51–60 of 155 posts
Lesson to learn: don't tie down your service and/or brand to an existing brand/service. Otherwise you're both dependent of that service and/or at risk to get sued sooner or later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leo Laporte had "twit" first and gave Twitter permission to use it back in the beginning.
Leo Laporte likes to play up having "twit" in relation to twitter, but as far as trademarks, his claim would have been laughable. They aren't in the same business.
Two lessons: 1. Don't base your entire business on another business' product. Especially one that has had such a hostile relationship with third parties. When the other business decides to discontinue your access to its service, or otherwise change things, or basically copy what you do under their own brand, you're screwed. 2. Don't create a similar name that will give you trouble in trademark disputes. (Seriously? T…
When they launched I remember thinking they were naming themselves that way for 2 reasons: 1. cause user confusion like you suggested, 2. try to flip to twitter itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Twitpic homepage[1] is also 404'ing big time, perhaps it's just a devops issue more than them pulling the plug before the sunset date? It almost seems like they're playing a little hardball and showing everyone what things will be like if they disappeared from the web, which seems to be what Twitter is threatening them with since they're unable to secure the use of their name and yet millions of images are linked…
> Twitter doesn't give a fuck about developers now that they have sufficiently used them to build their platform and brand. I really hate that this is the standard model for building startups these days. Make a free service, grow your userbase using investment money and by encouraging developers to build on your platform, then once users and developers are dependent on the platform, start littering it with ads, selli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Twitpic homepage[1] is also 404'ing big time, perhaps it's just a devops issue more than them pulling the plug before the sunset date? It almost seems like they're playing a little hardball and showing everyone what things will be like if they disappeared from the web, which seems to be what Twitter is threatening them with since they're unable to secure the use of their name and yet millions of images are linked…
> Twitter doesn't give a fuck about developers now that they have sufficiently used them to build their platform and brand. I really hate that this is the standard model for building startups these days. Make a free service, grow your userbase using investment money and by encouraging developers to build on your platform, then once users and developers are dependent on the platform, start littering it with ads, selli…
Two lessons: 1. Don't base your entire business on another business' product. Especially one that has had such a hostile relationship with third parties. When the other business decides to discontinue your access to its service, or otherwise change things, or basically copy what you do under their own brand, you're screwed. 2. Don't create a similar name that will give you trouble in trademark disputes. (Seriously? T…
You can have some success basing a business on another for a while maybe, but unless you have a solid agreement as to how that relationship works, the rug can be pulled out from under you at any moment. And that's usually what happens.