6 ms·

The Twitter Platform

91 points by salar 16y ago

mootymoots 16y ago
"There are over 100,000 applications leveraging the Twitter API" That's probably evidence enough that investing in developing for Twitter is kinda fruitless. There's just too much crud out there. This coming from a Twitter iPhone app and web developer. Likely adding to the crud...
TotlolRon 16y ago
Platform is becoming another name for Feudalism.
- roc 16y ago
  More accurately: sharecropping.
tlrobinson 16y ago
"First, third party ad networks are not necessarily looking to preserve the unique user experience Twitter has created." Hmm this sounds familiar...
tomhogans 16y ago
"Oh, paid tweets. That's a cool idea. We'll take over from here. Now get off our service."
- protomyth 16y ago
  That does seem to be the new business plan: 1) develop service, 2) let others figure out a monetization strategy 3) do it yourself and change your TOS 4) repeat from step 2
  - maukdaddy 16y ago
    Makes for cheap R&D ;)
- adriand 16y ago
  That's hardly fair. Paid tweets are a blindingly obvious method for generating revenue - they're just Twitter's version of advertorials. The hard part is, as they say here, trying to have paid tweets that do not ruin the user experience. Given how many webpages look these days, with more ads than content, they can't really be blamed for being concerned about third-party advertising ruining the service.
  - tomhogans 16y ago
    A more delicate way to handle the situation would have been to acquire one of the ad networks or at least launch their own service to compete with the others instead of making such an aggressive move. Facebook has been working to take marketshare from their platform's ad networks with their own credits and offers system, but it doing it in a slow, deliberate way that is not traumatizing their platform ecosystem.
AndrewWarner 16y ago
Joel Spolsky said it best in his Mixergy interview: basically, if you were a platform developer ... you're in a dangerous position. You are snatching nickels in front of an oncoming bulldozer.
- spencerfry 16y ago
  I've shared this feeling my entire life. I never really understood why anyone would want to build a product on the back of someone else. This is going to sound harsh, but it kind of feels like a cop out to me. And if not a cop out, certainly ridiculously risky and limiting.
  - adriand 16y ago
    Every piece of software we write is built on the back of someone else. We're all vulnerable to the whims of the people who build the operating systems, the browsers, heck, even the protocols. The important question probably comes down to ability and motive: "can this platform be turned against me, and do those who control it gain some advantage from doing so?"
    - spencerfry 16y ago
      You're taking it too for to the extreme. Building on top of a browser or an operating system is a proven and solid model. Building on top of another software company, web app, etc., is a whole different ballgame. Web browsers aren't going to turn against you. Other companies can.
      - senko 16y ago
        However, those browsers or operating systems are written by companies. See Apple and iPhone OS for a recent example. Building on top of anything is risky unless the platform (whatever that be - OS, Facebook, Twitter) provider gives you some guarantees (and you have enough trust in them that they will stick to those guarantees). If you build your app on top of someone's service and the terms of use say "we reserve the right to change anything", it's like loading a shotgun, giving it to the service provider, and hoping they'll be nice to you. If you don't/can't accept that risk, don't build on top of them.
minalecs 16y ago
fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice, shame on me. By now we should realize the pattern with twitter is that any company that adds real value to twitter, they are more than willing to take the idea, and build a competing service. Search, trends, ads, alt. clients, and url shorteners. They fooled us all when they said they just wanted to be the pipe.
- patio11 16y ago
  They fooled us all This is at variance with my recollection of events.
- sandipc 16y ago
  search was purchased (summize)
- ejwcom 16y ago
  Twitter development is transitioning into a hobby. As a business opportunity, it sucks. Anything of real business value you create will get sucked into the platform, so, really, there is not much point to it.
- Dirt_McGirt 16y ago
  How does 3rd-party ads add value to twitter?
  - Qz 16y ago
    If they do a better job ad showing ads you want to see than the official Twitter ads, then it adds value. But now there's no chance for competition -- you eat your twitter ads because you don't have a choice (aside from the obvious one of not using twitter, which I find wholesome and life-enriching so far).
    - Dirt_McGirt 16y ago
      I don't really feel more ads are valuable, no matter the quality.
alex1 16y ago
This begs the question: how does Twitter define a "paid" tweet? Does payment from advertiser to service or service to publisher matter? Do both? What about Foursquare/Gowalla checkins? Would those count as "paid"? What if a business rewards its mayor for all his checkins... do the mayor's tweets now count as "paid"?
- pyre 16y ago
  They did say that they are going to clarify that...
- patio11 16y ago
  Much like "How does Google define if a link is paid?", asking this question is less useful than you'd think: they're under no particular obligation to have consistent standards, enforce them without caprice, or avoid changing them on a whim and/or retroactively. Plus, even if your conduct is currently kosher, they can always invent a new policy that you've already broken tomorrow.
- dabent 16y ago
  I wonder if Scoopler's @WTF tweets count.
jamiequint 16y ago
Goodbye Ad.ly.
timdorr 16y ago
TL;DR - Fuck off, ad.ly
- benatkin 16y ago
  Really? I wasn't quite sure what they meant by injecting ads into the timeline. I thought it meant what the free version of Echofon does, IIRC, which is take a friends_timeline and display it with ads in between, rather than something that add advertisements to a user's statuses.
  - benatkin 16y ago
    I think they meant the twitter timeline and not the timeline in a user interface. This article pretty much just says what the twitter blog post says, but after reading it several times it sounds clear to me what they meant. http://www.socaltech.com/twitter_takes_aim_at_ad_ly_bans_in_stream_ads/s-0028798.html http://www.socaltech.com/twitter_takes_aim_at_ad_ly_bans_in_...
chris24 16y ago
The terms [1] were just updated to reflect these changes. There are some interesting tidbits under the commercial use section, including: "In cases where Twitter content is the basis (in whole or in part) of the advertising sale, we require you to compensate us..." [1] - http://dev.twitter.com/pages/api_terms http://dev.twitter.com/pages/api_terms
- jimboyoungblood 16y ago
  They should call it the "twax".
Sthorpe 16y ago
Should be easy for Twitter to put a limit on the number of ads that will be inserted during a period of time. Like build it into their API. API ads. Kinda lame though. They could have just made it part of their TOS. Only X number of ads can be shown after X tweets. Twitter must have $$ in the eyes.
simonw 16y ago
So I take it I was the only one who thought this was a strikingly clear explanation of how Twitter sees itself and how they intend to develop their ecosystem? A really excellent piece of communication.
khangtoh 16y ago
Ad.ly and a bunch of other stream advertising solution are in a precarious position.
zemaj 16y ago
The more I think about this situation, the less I like it. At first I was happy that the service I work on was not banned by this ToS change. Even though we use twitter data for monetisation, we don't insert data into timelines. However, when I look at the services that have now been banned, I can't see any warning signs other than that they were competing with Twitter for monetising their data. This is what my service does. Even though it's not currently banned, doesn't it make sense to abandon development now? The best I can hope for it that it isn't wildly successful, so Twitter doesn't consider it competition... Every time I read Twitter's explanation for the situation, it reads as "we know our monetisation strategy can't compete with third parties in the short term, so we're banning all competition". Hardly conducive to fostering the best solutions, particularly when Twitter will always have the upper hand with their "official" monetisation platform and analytics for resonance, anyway. What's even worse is the the new ToS is still completely ambiguous. Until I saw Peter's post here I had no idea that the ban was only in the publishing end, not insertion. Of course all this makes sense from Twitter's perspective, but for third parties... that just leaves us on an ever changing playing field with invisible goals. I could have lived with rules and rev share additions, but completely banning competition... not so much. PS what's the point of this paragraph from the blog post? "We understand that for a few of these companies, the new Terms of Service prohibit activities in which they’ve invested time and money. We will continue to move as quickly as we can to deliver the Annotations capability to the market so that developers everywhere can create innovative new business solutions on the growing Twitter platform." a slap in the face? We understand that we've wasted your time and money, so here's the next thing for you to waste time and money on. No guarantees, no apologies.

91 points by salar 16y ago

"There are over 100,000 applications leveraging the Twitter API" That's probably evidence enough that investing in developing for Twitter is kinda fruitless. There's just too much crud out there. This coming from a Twitter iPhone app and web developer. Likely adding to the crud...

TotlolRon 16y ago

Platform is becoming another name for Feudalism.

roc 16y ago
More accurately: sharecropping.

tlrobinson 16y ago

"First, third party ad networks are not necessarily looking to preserve the unique user experience Twitter has created." Hmm this sounds familiar...

tomhogans 16y ago

"Oh, paid tweets. That's a cool idea. We'll take over from here. Now get off our service."

protomyth 16y ago
That does seem to be the new business plan: 1) develop service, 2) let others figure out a monetization strategy 3) do it yourself and change your TOS 4) repeat from step 2
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  Makes for cheap R&D ;)
adriand 16y ago
That's hardly fair. Paid tweets are a blindingly obvious method for generating revenue - they're just Twitter's version of advertorials. The hard part is, as they say here, trying to have paid tweets that do not ruin the user experience. Given how many webpages look these days, with more ads than content, they can't really be blamed for being concerned about third-party advertising ruining the service.
- tomhogans 16y ago
  A more delicate way to handle the situation would have been to acquire one of the ad networks or at least launch their own service to compete with the others instead of making such an aggressive move. Facebook has been working to take marketshare from their platform's ad networks with their own credits and offers system, but it doing it in a slow, deliberate way that is not traumatizing their platform ecosystem.

AndrewWarner 16y ago

Joel Spolsky said it best in his Mixergy interview: basically, if you were a platform developer ... you're in a dangerous position. You are snatching nickels in front of an oncoming bulldozer.

spencerfry 16y ago
I've shared this feeling my entire life. I never really understood why anyone would want to build a product on the back of someone else. This is going to sound harsh, but it kind of feels like a cop out to me. And if not a cop out, certainly ridiculously risky and limiting.
- adriand 16y ago
  Every piece of software we write is built on the back of someone else. We're all vulnerable to the whims of the people who build the operating systems, the browsers, heck, even the protocols. The important question probably comes down to ability and motive: "can this platform be turned against me, and do those who control it gain some advantage from doing so?"
  - spencerfry 16y ago
    You're taking it too for to the extreme. Building on top of a browser or an operating system is a proven and solid model. Building on top of another software company, web app, etc., is a whole different ballgame. Web browsers aren't going to turn against you. Other companies can.
    - senko 16y ago
      However, those browsers or operating systems are written by companies. See Apple and iPhone OS for a recent example. Building on top of anything is risky unless the platform (whatever that be - OS, Facebook, Twitter) provider gives you some guarantees (and you have enough trust in them that they will stick to those guarantees). If you build your app on top of someone's service and the terms of use say "we reserve the right to change anything", it's like loading a shotgun, giving it to the service provider, and hoping they'll be nice to you. If you don't/can't accept that risk, don't build on top of them.

minalecs 16y ago

fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice, shame on me. By now we should realize the pattern with twitter is that any company that adds real value to twitter, they are more than willing to take the idea, and build a competing service. Search, trends, ads, alt. clients, and url shorteners. They fooled us all when they said they just wanted to be the pipe.

patio11 16y ago
They fooled us all This is at variance with my recollection of events.
sandipc 16y ago
search was purchased (summize)
ejwcom 16y ago
Twitter development is transitioning into a hobby. As a business opportunity, it sucks. Anything of real business value you create will get sucked into the platform, so, really, there is not much point to it.
Dirt_McGirt 16y ago
How does 3rd-party ads add value to twitter?
- Qz 16y ago
  If they do a better job ad showing ads you want to see than the official Twitter ads, then it adds value. But now there's no chance for competition -- you eat your twitter ads because you don't have a choice (aside from the obvious one of not using twitter, which I find wholesome and life-enriching so far).
  - Dirt_McGirt 16y ago
    I don't really feel more ads are valuable, no matter the quality.

alex1 16y ago

This begs the question: how does Twitter define a "paid" tweet? Does payment from advertiser to service or service to publisher matter? Do both? What about Foursquare/Gowalla checkins? Would those count as "paid"? What if a business rewards its mayor for all his checkins... do the mayor's tweets now count as "paid"?

pyre 16y ago
They did say that they are going to clarify that...
patio11 16y ago
Much like "How does Google define if a link is paid?", asking this question is less useful than you'd think: they're under no particular obligation to have consistent standards, enforce them without caprice, or avoid changing them on a whim and/or retroactively. Plus, even if your conduct is currently kosher, they can always invent a new policy that you've already broken tomorrow.
dabent 16y ago
I wonder if Scoopler's @WTF tweets count.

jamiequint 16y ago

Goodbye Ad.ly.

timdorr 16y ago

TL;DR - Fuck off, ad.ly

benatkin 16y ago
Really? I wasn't quite sure what they meant by injecting ads into the timeline. I thought it meant what the free version of Echofon does, IIRC, which is take a friends_timeline and display it with ads in between, rather than something that add advertisements to a user's statuses.
- benatkin 16y ago
  I think they meant the twitter timeline and not the timeline in a user interface. This article pretty much just says what the twitter blog post says, but after reading it several times it sounds clear to me what they meant. http://www.socaltech.com/twitter_takes_aim_at_ad_ly_bans_in_stream_ads/s-0028798.html http://www.socaltech.com/twitter_takes_aim_at_ad_ly_bans_in_...

chris24 16y ago

The terms [1] were just updated to reflect these changes. There are some interesting tidbits under the commercial use section, including: "In cases where Twitter content is the basis (in whole or in part) of the advertising sale, we require you to compensate us..." [1] - http://dev.twitter.com/pages/api_terms http://dev.twitter.com/pages/api_terms

jimboyoungblood 16y ago
They should call it the "twax".

Sthorpe 16y ago

Should be easy for Twitter to put a limit on the number of ads that will be inserted during a period of time. Like build it into their API. API ads. Kinda lame though. They could have just made it part of their TOS. Only X number of ads can be shown after X tweets. Twitter must have $$ in the eyes.

simonw 16y ago

So I take it I was the only one who thought this was a strikingly clear explanation of how Twitter sees itself and how they intend to develop their ecosystem? A really excellent piece of communication.

khangtoh 16y ago

Ad.ly and a bunch of other stream advertising solution are in a precarious position.

zemaj 16y ago

The more I think about this situation, the less I like it. At first I was happy that the service I work on was not banned by this ToS change. Even though we use twitter data for monetisation, we don't insert data into timelines. However, when I look at the services that have now been banned, I can't see any warning signs other than that they were competing with Twitter for monetising their data. This is what my service does. Even though it's not currently banned, doesn't it make sense to abandon development now? The best I can hope for it that it isn't wildly successful, so Twitter doesn't consider it competition... Every time I read Twitter's explanation for the situation, it reads as "we know our monetisation strategy can't compete with third parties in the short term, so we're banning all competition". Hardly conducive to fostering the best solutions, particularly when Twitter will always have the upper hand with their "official" monetisation platform and analytics for resonance, anyway. What's even worse is the the new ToS is still completely ambiguous. Until I saw Peter's post here I had no idea that the ban was only in the publishing end, not insertion. Of course all this makes sense from Twitter's perspective, but for third parties... that just leaves us on an ever changing playing field with invisible goals. I could have lived with rules and rev share additions, but completely banning competition... not so much. PS what's the point of this paragraph from the blog post? "We understand that for a few of these companies, the new Terms of Service prohibit activities in which they’ve invested time and money. We will continue to move as quickly as we can to deliver the Annotations capability to the market so that developers everywhere can create innovative new business solutions on the growing Twitter platform." a slap in the face? We understand that we've wasted your time and money, so here's the next thing for you to waste time and money on. No guarantees, no apologies.