facebook? In my opinion, no. Could the opposite be true? Absolutely not.