4 ms·

I don't buy this at all. In fact, I don't buy the conventional wisdom that developers are what makes and breaks a platform. Developers do what Deep Throat sugge

by cletus 15y ago

I don't buy this at all. In fact, I don't buy the conventional wisdom that developers are what makes and breaks a platform. Developers do what Deep Throat suggests: they follow the money. People often complain about the unpredictability and capriciousness of Apple's App Store policies yet it's still where developers flock to. Why? Because they make money. Those same policies arguably hurt developers but they definitely help the consumer, which ultimately does help the developer. Tae that as an example of developers not knowing what's good for them. You see the same thing particularly in tech journalism: people often say the problem with, for example, Windows Phone 7 or WebOS is a lack of developers. No. The problem is a lack of users (and thus money to be made). Developers follow the money. In the case of Twitter, I think it's downfall is that it is simply a very marginal product and has missed its opportunity to change that. Its usage is a lot lower than the number of accounts suggests [1]. I believe it was envisioned as a way of people sharing status updates in a more public fashion than Facebook. The reality of Twitter (IMHO) is that it's a way of following celebrities. Twitter clients were doomed before they started, doomed to commoditization then cannibilzation that is. It was naive to go into building on someone else's platform any other way (yet many did seem to believe that Twitter was somehow "different"). I don't believe the existence of these apps is the reason for Twitter's success either. My personal opinion is that people decide to use Twitter and then look for an app to do it. Twitter lives and dies by the success of... Twitter. [1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-how-many-users-does-twitter-really-have-2011-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-how-many-use...

sedev 15y ago
I'd modify that a little, basically riffing on Marco Arment's proposal[1]: developers will do great things for a platform if we use it, if it's in popular use, and if there's money to be made. Twitter the service, I would say, has been fluttering between one and three of those things - the problem is that Twitter the company has been trying to choke out the "money to be made" criteria, and that, as you observe, drives developers away. [1]: http://www.marco.org/2010/11/04/developers-dont-rush-to-new-platforms http://www.marco.org/2010/11/04/developers-dont-rush-to-new-...
swombat 15y ago
I agree. I'd argue that twitter's success made the developers, not the other way around. Certainly, the departure of developers is not going to unmake Twitter, not least because they have the resources to build their own clients now. If I were a TweetDeck user and TweetDeck vanished, I wouldn't stop using twitter, I'd just switch to a new client (as I have many times)...
- trustfundbaby 15y ago
  ... built by a developer right?
- code_duck 15y ago
  Switch to a new client, as you have many times... but the developers don't matter? Try having one official mobile client and a web client. And if you don't like either one, you're out of luck - and then the service is out of luck when you stop using it in favor of one with better software. The relationship between developers and service providers is ideally symbiotic.
- AlexC04 15y ago
  Exactly - twitter is doing just fine. The article reeks of sour grapes.
wccrawford 15y ago
"No. The problem is a lack of users (and thus money to be made). Developers follow the money." Developers follow the money, and customers follow the developed products. It's a cycle. You can't just say 1 is the whole driving force when in reality, both are, and they drive each other as well.
- sjs 15y ago
  In the case of the iPhone developers either followed the customers, hence money, or they developed things because they loved their iPhone and/or Cocoa. So maybe in order to bootstrap a platform you need to attract a bunch of customers including a healthy number of developers. If devs like the platform and there are potential customers that could create a spark.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  This is totally correct, and needs to be thought about in any platform play. Users provide for the upper-bound in the cycle. Developers push the cycle to its next iteration. Money is the grease. Without all of them, the cycle doesn't flow and the platform reaches its maximum potential. Each successive iteration requires more effort, which means many more users spending more money on more developers output.
CoffeeDregs 15y ago
I don't buy this at all. In fact, I don't buy the conventional wisdom that developers are what makes and breaks a platform. Developers do what Deep Throat suggests: they follow the money. Sure a large body of developers follow the money, but a fantastic minority go and develop compensation-less bits of software such as Linux, Apache, PHP, Python, Ruby, Rails, Django, MySQL, Postgresql, Redis, NodeJS, etc. (Of course, as the projects mature and get noticed, money will appear and developers will flock to these platforms, too; and, of course, public recognition is a currency, too) Devs are not a homogeneous bunch and, unlike other groups, they can significantly affect the trajectory of a platform. See: Lego Mindstorms. This is not to say that developers are magical and that users, marketers, etc are not needed. It was naive to go into building on someone else's platform any other way (yet many did seem to believe that Twitter was somehow "different"). Also apparently naive: Zynga, FriendFeed, TweetDeck, PopCap, etc.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  > Also apparently naive: Zynga, FriendFeed, TweetDeck, PopCap, etc. FriendFeed and TweetDeck got gobbled up by the companies owning the platform they work on, and PopCap got bought by EA. Zynga could be brought to heel in an instant if Facebook wanted, too.
  - felipemnoa 15y ago
    -Zynga could be brought to heel in an instant if Facebook wanted, too. Good point, although I wonder if it would do no harm to Facebook either. They appear to be in a symbiotic relationship at this point. I bet Zynga would love not to depend on Facebook and vice-versa. Zynga probably is already mulling (if not preparing for) about porting their stuff to google+, just in case. I wonder how would Facebook take that.
trustfundbaby 15y ago
True, Developers follow the money, but its the stuff they build for a platform that really helps that platform shine. Your argument is exactly why Google+ is so dangerous for facebook and twitter, both have a very tortured relationship with 3rd party developers so if Google releases an api for google+ that gives developers an opportunity to make just as much money as twitter/facebook ... developers are going to be throwing up deuces to them and moving over to google since they can make just as much money with less stress.
rockarage 15y ago
Totally agree with this. Celebrities and thought leaders will make or break Twitter. If they leave all bets are off.

by cletus 15y ago

sedev 15y ago

I'd modify that a little, basically riffing on Marco Arment's proposal[1]: developers will do great things for a platform if we use it, if it's in popular use, and if there's money to be made. Twitter the service, I would say, has been fluttering between one and three of those things - the problem is that Twitter the company has been trying to choke out the "money to be made" criteria, and that, as you observe, drives developers away. [1]: http://www.marco.org/2010/11/04/developers-dont-rush-to-new-platforms http://www.marco.org/2010/11/04/developers-dont-rush-to-new-...

swombat 15y ago

I agree. I'd argue that twitter's success made the developers, not the other way around. Certainly, the departure of developers is not going to unmake Twitter, not least because they have the resources to build their own clients now. If I were a TweetDeck user and TweetDeck vanished, I wouldn't stop using twitter, I'd just switch to a new client (as I have many times)...

trustfundbaby 15y ago
... built by a developer right?
code_duck 15y ago
Switch to a new client, as you have many times... but the developers don't matter? Try having one official mobile client and a web client. And if you don't like either one, you're out of luck - and then the service is out of luck when you stop using it in favor of one with better software. The relationship between developers and service providers is ideally symbiotic.
AlexC04 15y ago
Exactly - twitter is doing just fine. The article reeks of sour grapes.

wccrawford 15y ago

"No. The problem is a lack of users (and thus money to be made). Developers follow the money." Developers follow the money, and customers follow the developed products. It's a cycle. You can't just say 1 is the whole driving force when in reality, both are, and they drive each other as well.

sjs 15y ago
In the case of the iPhone developers either followed the customers, hence money, or they developed things because they loved their iPhone and/or Cocoa. So maybe in order to bootstrap a platform you need to attract a bunch of customers including a healthy number of developers. If devs like the platform and there are potential customers that could create a spark.
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
This is totally correct, and needs to be thought about in any platform play. Users provide for the upper-bound in the cycle. Developers push the cycle to its next iteration. Money is the grease. Without all of them, the cycle doesn't flow and the platform reaches its maximum potential. Each successive iteration requires more effort, which means many more users spending more money on more developers output.

CoffeeDregs 15y ago

I don't buy this at all. In fact, I don't buy the conventional wisdom that developers are what makes and breaks a platform. Developers do what Deep Throat suggests: they follow the money. Sure a large body of developers follow the money, but a fantastic minority go and develop compensation-less bits of software such as Linux, Apache, PHP, Python, Ruby, Rails, Django, MySQL, Postgresql, Redis, NodeJS, etc. (Of course, as the projects mature and get noticed, money will appear and developers will flock to these platforms, too; and, of course, public recognition is a currency, too) Devs are not a homogeneous bunch and, unlike other groups, they can significantly affect the trajectory of a platform. See: Lego Mindstorms. This is not to say that developers are magical and that users, marketers, etc are not needed. It was naive to go into building on someone else's platform any other way (yet many did seem to believe that Twitter was somehow "different"). Also apparently naive: Zynga, FriendFeed, TweetDeck, PopCap, etc.

ceejayoz 15y ago
> Also apparently naive: Zynga, FriendFeed, TweetDeck, PopCap, etc. FriendFeed and TweetDeck got gobbled up by the companies owning the platform they work on, and PopCap got bought by EA. Zynga could be brought to heel in an instant if Facebook wanted, too.
- felipemnoa 15y ago
  -Zynga could be brought to heel in an instant if Facebook wanted, too. Good point, although I wonder if it would do no harm to Facebook either. They appear to be in a symbiotic relationship at this point. I bet Zynga would love not to depend on Facebook and vice-versa. Zynga probably is already mulling (if not preparing for) about porting their stuff to google+, just in case. I wonder how would Facebook take that.

trustfundbaby 15y ago

True, Developers follow the money, but its the stuff they build for a platform that really helps that platform shine. Your argument is exactly why Google+ is so dangerous for facebook and twitter, both have a very tortured relationship with 3rd party developers so if Google releases an api for google+ that gives developers an opportunity to make just as much money as twitter/facebook ... developers are going to be throwing up deuces to them and moving over to google since they can make just as much money with less stress.

rockarage 15y ago

Totally agree with this. Celebrities and thought leaders will make or break Twitter. If they leave all bets are off.