Mathew Ingram has a post where he looks at the pros and cons of Twitter getting rid of the 140-character limit. I don't think there are any cons, they have to do it. Here's why.
Facebook is right. People don't click on links. It's not just true of mobile readers, it's true of all readers, everywhere, all the time. They. Don't. Click. Links. Memorize that.
Facebook wants to be in the news business. So does Apple. Probably a lot of other big tech companies. Will any of them have a 140-character limit? No need to answer that.
So there's Twitter with a package that can handle pictures, movies, vines, etc. But if you want to read a few paragraphs of text you have to click a link? If that limit lasts much longer it's an example of paralyzed management. Obviously there is no technical limit. If you can embed a video, you can include a few paragraphs.
The user experience would have to change a tiny bit. You'd see the first 200 characters or so, then a See More link, exactly like Facebook has. Or if they want to be a little more beautiful, they could put a triangular wedge there and allow it to expand and collapse with a nice animated effect. None of this is even slightly challenging to program.
Conclusion. They have to do it. What's amazing is that they've waited this long without doing it.