Twitter are gambling that they are now powerful enough to say "No more 3rd party clients", and thus start streaming ads down peoples throats (oh, sorry - "Richer stories" is apparently the nuspeak). I'm not sure they're yet in a position to dictate this, especially given how bad their own clients are compared to some other options.
The interesting thing about Twitter compared to e.g. Facebook is that the social graph is very weak. I (and in anecdata, many people I know) use it to follow some "big names", and a splattering of smaller names, for broadcast information. I occasionally send something out, but it's not a strong set of connections. The network effect is thus minimal; migrating over to app.net would be easy, as I'm not that bothered that I have exactly the same followers/followees. When the pain of the service outweighs it's smallish value, I'll just jump ship.
Even more people out there are just passive followers of celebrity names. Facebook or similar could launch a "Flitter" that did everything they wanted, and get a mass migration pretty easily - once people get annoyed enough to start looking around. If Twitter continue on this path, that threshold will be reached much sooner than I originally expected.
If the problem is that they can't figure out how to monetize third party apps, the answer is staring them right in the face.
So, Twitter is already going to dictate what the tweet view looks like. In-stream ads won't be much more than tweets. So why not stipulate that an app MUST show in-stream ads in a given format? If the app wishes to not show ads or to use twitter for more of an "infrastructure-like" purpose, then there should be some kind of use-fee-based pricing model on the API side. Sure, people might bitch about the high API costs, but it's better than nothing.
Or maybe that was their plan all along: throw out these API changes threatening to cut everyone completely off, then eventually "concede" with new ad-supported and use-fee API rules and have everyone applaud them for "listening to their customers".
You'll have to forgive me for being more cynical than normal... but with this twitter stuff lately it just seems like we've all entered into the Twilight Zone of Suck.
"Twitter are gambling that they are now powerful enough to say "No more 3rd party clients"
Isn't it more: No more free data for 3rd party clients? (past a certain amount) Companies can still buy unlimited realtime data through twitter's monitization child DataSift. Meaning the death of free 3rd party apps. Maybe now that they have to charge a good chunk we will get better 3rd party apps?
I (and in anecdata, many people I know) use it to follow some "big names", and a splattering of smaller names, for broadcast information.
Why is this a negative? To a first approximation, the "big names" you follow are an indication of your interests, and advertisers are very comfortable with broadcast media.
Following anyone also indicates a degree of commitment that simply hitting a "Like" button does not: You're willing to see everything that person/business Tweets.
A possible solution might be, since they are selling the application and not providing a service, is for users of the software to create their own application tokens and putting them into a new settings panel. There's no loss in sales, it does require an extra couple of steps for a user to get going but putting something like this in the advanced section or releasing it with just the Alpha might be very good solution.
I imagine Twitter's reaction to a major client doing such a thing would be less than favorable to developers (no more free API keys, if I had to guess)
I, for one, am very much looking forward to the eventual release of an 'AppBot' client, or whatever they end up calling it.
I may sound like a broken record, but I am incredibly disappointed in Twitter's behavior, especially given the great disparity in the feature sets of TweetBot and the official Twitter iOS client. (and don't get me started on the state of Twitter clients for Android...)
The future of unofficial Twitter clients might just be fully open-source code. Twitter can't stop every determined individual from creating their own application if the code is out there publicly. And with Twitter possibly cutting people off I wouldn't be surprised to see some clients become open source as they hit their cap. The question simply becomes how high the bar becomes for building your own personal Twitter application.
Actually, that would be a rather scary end-game for Twitter: completely losing control of their delivery platform.
If they went that route, they would be limited to 100,000 users. Tapbots likely had more users than that when the new API guidelines were announced, which means that they can have two times their current userbase, a (potentially) significantly higher number, if they keep the same key and secret as for the alpha.
The last TapBots blog post, written a week and a half ago, had the title "Don't Panic" and characterizing the response as "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".
I think this vindicates most of the people who raised a big stink about the API policy changes back then.
Edit: They're also planning to create a Twitter-compatible API, so a vendor like Tapbots could simply change the endpoint in their code and support rstat.us as well. https://github.com/hotsh/rstat.us/issues/562
There is a point where third party clients are going to have to demonstrate that they are not required to go through Twitter to get access to it. Just as third-party IM clients long thrived without official access (and in the face of attempts to block them), and are now commonplace and tolerated, Twitter clients can (probably legally) switch to an API key borrowed from Twitter and be no worse off. Even though Twitter's actions aren't catastrophic for third party clients yet, the fact that nobody has used this approach is putting Twitter in a stronger position than they deserve.
Too bad they don't let a developer just kill an "app" and all its associated tokens. So Tweetbot could have a "Tweetbot Mac Alpha" app and then when they were done with the alpha, they could reclaim all those tokens.
While not ideal, they could register a new Twitter app for the released, for sale version of Tweetbot. Everyone would have to reconnect to that app (just as they originally had to do on the beta), but it should get around the issue as the new app would have zero used tokens.
Because they're not a blogging company, they're a software company. I'm betting they aren't too concerned with tweaking Wordpress performance as they are with building the things that actually make them money.
[+] [-] archgrove|13 years ago|reply
The interesting thing about Twitter compared to e.g. Facebook is that the social graph is very weak. I (and in anecdata, many people I know) use it to follow some "big names", and a splattering of smaller names, for broadcast information. I occasionally send something out, but it's not a strong set of connections. The network effect is thus minimal; migrating over to app.net would be easy, as I'm not that bothered that I have exactly the same followers/followees. When the pain of the service outweighs it's smallish value, I'll just jump ship.
Even more people out there are just passive followers of celebrity names. Facebook or similar could launch a "Flitter" that did everything they wanted, and get a mass migration pretty easily - once people get annoyed enough to start looking around. If Twitter continue on this path, that threshold will be reached much sooner than I originally expected.
[+] [-] breckinloggins|13 years ago|reply
If the problem is that they can't figure out how to monetize third party apps, the answer is staring them right in the face.
So, Twitter is already going to dictate what the tweet view looks like. In-stream ads won't be much more than tweets. So why not stipulate that an app MUST show in-stream ads in a given format? If the app wishes to not show ads or to use twitter for more of an "infrastructure-like" purpose, then there should be some kind of use-fee-based pricing model on the API side. Sure, people might bitch about the high API costs, but it's better than nothing.
Or maybe that was their plan all along: throw out these API changes threatening to cut everyone completely off, then eventually "concede" with new ad-supported and use-fee API rules and have everyone applaud them for "listening to their customers".
You'll have to forgive me for being more cynical than normal... but with this twitter stuff lately it just seems like we've all entered into the Twilight Zone of Suck.
[+] [-] dusing|13 years ago|reply
Isn't it more: No more free data for 3rd party clients? (past a certain amount) Companies can still buy unlimited realtime data through twitter's monitization child DataSift. Meaning the death of free 3rd party apps. Maybe now that they have to charge a good chunk we will get better 3rd party apps?
[+] [-] twoodfin|13 years ago|reply
Why is this a negative? To a first approximation, the "big names" you follow are an indication of your interests, and advertisers are very comfortable with broadcast media.
Following anyone also indicates a degree of commitment that simply hitting a "Like" button does not: You're willing to see everything that person/business Tweets.
[+] [-] btipling|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ConstantineXVI|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timdorr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|13 years ago|reply
I may sound like a broken record, but I am incredibly disappointed in Twitter's behavior, especially given the great disparity in the feature sets of TweetBot and the official Twitter iOS client. (and don't get me started on the state of Twitter clients for Android...)
[+] [-] nathanhammond|13 years ago|reply
Actually, that would be a rather scary end-game for Twitter: completely losing control of their delivery platform.
[+] [-] tlrobinson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riobard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kalleboo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomasf1|13 years ago|reply
- remove yourself from google search -> check
- annoy any 3rd party app makers -> check
- have a unreliable service -> check
- have little product innovation -> check
[+] [-] pilif|13 years ago|reply
- twitter already has a huge community -> check
- twitter is known to normal people -> check
- integrated into traditional media -> check
- there are no alternatives with a comparable amount of members -> check
- All of your points don't matter for normal users -> check
What competitors are there to twitter?
- App.net: Probably too expensive for the majority to todays twitter users
- Google+: No good clients, too hard user discovery (no way to find users via convenient handles), real-name focussed.
- Facebook: Privacy Nightmare, real-name focussed, insisting on a limited amount of mutual friendships instead of breadcasting
- identi.ca/status.net: Would be perfect, but nobody seem to be using it
Considering all this, I would assume twitter is going to stay.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kennywinker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevencorona|13 years ago|reply
Just because it wouldn't generate any media attention or am I missing something?
[+] [-] dpearson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuiA|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] benatkin|13 years ago|reply
I think this vindicates most of the people who raised a big stink about the API policy changes back then.
[+] [-] kalms|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graue|13 years ago|reply
Edit: They're also planning to create a Twitter-compatible API, so a vendor like Tapbots could simply change the endpoint in their code and support rstat.us as well. https://github.com/hotsh/rstat.us/issues/562
[+] [-] comex|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackfu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcdavis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] astrojams|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timdorr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psylence519|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|13 years ago|reply