3 ms·
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 adv
by 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 agoWhat 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.