The author is measuring largest cluster-size vs threads/button.
In any software, everything is going to be connected, otherwise there's unreachable code. So the largest cluster is always 100%, so I don't get why his argument about the sudden phase transition is relevant to software?
I think the answer to your question is in the missing directions on the threads. The goal of modular software is to have the arrowheads point in the right directions.
Uncle Bob was talking about this in his keynote about how Rails is not your application.
I was wondering about this too. I don't quite get how this random assignment of connections between components correlated to software complexity. Software isn't randomly connected (I know, sometimes you see stuff which flies in the face of this statement). And the directions of the connections are very important. You can create something that has a single component at the top connected to 100 other components. threads/buttons = 100/101 and the biggest cluster = 100%. I'd wager it would probably be a simple program to reason about. I guess I'm confused about the leap from cluster size to complexity to reason about.
Maybe I spoke incautiously. I should have said, "Less relevant." And although I understand these other apps have big user-bases, none of them have anything like the penetration of unlimited SMS, if I had to guess.
I think Twitter is moving towards advertising with their MoPub acquisition. Twitter has your identity and users have no expectation of privacy (unlike facebook or google), so people think that they have a unique advertising advantage.
I think the license restrictions on its firehose partners will become more strict as Twitter realizes it can go vertical and use the data itself to create platforms for social media analytics and advertising.
