That would seem to make sense. Personally I think this sheds a bit of light on the question as to why Facebook would pay a billion dollars[1] for Instagram. Rather than solidifying its place as the premier "real time news feeder of a certain size" Twitter is off spending its time re-creating a service that a lot of its customers really value. By throwing that wrench into Twitter's way, Facebook gives itself and others time to grow in this space.

[1] We've debated the death the 'value' of this deal which was half stock (which tanked) and half cash. But for the purposes of this point it was a 'big chunk of change' for the newly public Facebook.

I'm baffled as to how spending one billion dollars for the purpose of denying an easily-replicated feature to a non-profitable competitor can be a plausible explanation of Facebook's strategy.