5 ms·

M. Haddad has also discussed a current problem. Users have current subscriptions to TweetBot and face repeat subscription charges at their app store. Migratin

by JdeBP 4y ago

M. Haddad has also discussed a current problem. Users have current subscriptions to TweetBot and face repeat subscription charges at their app store. Migrating those users with time left on their subscriptions (and who want it) to Ivory, the in-development app from Tapbots for the FediVerse, requires an update to TweetBot. However, app stores will not accept an updated app when that app is rendered non-functional by Twitter. * https://tapbots.social/@paul/109691075588560655 https://tapbots.social/@paul/109691075588560655 Twitter has left 3rd-party vendors with no sunset period, or ability to deal with their customers gracefully, directly impacting not only their apps but their revenue. It is as yet unknown how amenable to 3rd-party Twitter app vendors the app store owners for iOS and Android will be.

retox 4y ago
Did the developer have any special agreement or contract with Twitter that the API would always be available? If not it sounds like an unacceptable professional risk to base your livelihood on the whims of another entity.
- george_perez 4y ago
  Not sure about special agreements or contracts, but Tweetbot along with other high-profile third-party apps (like Twitterrific) had way, way more API tokens available because of their size when Twitter started restricting the number of API tokens an app could have assigned for the lifetime of the app. API tokens for new apps were way more limited, around 10,000 I believe. Tweetbot and Twitterrific, while they never disclosed how many tokens they were given as legacy apps, were still to this day accepting new users, so the number seems to be way more than 10,000. And they had access to a less limited API (request-wise) to make their app work better without constant rate limiting nags.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- braingenious 4y ago
  Watching some sad failed poster-bro turned forced admin setting fire to the functionality of his dumb website “Hmm… it is actually the people that have created value for the site by driving engagement that are the true idiots”
- wpietri 4y ago
  And if they had a contract, so what? Musk famously does not care about contracts. Note that the only reason he ended up buying Twitter is that Deleware's corporate courts really don't fuck around and were likely going to force him to buy it pronto despite his attempts to wriggle out. But he'll happily screw over lesser people, as he's doing with various vendors, like Twitter's landlords: https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-landlord-sues-company-unpaid-rent-san-francisco-office-musk-2023-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-landlord-sues-compan... Explain to me how a small software vendor, even with the best contract in the world, is going to force Musk to turn back on their access in a timely enough fashion that they'll still have a business left? And be able to do it for a modest enough amount of money that the ISV will still be turning a profit?
  - bruce511 4y ago
    That wasn't the point of the previous post. Clearly if they did have a contract there would be recourses to take, and yes that won't stop Elon being Elon. The point was that when you build on top of someone else's platform, [1], then you are beholden to their whims. This is a substantial business risk, which has been happening since forever. I sympethize with Tweetbot et al, but this day has been inevitable for some time. They are not the first to suffer this fate in tech, and they won't be the last. [1] I'll add, without paying - ie not being an actual "customer".
    - Flockster 4y ago
      The thing is, I can't think of a company, with even a 1/10 the userbase that did not at least announce turning of such a service. These changes impact at the very least the users of Twitter itself. And given the history of Twitter, one can argue that the success was in part due to these third party clients.
    - watwut 4y ago
      Afaik they did actually paid some money to twitter.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      It opened with "Did the developer have any special agreement or contract", so yes, I think that was the point of the post. I agree that building on other people's platforms is dangerous, but that's true regardless of the contract you have, because contracts only matter to the extent that you can afford to enforce them.
dylan604 4y ago
When you make a business that cannot stand on its own feet and depends on another company as the basis of your company, then these are the kinds of catastrophes you have to admit to yourself is possible. When the company you depend on changes ownership, the "break glass in case of emergency" options should be very well understood and ready to go at a moments notice. Yes, it sucks something you created is struggling due to things out of your control. However, you built your something with a foundation out of your control. I'm just struggling to be sympathetic with the business model.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Can you name a single business that doesn’t depend on dozens of other companies to stay in operation? Like, if AWS decided to ban someone, would you say “I’m just struggling to be sympathetic with the business model”?
  - jdminhbg 4y ago
    The difference is that my business that depends on AWS pays for the service, and big businesses that depend on AWS have contracts about support and payment.
    - paxys 4y ago
      Every single one of those contracts has fine print that says that Amazon/Google/Microsoft can revoke service and end their relationship with you whenever they want.
      - jdminhbg 4y ago
        But it does in fact help to be paying them. There was nothing in this arrangement for Twitter at all.
        mcbits 4y ago
        The value for Twitter depends on who uses/used the client, what value they were providing to Twitter, and whether they'll stick around to continue providing that value.
scarface74 4y ago
Marco Arment (https://marco.org/about https://marco.org/about) wrote an ad blocker extension (https://marco.org/2015/09/16/peace-content-blocker https://marco.org/2015/09/16/peace-content-blocker) that became a number one seller on iOS for awhile. Shortly thereafter he decided that he didn’t want to be in the ad blocking business. Apple proactively gave everyone a refund who bought it. https://marco.org/2015/09/21/peace-refund https://marco.org/2015/09/21/peace-refund Apple would probably do the same for third party Twitter clients if asked by the author. Of course Marco could easily take the hit since that was shortly after he made a few million when Tumblr was sold to Yahoo.
saurik 4y ago
Why is Ivory even a separate app from TweetBot? Wouldn't it have been more powerful to build a single meta-app?
- jslql 4y ago
  This is the same guy who keeps relaunching tweetbot every new version just so you have to keep buying it.
- herrherrmann 4y ago
  As a user I wouldn’t have liked one big app for everything. It’s an interesting idea to combine the two worlds, but I’m happy to use dedicated apps that can focus on each network’s unique features. Should also be easier to build and maintain that way. And it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of hope for the future of 3rd-party Twitter apps anyway.

by JdeBP 4y ago

retox 4y ago

Did the developer have any special agreement or contract with Twitter that the API would always be available? If not it sounds like an unacceptable professional risk to base your livelihood on the whims of another entity.

george_perez 4y ago
Not sure about special agreements or contracts, but Tweetbot along with other high-profile third-party apps (like Twitterrific) had way, way more API tokens available because of their size when Twitter started restricting the number of API tokens an app could have assigned for the lifetime of the app. API tokens for new apps were way more limited, around 10,000 I believe. Tweetbot and Twitterrific, while they never disclosed how many tokens they were given as legacy apps, were still to this day accepting new users, so the number seems to be way more than 10,000. And they had access to a less limited API (request-wise) to make their app work better without constant rate limiting nags.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
braingenious 4y ago
Watching some sad failed poster-bro turned forced admin setting fire to the functionality of his dumb website “Hmm… it is actually the people that have created value for the site by driving engagement that are the true idiots”
wpietri 4y ago
And if they had a contract, so what? Musk famously does not care about contracts. Note that the only reason he ended up buying Twitter is that Deleware's corporate courts really don't fuck around and were likely going to force him to buy it pronto despite his attempts to wriggle out. But he'll happily screw over lesser people, as he's doing with various vendors, like Twitter's landlords: https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-landlord-sues-company-unpaid-rent-san-francisco-office-musk-2023-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-landlord-sues-compan... Explain to me how a small software vendor, even with the best contract in the world, is going to force Musk to turn back on their access in a timely enough fashion that they'll still have a business left? And be able to do it for a modest enough amount of money that the ISV will still be turning a profit?
- bruce511 4y ago
  That wasn't the point of the previous post. Clearly if they did have a contract there would be recourses to take, and yes that won't stop Elon being Elon. The point was that when you build on top of someone else's platform, [1], then you are beholden to their whims. This is a substantial business risk, which has been happening since forever. I sympethize with Tweetbot et al, but this day has been inevitable for some time. They are not the first to suffer this fate in tech, and they won't be the last. [1] I'll add, without paying - ie not being an actual "customer".
  - Flockster 4y ago
    The thing is, I can't think of a company, with even a 1/10 the userbase that did not at least announce turning of such a service. These changes impact at the very least the users of Twitter itself. And given the history of Twitter, one can argue that the success was in part due to these third party clients.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Afaik they did actually paid some money to twitter.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    It opened with "Did the developer have any special agreement or contract", so yes, I think that was the point of the post. I agree that building on other people's platforms is dangerous, but that's true regardless of the contract you have, because contracts only matter to the extent that you can afford to enforce them.

dylan604 4y ago

When you make a business that cannot stand on its own feet and depends on another company as the basis of your company, then these are the kinds of catastrophes you have to admit to yourself is possible. When the company you depend on changes ownership, the "break glass in case of emergency" options should be very well understood and ready to go at a moments notice. Yes, it sucks something you created is struggling due to things out of your control. However, you built your something with a foundation out of your control. I'm just struggling to be sympathetic with the business model.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Can you name a single business that doesn’t depend on dozens of other companies to stay in operation? Like, if AWS decided to ban someone, would you say “I’m just struggling to be sympathetic with the business model”?
- jdminhbg 4y ago
  The difference is that my business that depends on AWS pays for the service, and big businesses that depend on AWS have contracts about support and payment.
  - paxys 4y ago
    Every single one of those contracts has fine print that says that Amazon/Google/Microsoft can revoke service and end their relationship with you whenever they want.
    - jdminhbg 4y ago
      But it does in fact help to be paying them. There was nothing in this arrangement for Twitter at all.
      - mcbits 4y ago
        The value for Twitter depends on who uses/used the client, what value they were providing to Twitter, and whether they'll stick around to continue providing that value.

scarface74 4y ago

Marco Arment (https://marco.org/about https://marco.org/about) wrote an ad blocker extension (https://marco.org/2015/09/16/peace-content-blocker https://marco.org/2015/09/16/peace-content-blocker) that became a number one seller on iOS for awhile. Shortly thereafter he decided that he didn’t want to be in the ad blocking business. Apple proactively gave everyone a refund who bought it. https://marco.org/2015/09/21/peace-refund https://marco.org/2015/09/21/peace-refund Apple would probably do the same for third party Twitter clients if asked by the author. Of course Marco could easily take the hit since that was shortly after he made a few million when Tumblr was sold to Yahoo.

saurik 4y ago

Why is Ivory even a separate app from TweetBot? Wouldn't it have been more powerful to build a single meta-app?

jslql 4y ago
This is the same guy who keeps relaunching tweetbot every new version just so you have to keep buying it.
herrherrmann 4y ago
As a user I wouldn’t have liked one big app for everything. It’s an interesting idea to combine the two worlds, but I’m happy to use dedicated apps that can focus on each network’s unique features. Should also be easier to build and maintain that way. And it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of hope for the future of 3rd-party Twitter apps anyway.