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

91–100 of 187 posts

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#91

Post by brianwillis »

streptomycin wrote: post #67
pablasso wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point with app.net is that this doesn't happens. They don't mind that you use the data any way because you're paying for the platform, not the client.

That's not "the whole point". You're missing the part where it's yet another proprietary walled garden designed to maximize profits. That's not really a great model for end users.

The way you maximise profits is by making your customers happy. Twitter's customers are advertisers, not users. App.net's customers and users are the same group of people.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#92

Post by kintamanimatt »

Why wouldn't they just just charge heavy non-client API users and offer (cheap?) paid plans to users who want to use third party clients, leaving the rest to use an ad-supported web interface? This is the best solution long term which wouldn't really piss off anybody or nuke the ecosystem, while embracing the realities of running a business.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#93

Post by yen223 »

btipling wrote: post #74
mmaunder wrote: post #44

Unless platforms like Facbeook or Twitter make a significant amount of money from their devs, the way Microsoft or Apple does, telling their devs to go pound sand at some point is inevitable.

Facebook makes a lot of money from their devs.

Not nearly enough, by all accounts.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#94

Post by sdoering »

> So Klout, which is utter vainglorious masturbatory nonsense, > that’s OK. But services like Storify and Favstar, which are > actually useful and/or fun, those are no good.

Seconded. Just seconded. Know, why I keep using Twitter less and less...

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#95

Post by raverbashing »

shardling wrote: post #87
dm8 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone cites Myspace. Either Twitter or Facebook does something controversial and we hear everyone citing Myspace. Myspace didn't lose it's user base due to amazing UX for end-user. They lost their user base due to combination of bad UX and "mobile" user base. Majority of Myspace users were teenagers and by the time they went to college they had hot new social network in form of Facebook, which was exclusively for…

>Twitter on the other hand offers good UX Every time I go to twitter in a browser I want to punch whoever designed it in the face. It is by far and away the most annoying site I encounter on a daily basis, which is impressive given that all I want it to do is display plaintext .

So much this

I figure out they have 2 designers there, one really good and one that doesn't have the slightest idea of UX and design

Case in point: the way DMs are notified to the user. That's right, in the previous web version it wasn't. And this version is better, but not great

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#97

Post by nikcub »

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 and infrastructure seems doomed to commoditization.

This couldn't be further from the truth, and the thousands of copycat networks, not least from Google, are proof that networks can't be commoditized.

The only reason I am still on GitHub, Facebook, hn, reddit and Twitter - despite there being better 'products' and 'infrastructure'- is because everybody else is, and the same applies to them.

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#99

Post by k-mcgrady »

lancewiggs wrote: post #17

I wouldn't have as much immediate issue with this if Twitter's own clients were acceptable - they are not. And this is an asinine move either way.

Twitter's own clients are fine. You can read tweets and send tweets. That's the basis of the service. It's supposed to be simple. Why don't you like it?

Re: Twitter to Client Developers: Drop Dead

#100

Post by rythie »

brianwillis wrote: post #91
streptomycin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not "the whole point". You're missing the part where it's yet another proprietary walled garden designed to maximize profits. That's not really a great model for end users.

The way you maximise profits is by making your customers happy. Twitter's customers are advertisers, not users. App.net's customers and users are the same group of people.

You gain customers by making them happy, maximising profits often does the opposite, but you hope most won't leave as you make the service worse/more expensive.
Post reply on HN