4 ms·

Parent does have some validity related to their API...and how they've scorned developers - but the API, and all of Developers in the "Twitter Sphere", are such

Parent does have some validity related to their API...and how they've scorned developers - but the API, and all of Developers in the "Twitter Sphere", are such a small portion of what Twitter "does" it would be out of scope for their investors to bank on TwitterAPI to reach projections. I don't think Dorsey is as bad as you claim, but this example does reflect an (IMO) systemic problem of treating the CEO of large companies (~N > 50) as a superhero when institutional and foundational changes would really be the hero of the story.

wslh 10y ago
> but the API, and all of Developers in the "Twitter Sphere", are such a small portion of what Twitter "does" it would be out of scope for their investors to bank on TwitterAPI to reach projections. I don't think so. The development ecosystem is (or was) a way to reinforce the platform, it is a kind of partnership where you stimulate Twitter use because you can build or take value on top of it. Many startups or businesses in general look elsewhere for the information that is available on Twitter.
- FilterSweep 10y ago
  We're saying the same thing here, in premise. There is some value to be gained from a development ecosystem, undeniably. The difference between what I'm saying is that the sheer magnitude of unmonetized Twitter Web users makes whatever small fish monetization increasing Twitter use with their integration look like chump change. Now, there are several big players such as Periscope, Vine, Meerkat, that could have benefitted Twitter greatly from offering a development ecosystem. But there are two reasons why they wouldn't: 1) Twitter, like Facebook, is big enough - or, more accurately, are expected to be big enough - to be in the "acquirer" phase where they derive more value competing against and acquiring than playing with these popular new services. However, we've seen much of the industry being overvalued and some of us believe a small company can do more, faster, on a technical level than a big company due to bureaucracy, so expectations aren't always matching up to reality. Vine and Periscope were eventually acquired by Twitter. And Meerkat was forced to pivot. 2) There are cost-benefit analyses that neither you, nor I, are privy to which found developing and maintaining an API by relatively highly-paid employees not worth the benefits seen by its integration by other companies. > Many startups or businesses in general look elsewhere for the information that is available on Twitter. Are you sure of this? Businesses and other startups alike still use Twitter for engagement, and there is great information to be pulled from Twitter, assuming they have the ability to act on the metrics available.
  - wslh 10y ago
    > Are you sure of this? Yes. For example, you can't analyze your social graph with their current API limitations. Just moving one degree in the graph hit the limit.

wslh 10y ago

> but the API, and all of Developers in the "Twitter Sphere", are such a small portion of what Twitter "does" it would be out of scope for their investors to bank on TwitterAPI to reach projections. I don't think so. The development ecosystem is (or was) a way to reinforce the platform, it is a kind of partnership where you stimulate Twitter use because you can build or take value on top of it. Many startups or businesses in general look elsewhere for the information that is available on Twitter.

FilterSweep 10y ago
We're saying the same thing here, in premise. There is some value to be gained from a development ecosystem, undeniably. The difference between what I'm saying is that the sheer magnitude of unmonetized Twitter Web users makes whatever small fish monetization increasing Twitter use with their integration look like chump change. Now, there are several big players such as Periscope, Vine, Meerkat, that could have benefitted Twitter greatly from offering a development ecosystem. But there are two reasons why they wouldn't: 1) Twitter, like Facebook, is big enough - or, more accurately, are expected to be big enough - to be in the "acquirer" phase where they derive more value competing against and acquiring than playing with these popular new services. However, we've seen much of the industry being overvalued and some of us believe a small company can do more, faster, on a technical level than a big company due to bureaucracy, so expectations aren't always matching up to reality. Vine and Periscope were eventually acquired by Twitter. And Meerkat was forced to pivot. 2) There are cost-benefit analyses that neither you, nor I, are privy to which found developing and maintaining an API by relatively highly-paid employees not worth the benefits seen by its integration by other companies. > Many startups or businesses in general look elsewhere for the information that is available on Twitter. Are you sure of this? Businesses and other startups alike still use Twitter for engagement, and there is great information to be pulled from Twitter, assuming they have the ability to act on the metrics available.
- wslh 10y ago
  > Are you sure of this? Yes. For example, you can't analyze your social graph with their current API limitations. Just moving one degree in the graph hit the limit.