6 ms·

I actually think they've been very clear on this from the beginning, including the reason why (although it wasn't spelled out). They've always meant apps that

by flurp 11y ago

I actually think they've been very clear on this from the beginning, including the reason why (although it wasn't spelled out). They've always meant apps that offer more or less the same functionality as official Twitter clients. For the people who actually read the terms instead of picking up their pitchforks back when Twitter had that big tos "change of heart" would have understood that They definitely could have handled it better and been clear that the user limit was really meant for Twitter-clones. It's clear they want to control the way most people use Twitter, but also to show advertising. As best I can recall, the tos change came around the same time as they started putting in ads. Besides the few remaining twitter clones always play catchup when Twitter puts out new features (recent example; polls).

cbsmith 11y ago
> They've always meant apps that offer more or less the same functionality as official Twitter clients. No, it started out that way, but then the functionality of the official Twitter clients was expended, and then they redefined it to be so broad as to potentially hit anything that tweeted, and they they went farther still and started going after API keys for things that just consumed the data for their own ends.
callumlocke 11y ago
Most people would agree it's fair that Twitter wants to disallow outright clones. The problem is it's not obvious where the limits are, as the wording "apps replicating Twitter’s core user experience" is open to interpretation (by Twitter).
- ksk 11y ago
  >Most people would agree it's fair that Twitter wants to disallow outright clones. I don't. Could you articulate why you think its fair?
  - callumlocke 11y ago
    It's their API, they can offer it to people on whatever terms they want. As long as people know what they're getting into, it's fair.
    - ksk 11y ago
      >As long as people know what they're getting into, it's fair. Huh? No, its not. What is fair has nothing to do with what is legal.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ksk 11y ago
>They've always meant apps that offer more or less the same functionality as official Twitter clients. That would mean that if I wrote a Twitter clone that consumed 100x less memory and was much more performant, it would still be a "banned" application even when there is clear benefit for the users. >been clear that the user limit was really meant for Twitter-clones. Even if that was true, its backstabbing developers who are popularizing Twitter in their own way. >Besides the few remaining twitter clones always play catchup when Twitter puts out new features (recent example; polls). And why is that a problem? What if an app developer thinks that new features are not worth them spending development time/money on? It would be like Apple forcing ios developers to support force touch if they want to continue selling their apps.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  Sorry that I can't remember which apps, but I think it was a Twitter client which Apple removed from their store and then came out with their own. Several apps they cannibalize into the OS.
  - flurp 11y ago
    Yep. Apple have released many apps after similar ones had success on the AppStore. They have much much harsher ToS (and enforce them) than the discussed Twitter ones.
    - mooreds 11y ago
      Does Apple get a pass? Or do developers avoid writing apps for iOS just as they do for Twitter? Seems like the field is a lot larger for iOS products, and that Apple wins either way (30% haircut on the app store), so maybe incentives for Apple are a bit more aligned then they are for twitter. Which points to the fundamental thing twitter needs to do to get developers back on board: provide opportunities for both parties to make money. If Twitter was making a 30 cents every time a developer made 70 cents from the API, you can bet that that API would be protected and the developer respected.
- flurp 11y ago

by flurp 11y ago

cbsmith 11y ago

> They've always meant apps that offer more or less the same functionality as official Twitter clients. No, it started out that way, but then the functionality of the official Twitter clients was expended, and then they redefined it to be so broad as to potentially hit anything that tweeted, and they they went farther still and started going after API keys for things that just consumed the data for their own ends.

callumlocke 11y ago

Most people would agree it's fair that Twitter wants to disallow outright clones. The problem is it's not obvious where the limits are, as the wording "apps replicating Twitter’s core user experience" is open to interpretation (by Twitter).

ksk 11y ago
>Most people would agree it's fair that Twitter wants to disallow outright clones. I don't. Could you articulate why you think its fair?
- callumlocke 11y ago
  It's their API, they can offer it to people on whatever terms they want. As long as people know what they're getting into, it's fair.
  - ksk 11y ago
    >As long as people know what they're getting into, it's fair. Huh? No, its not. What is fair has nothing to do with what is legal.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ksk 11y ago

>They've always meant apps that offer more or less the same functionality as official Twitter clients. That would mean that if I wrote a Twitter clone that consumed 100x less memory and was much more performant, it would still be a "banned" application even when there is clear benefit for the users. >been clear that the user limit was really meant for Twitter-clones. Even if that was true, its backstabbing developers who are popularizing Twitter in their own way. >Besides the few remaining twitter clones always play catchup when Twitter puts out new features (recent example; polls). And why is that a problem? What if an app developer thinks that new features are not worth them spending development time/money on? It would be like Apple forcing ios developers to support force touch if they want to continue selling their apps.

hellbanner 11y ago
Sorry that I can't remember which apps, but I think it was a Twitter client which Apple removed from their store and then came out with their own. Several apps they cannibalize into the OS.
- flurp 11y ago
  Yep. Apple have released many apps after similar ones had success on the AppStore. They have much much harsher ToS (and enforce them) than the discussed Twitter ones.
  - mooreds 11y ago
    Does Apple get a pass? Or do developers avoid writing apps for iOS just as they do for Twitter? Seems like the field is a lot larger for iOS products, and that Apple wins either way (30% haircut on the app store), so maybe incentives for Apple are a bit more aligned then they are for twitter. Which points to the fundamental thing twitter needs to do to get developers back on board: provide opportunities for both parties to make money. If Twitter was making a 30 cents every time a developer made 70 cents from the API, you can bet that that API would be protected and the developer respected.
flurp 11y ago