Twitter responds to IFFFT

For what it's worth, the policy changes ship with changes to the API. TechCrunch published an article yesterday stating that IFTTT was in violation of Twitter's policy for "months," so it'd be a fair assumption that this is along that same channel.

> http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/20/ifttt-has-actually-been-in-...

Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT

#5

Post by boon » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 10:11 PM UTC

Shank wrote: post #4

nicksergeant wrote: post #3

I'm confused. Does TechCrunch know that the issue at hand is a (fairly recent) change in Twitter's Policy , not API?

For what it's worth, the policy changes ship with changes to the API. TechCrunch published an article yesterday stating that IFTTT was in violation of Twitter's policy for "months," so it'd be a fair assumption that this is along that same channel. > http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/20/ifttt-has-actually-been-in-...

For what it's worth, sometimes a policy/api change is a paper tiger. When Twitter decided to do the cutoff on the 27th, that made it legit. No sense scaring users earlier than you have to.

Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT

#6

Post by aero142 » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 10:14 PM UTC

Thank you tech crunch, I'm now more confused than before. So, what does the homework quote have to do with anything. Either IFTTT is allowed to use the Twitter API or they are not. I don't see how a laziness accusation is relevant.

Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT

#7

Post by shazow » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 10:16 PM UTC

> “We continue to spend an extraordinary amount of money providing a free API” that’s being accessed at “a ridiculous rate of queries per second.” As Twitter continues to build out its platform, it will do so in an open way, he added.

If the proportion of API calls are increasingly from Twitter's own apps, does that count?

Also related, this quote from @dickc:

> Twitter's committed to stay open & is building free tools to access the stream, saying it's closing misses bigger picture

(via https://twitter.com/saila/status/249248288472199169)

Maybe I am indeed missing the big picture but I feel like their words aren't matching up with their actions. Unless they mean they'll be open to consumers and getting more users onto the network, without consideration to third-party developers who want to create their own vision on top of the API.

(I acknowledge that Twitter has the right to do all this and more--that's not my point.)

Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT

#8

Post by ars » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 10:27 PM UTC

It looks to me like twitter is hurting for money, and they are trying to reduce costs by reducing API usage.

It could also be they want more ads, and 3rd party usage of the API would bypass that.

If anyone wanted to buy them, now would be a good time.

Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT

#9

Post by protomyth » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 10:40 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #8

It looks to me like twitter is hurting for money, and they are trying to reduce costs by reducing API usage. It could also be they want more ads, and 3rd party usage of the API would bypass that. If anyone wanted to buy them, now would be a good time.

I wonder what would have happened if twitter had said all free accounts must use the twitter app or website, and pro-accounts (let's say $5/month) can use the full API with 3rd party apps?

Re: Twitter responds to IFFFT

#10

Post by cstejerean » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 10:49 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #9

ars wrote: post #8

It looks to me like twitter is hurting for money, and they are trying to reduce costs by reducing API usage. It could also be they want more ads, and 3rd party usage of the API would bypass that. If anyone wanted to buy them, now would be a good time.

I wonder what would have happened if twitter had said all free accounts must use the twitter app or website, and pro-accounts (let's say $5/month) can use the full API with 3rd party apps?

I'm sure there would be plenty that would complain, but I would be happy to pay $5-10 a month for Twitter.