4 ms·

It's hard to overstate how much of an impact third party twitter clients have had on Twitter and the broader mobile landscape - like the post mentions, the word

It's hard to overstate how much of an impact third party twitter clients have had on Twitter and the broader mobile landscape - like the post mentions, the word 'Tweet' and blue bird twitter icon came from third party clients! The Tweetie app invented pull-to-refresh, used by every (both) mobile operating systems.

masklinn 4y ago
Yeah original twitter allowed an explosion of creativity (both in style and interaction) around clients, due to its simple data and interaction model.
ceejayoz 4y ago
Tweetie even got bought and turned into the official client.
- radicalbyte 4y ago
  TweetDeck too as the official power-user web-client. At the time I thought of building a client but the dependence on Twitter seemed like a huge risk. More fool me though given that those companies were taken over for a decent amount.
  - endgame 4y ago
    You were right though, just not on the time-scale that you assumed at the time.
toss1 4y ago
Yup! Also hard to overstate the impact the new ownership has had, such that their assessment is now: >>"...an increasingly capricious Twitter – a Twitter that we no longer recognize as trustworthy nor want to work with any longer." This, from people that partnered with Twitter for a decade++ The new owner had a lot of us, me included, fooled into thinking he was intelligent and trustworthy. Now, it is obvious he's neither. Wealth reveals character, and it is sad to see that that character is so rotten.
- readonthegoapp 4y ago
  > Wealth reveals character feel like this is probably demonstrably wrong, but too lazy to google it. i'd go more with, 'wealth can allow one to become monster', or 'wealth creates monsters', or similar. the difference is 'creates' vs 'reveals'. i.e. give anyone a billion dollars and watch most of them become monsters, probably. and one might turn out to be like mackenzie scott. give everyone a hundred bucks and make them dependent on each other for survival, and watch antisocial behavior drop to near-zero near-instantaneously -- i.e. no monsters. wealth creates power. power corrupts. it's why socialism has always probably been the answer. and if not that, then some semblence of equality - of power, in particular. if people are able to operate largely without consequence, then they might act in antisocial ways - like musk, in this particular example. but you wouldn't have to go outside your own daily lived experience to find all sorts of people doing all sorts of bad things because they are relatively unaccountable - they don't face real consequences for their behavior.
  - pocketarc 4y ago
    I agree with you in that money and power corrupt. I think some people want to believe it just “reveals character” as a defence mechanism, as in, that could never happen to them, they’re a good person, and they’d still be good even with wealth. If it happened to Elon Musk then he must’ve been bad from the start. But: > if people are able to operate largely without consequence, then they might act in antisocial ways - like musk, in this particular example Not trying to defend the guy, but come on - he bought a company, took it private, and he is now free to ruin it as he sees fit. That’s not antisocial behaviour. He’s just making the decisions he thinks are best for Twitter (even if I disagree with them). And we have to consider the fact that when a celebrity does something, it is blown to a much bigger proportion by the media. Some random small business owner blocking third parties? Nobody cares, most apps aren’t even that open to begin with. Elon Musk does it? “What an antisocial monster corrupted by power and money” Meanwhile, murderers face real consequences for their behaviour, and you see it happening anyway, so your thesis that bad behaviour only happens because people are unaccountable is demonstrably false.
    - 4y ago

masklinn 4y ago

Yeah original twitter allowed an explosion of creativity (both in style and interaction) around clients, due to its simple data and interaction model.

ceejayoz 4y ago

Tweetie even got bought and turned into the official client.

radicalbyte 4y ago
TweetDeck too as the official power-user web-client. At the time I thought of building a client but the dependence on Twitter seemed like a huge risk. More fool me though given that those companies were taken over for a decent amount.
- endgame 4y ago
  You were right though, just not on the time-scale that you assumed at the time.

toss1 4y ago

Yup! Also hard to overstate the impact the new ownership has had, such that their assessment is now: >>"...an increasingly capricious Twitter – a Twitter that we no longer recognize as trustworthy nor want to work with any longer." This, from people that partnered with Twitter for a decade++ The new owner had a lot of us, me included, fooled into thinking he was intelligent and trustworthy. Now, it is obvious he's neither. Wealth reveals character, and it is sad to see that that character is so rotten.

readonthegoapp 4y ago
> Wealth reveals character feel like this is probably demonstrably wrong, but too lazy to google it. i'd go more with, 'wealth can allow one to become monster', or 'wealth creates monsters', or similar. the difference is 'creates' vs 'reveals'. i.e. give anyone a billion dollars and watch most of them become monsters, probably. and one might turn out to be like mackenzie scott. give everyone a hundred bucks and make them dependent on each other for survival, and watch antisocial behavior drop to near-zero near-instantaneously -- i.e. no monsters. wealth creates power. power corrupts. it's why socialism has always probably been the answer. and if not that, then some semblence of equality - of power, in particular. if people are able to operate largely without consequence, then they might act in antisocial ways - like musk, in this particular example. but you wouldn't have to go outside your own daily lived experience to find all sorts of people doing all sorts of bad things because they are relatively unaccountable - they don't face real consequences for their behavior.
- pocketarc 4y ago
  I agree with you in that money and power corrupt. I think some people want to believe it just “reveals character” as a defence mechanism, as in, that could never happen to them, they’re a good person, and they’d still be good even with wealth. If it happened to Elon Musk then he must’ve been bad from the start. But: > if people are able to operate largely without consequence, then they might act in antisocial ways - like musk, in this particular example Not trying to defend the guy, but come on - he bought a company, took it private, and he is now free to ruin it as he sees fit. That’s not antisocial behaviour. He’s just making the decisions he thinks are best for Twitter (even if I disagree with them). And we have to consider the fact that when a celebrity does something, it is blown to a much bigger proportion by the media. Some random small business owner blocking third parties? Nobody cares, most apps aren’t even that open to begin with. Elon Musk does it? “What an antisocial monster corrupted by power and money” Meanwhile, murderers face real consequences for their behaviour, and you see it happening anyway, so your thesis that bad behaviour only happens because people are unaccountable is demonstrably false.
  - 4y ago