Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 187 posts

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#131

Post by nicholassmith »

I don't know if this is the worst thing that Twitter could have done, but it's probably fairly high up there. I wonder what people like Tapbot and thinking right now, they're grandfathered in for some very, very specific agreements but they know that one misstep and they'll end up out in the cold or paying a fortune.

But then what does that mean for a Tweetbot user like myself? Less incremental updates? One day the application breaks? Who knows, too early to tell.

I'm mostly surprised Twitter isn't just leveraging the fact they are pumping out that many requests and slipping ads or promoted tweets or promoted tweeters into the API stream and making cash off that. Seems like it'd make sense.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#132

Post by BerislavLopac »

cletus wrote: post #36

This doesn't surprise me at all. When you develop on someone else's platform, you have to walk a fine line between not being successful at all and being too successful such that the platform provider co-opts your business (maybe you get lucky and get bought out). This is nothing new. Such moves as this were (IMHO) inevitable. They'll slowly chip away at anything they see as taking revenue from them. The part I disagr…

Twitter is ultimately infrastructure

I think this is the most important point, one that most people -- Twitter included -- seem to overlook or ignore.

What we need is an open Twitter-like protocol -- but for it to be successful it should be peer-to-peer, not server-based like Twitter. A few year ago I was working on a startup which would build precisely such a protocol, but my partners backed out before we could lift anything off ground.

One of ideas was to make the client double as a Twitter client, in order to attract a wider user base. This would be less viable now, with the new Twitter API restrictions, but I would still love to see someone develop something like that.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#133

Post by huskyr »

BerislavLopac wrote: post #132
cletus wrote: post #36

This doesn't surprise me at all. When you develop on someone else's platform, you have to walk a fine line between not being successful at all and being too successful such that the platform provider co-opts your business (maybe you get lucky and get bought out). This is nothing new. Such moves as this were (IMHO) inevitable. They'll slowly chip away at anything they see as taking revenue from them. The part I disagr…

Twitter is ultimately infrastructure I think this is the most important point, one that most people -- Twitter included -- seem to overlook or ignore. What we need is an open Twitter-like protocol -- but for it to be successful it should be peer-to-peer, not server-based like Twitter. A few year ago I was working on a startup which would build precisely such a protocol, but my partners backed out before we could lift…

Well, there's OStatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OStatus), which is supposed to be an open standard for microblogging.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#134

Post by smacktoward »

efsavage wrote: post #12

Twitter isn't very big in my circles, but of those that use it, none of them use the website.

And this is why Twitter wants to kill the third-party clients. Twitter has decided that ads are going to be its revenue stream. The only way they can guarantee you see their ads is if you use the website or an official client. If nobody uses those, nobody sees the ads, so Twitter makes no revenue. So they have to get your friends onto the website or an official client to stay alive.

This logic assumes, of course, that Twitter's web app and official clients are good enough substitutes for the third-party clients that if the third parties go away people will use the official clients rather than just stop using Twitter altogether. Which remains to be seen.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#135

Post by epo »

streptomycin wrote: post #15
andrewfelix wrote: post #7

Utter hypocrisy that they're discouraging third party clients, after having acquired one. app.net suddenly looks more attractive.

app.net looks more attractive, until the same shit starts happening there in 5 years. The problem is walled garden social networks. It's a fundamentally bad idea for everyone involved, except the people who own it and can turn a profit. StatusNet/Identica is a much better solution to this problem than yet another walled garden. Free, open source, and federated. How many times does the same shit need to happen before…

Anyone who trots out the tired old cliche about walled gardens is just spouting rhetoric. Anyone who also advocates open source is can be ignored out of hand.

The issues here are open standards, open protocols and the small matter of who pays for the upkeep of the infrastructure necessary to provide the service. Tired, Maoist-style sloganeering is merely making a noise.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#136

Post by mark_l_watson »

mirkules wrote: post #54

If Twitter's business is threatened by third-party apps, why not charge for an API license? I also can't quite understand why developers expect a free API from services like Twitter and then complain when something changes? What is the business advantage of Twitter (or Facebook, or what-have-you) releasing a free, public API to anyone who asks, and how did they plan to monetize it when it got popular? You can't build…

I agree with you. Google's model is pretty good with most of their 25+ APIs having free tiers. Free is nice but being in a real business relationship feels better to me because it is more likely to be sustainable. Microsoft's API marketplace has the same solid sustainable feeling.

If a business idea requires free use of other people's services then think of another idea.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#137

Post by wtvanhest »

minikites wrote: post #125
bbuffone wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is one thing that twitter and facebook have that no one else in the history of... well... anything i can think of. > They have an unlimited product placement budget. Every TV Show, News program, Commercial, Website, Company... places the "Go to facebook.com/ford" or "tweet us @nbcnews". This results in billions of dollars of advertising and they need to pay nothing. This helped build both twitter and facebook.…

Remember AOL Keywords?

That was before everyone had the internet.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#138

Post by imaginator »

smacktoward wrote: post #130
lloydwatkin wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like what you are after is buddycloud ( https://beta.buddycloud.org ), lets list its win points: - open-source - open-standards - free - federated Keep your own data, talk with whoever you wish. Built on XMPP and actively contributed to by a great group of developers (admission: I am on of these developers). When you join up you can find me at lloyd@evilprofessor.co.uk

This looks really interesting. Is there a page on the site somewhere that gives a high-level overview of what it is and how it works? The wiki has lots of technical details, but nothing I could find that you could email to a decisionmaker and say "you should read this."

/me nods. I'll write something up this weekend. Thanks for the feedback!

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#140

Post by Hari_Seldon »

PakG1 wrote: post #62
andrewfelix wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point about being acquired. Do you think perhaps restricting 3rd party clients is a way to make them more appealing to a potential buyer like Apple?

If they're appealing to Apple, I'd say it's because they already have such a big partnership with Apple in iOS integration. For whatever reasons the partnership was appealing, an acquisition would likewise be appealing.

Maybe, but Apple would be inclined to make it Mac / iOS only, which would be counter productive. The other non Apple stuff has had a strategic importance, iTunes for windows enabled them to sell iPods and Safari for windows helped with website compatibility. Can't see this happening.
Post reply on HN