4 ms·

Two thoughts from this, first about this in general. Second is in regards to some comments I'm seeing posted here: 1.) I am surprised this doesn't happen more.

Two thoughts from this, first about this in general. Second is in regards to some comments I'm seeing posted here: 1.) I am surprised this doesn't happen more. You find a company that's excited to build it, let them run with it, then if it ever becomes a target you acquihire. 2.) Folks internally probably know a Mac app isn't a target. Thus, who would want to work on it? There are probably loads of more exciting projects that'll get recognition. It's not that they can't, it's that no one there (really) wants to...

alanh 11y ago
Not bad for guesswork, as you are correct management never wanted to prioritize it, but w.r.t. devs, you are off the mark. Internally there have always been those who wanted to work for it. I have been privately told (in late October 2015) by a former Twitter employee who is, shall we say, intimately familiar with Twitter/Mac: > Twitter has always seemed to hate the idea of a Mac app and has either tried to kill it or let it rot. At this point I think 3 generations of rogue devs inside the company have basically had to sneak around management to work on it. > Interesting to see them publicly announce an update. Rumor is they've completely outsourced development though.
- rubyn00bie 11y ago
  Thanks for the info! Interesting management was contemptuous of it. I wouldn't have expected that. Though with that said, I'd like to lay a bit more guesswork down now. Those devs were probably good, I'd guess too good (for these purposes), and that management wanted them focused on core products which serve their target better... Like iOS? So it is probably less about contempt for the Mac product and more about the best usage of resources. I have a feeling the rogues at Twitter who want to work on this are in a pretty high pay grade, even compared to the folks at the shop that made it. So it even still probably saved money. With all that, has Twitter made the best use of those developer resources? I have no clue.
  - guelo 11y ago
    I wonder what would happen if one of these large internet companies with top engineering talent would fire all their product managers and designers. That's how Google worked back when they had their period of highest innovation.
zitterbewegung 11y ago
Weren't they quite aggressive with other people using their service and piggy backing something on it? They could have done like Reddit and waited for a dominant app and then acquihire the people who did the app.
- Macha 11y ago
  This is exactly what they did? Twitter's mobile apps are distant descendants of tweetie, and the old Mac client was too
morgante 11y ago
> 1.) I am surprised this doesn't happen more. You find a company that's excited to build it, let them run with it, then if it ever becomes a target you acquihire. That's a valid strategy for why you would want an open platform, but it doesn't really apply to outsourcing. It's not the agency's product and you're handing over cold hard cash for their time. You're not going to acquire the agency if the app takes off... you already own the IP. Really the only reason that you should outsource is if an area is not in your core competencies. If developing software for a major platform isn't one of Twitter's competencies any more, that bodes ill.
- rubyn00bie 11y ago
  > You're not going to acquire the agency if the app takes off... you already own the IP. Well I think you're discounting the value of their domain knowledge and their contribution vastly too much. It will take time and resources to bring a new team online. Often times, that time is greater than the business can allow. The cost of simply acquiring the company isn't going to be sufficiently high enough for the corp to even worry. As you said, they (Twitter) own the IP.
  - morgante 11y ago
    I think you're significantly downplaying the cost which could potentially come from acquiring an agency. It would be quite different if this was done by a startup whose sole or primary purpose was making a Twitter app. But an agency has dozens of different projects and clients (up to hundreds) and most of their team probably wasn't even involved in the Twitter app. If Twitter wants to refocus on Mac, they'll just hire a Mac developer or two and pay the agency to train them on the app.
    - rubyn00bie 11y ago
      I just don't think a company the size of Twitter would worry about a $5-$15 million expenditure to get access to the talent they want/need right then. Then have the rest of the company, which I am assuming (quite ignorantly) isn't that many people, finish out the rest of their contracts before giving 'em some golden handcuffs. I could definitely be wrong, and perhaps the app just doesn't require that level of expertise. If you have any data, I'd be happy to look at it-- knowledge is power.

alanh 11y ago

Not bad for guesswork, as you are correct management never wanted to prioritize it, but w.r.t. devs, you are off the mark. Internally there have always been those who wanted to work for it. I have been privately told (in late October 2015) by a former Twitter employee who is, shall we say, intimately familiar with Twitter/Mac: > Twitter has always seemed to hate the idea of a Mac app and has either tried to kill it or let it rot. At this point I think 3 generations of rogue devs inside the company have basically had to sneak around management to work on it. > Interesting to see them publicly announce an update. Rumor is they've completely outsourced development though.

rubyn00bie 11y ago
Thanks for the info! Interesting management was contemptuous of it. I wouldn't have expected that. Though with that said, I'd like to lay a bit more guesswork down now. Those devs were probably good, I'd guess too good (for these purposes), and that management wanted them focused on core products which serve their target better... Like iOS? So it is probably less about contempt for the Mac product and more about the best usage of resources. I have a feeling the rogues at Twitter who want to work on this are in a pretty high pay grade, even compared to the folks at the shop that made it. So it even still probably saved money. With all that, has Twitter made the best use of those developer resources? I have no clue.
- guelo 11y ago
  I wonder what would happen if one of these large internet companies with top engineering talent would fire all their product managers and designers. That's how Google worked back when they had their period of highest innovation.

zitterbewegung 11y ago

Weren't they quite aggressive with other people using their service and piggy backing something on it? They could have done like Reddit and waited for a dominant app and then acquihire the people who did the app.

Macha 11y ago
This is exactly what they did? Twitter's mobile apps are distant descendants of tweetie, and the old Mac client was too

morgante 11y ago

> 1.) I am surprised this doesn't happen more. You find a company that's excited to build it, let them run with it, then if it ever becomes a target you acquihire. That's a valid strategy for why you would want an open platform, but it doesn't really apply to outsourcing. It's not the agency's product and you're handing over cold hard cash for their time. You're not going to acquire the agency if the app takes off... you already own the IP. Really the only reason that you should outsource is if an area is not in your core competencies. If developing software for a major platform isn't one of Twitter's competencies any more, that bodes ill.

rubyn00bie 11y ago
> You're not going to acquire the agency if the app takes off... you already own the IP. Well I think you're discounting the value of their domain knowledge and their contribution vastly too much. It will take time and resources to bring a new team online. Often times, that time is greater than the business can allow. The cost of simply acquiring the company isn't going to be sufficiently high enough for the corp to even worry. As you said, they (Twitter) own the IP.
- morgante 11y ago
  I think you're significantly downplaying the cost which could potentially come from acquiring an agency. It would be quite different if this was done by a startup whose sole or primary purpose was making a Twitter app. But an agency has dozens of different projects and clients (up to hundreds) and most of their team probably wasn't even involved in the Twitter app. If Twitter wants to refocus on Mac, they'll just hire a Mac developer or two and pay the agency to train them on the app.
  - rubyn00bie 11y ago
    I just don't think a company the size of Twitter would worry about a $5-$15 million expenditure to get access to the talent they want/need right then. Then have the rest of the company, which I am assuming (quite ignorantly) isn't that many people, finish out the rest of their contracts before giving 'em some golden handcuffs. I could definitely be wrong, and perhaps the app just doesn't require that level of expertise. If you have any data, I'd be happy to look at it-- knowledge is power.