4 ms·

One of Twitter's problem is not properly controlling their feed. I never use their mobile or web client. I solely use a highly customized Tweetdeck. With this e

One of Twitter's problem is not properly controlling their feed. I never use their mobile or web client. I solely use a highly customized Tweetdeck. With this experience, I never once see an advertisement. That's a huge loss for Twitter. Perhaps it's just me, but I wouldn't have a problem seeing advertisements in my Tweetdeck feed if it meant they'd remain successful. I'd much rather see Twitter succeed as it's the only platform I use to keep up with thousands of professionals and news sources. It's entirely a different experience than Facebook. I think the Twitter community should suck it up and accept the fact that they get served a couple of advertisements in order to support a news service and contend delivery network unlike any other in existence.

system16 10y ago
What's bizarre is I thought the whole purpose of cutting off/restricting third-party clients was so that they could control what was in the feed i.e., serve advertisements. If they still allow some/limited third-party clients and don't force ads into those feeds, what was the point of burning their bridges with the developer community?
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  What Twitter did was install rate limits on free access to the API. This means that to provide a full-service 3rd party client, the app developer has to pay Twitter to get above the rate limits. So: if your 3rd party app is not showing ads (as most don't), Twitter is still getting some revenue from the app developer. Personally, to me this seems like a reasonable trade off. But a lot of 3rd party app developers could not afford to pay those fees, and so lost their businesses. You can see how that would piss them off. But from Twitter's perspective, they were just freeloaders.