41–50 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a purely technical perspective they could using platform.twitter.com/widgets.js that the blog includes.
I sincerely doubt they would use their external JS to take down competitors websites. They would instantly lose any trust across the whole internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a purely technical perspective they could using platform.twitter.com/widgets.js that the blog includes.
I don't think that would result in an internal server error.
It's amazing how much devs want to build on top of Twitter. There's got to be an opportunity for Twitter to monetize that instead of fighting it and pissing everyone off. Why can't they just have some reasonable fees for API access?
Agreed, and speaking personally, I would love to pay Twitter $XXX/month, especially if it included some form of "we'll reply to X emails within an hour" support.
The fact that they're not even charging $20/month for minimal API access is baffling to me. I'd expect it'd only help reduce spam as well!
I don't like this trend with services being shut down by the big guys in the industry. You see what happened with AppGratis, and now this. I understand the whole TOS violation thing, but when a big company can shut down a successful startup just because they don't like what they're doing, it doesn't jive with that whole capitalism thing. Is there anything we can do about this, or is it just a product of building on s…
If anything, we might be less susceptible to it now. It would make a fascinating study, anyway.
I don't like this trend with services being shut down by the big guys in the industry. You see what happened with AppGratis, and now this. I understand the whole TOS violation thing, but when a big company can shut down a successful startup just because they don't like what they're doing, it doesn't jive with that whole capitalism thing. Is there anything we can do about this, or is it just a product of building on s…
My first thought is: This is a great way to get their attention. If you've been surreptitiously flying under the radar up until now, I think that stage is long gone. On the flip side, maybe instead of shutting you down, they should acquire you and then shut you down. That's a win-win, right?
Why would they acquire him when they could shut him down and replicate the service? It's not like they have much of a reputation to maintain. He doesn't have extremely significant traction (otherwise they would have done something by now) and AFAICT he doesn't hold any patents. To clarify: I don't mean to disparage him, but acquisitions have to bring some sort of value to the acquirer.
It's amazing how much devs want to build on top of Twitter. There's got to be an opportunity for Twitter to monetize that instead of fighting it and pissing everyone off. Why can't they just have some reasonable fees for API access?
There's got to be an opportunity for Twitter to monetize that instead of fighting it and pissing everyone off. Agreed, and speaking personally, I would love to pay Twitter $XXX/month, especially if it included some form of "we'll reply to X emails within an hour" support. The fact that they're not even charging $20/month for minimal API access is baffling to me. I'd expect it'd only help reduce spam as well!
The devs who experiment and make something cool are often worth more than the minimal charge.
However I would agree that rather than having arbitrary limits using devs as a revenue stream makes sense (give everyone a portion of what you currently allow and allow payed upgrades)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's got to be an opportunity for Twitter to monetize that instead of fighting it and pissing everyone off. Agreed, and speaking personally, I would love to pay Twitter $XXX/month, especially if it included some form of "we'll reply to X emails within an hour" support. The fact that they're not even charging $20/month for minimal API access is baffling to me. I'd expect it'd only help reduce spam as well!
> The fact that they're not even charging $20/month for minimal API access is baffling to me. The devs who experiment and make something cool are often worth more than the minimal charge. However I would agree that rather than having arbitrary limits using devs as a revenue stream makes sense (give everyone a portion of what you currently allow and allow payed upgrades)
Exactly - there are plenty of options available.
The devs who experiment and make something cool are often worth more than the minimal charge.
I'm just wondering how many such developers would be put off by such a relatively small charge?
Obviously, the situation now is very different to when Twitter was still building momentum.
I'm just confused that they don't come out and say "From the 1st of May, we will be charging all new API accounts for access."
My first thought is: This is a great way to get their attention. If you've been surreptitiously flying under the radar up until now, I think that stage is long gone. On the flip side, maybe instead of shutting you down, they should acquire you and then shut you down. That's a win-win, right?
Why would they acquire him when they could shut him down and replicate the service? It's not like they have much of a reputation to maintain. He doesn't have extremely significant traction (otherwise they would have done something by now) and AFAICT he doesn't hold any patents. To clarify: I don't mean to disparage him, but acquisitions have to bring some sort of value to the acquirer.