9 ms·

> What Sarver said to developers today was direct: If you don't want to get burned, don't build pure-play Twitter clients. And if your app displays and sends tw

> What Sarver said to developers today was direct: If you don't want to get burned, don't build pure-play Twitter clients. And if your app displays and sends tweets, make sure it looks and feels like Twitter. > "Developers ask us if they should build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience," he wrote. > "The answer is no." Twitter to Devs: Don't Make Twitter Clients... Or Else [2011] https://mashable.com/archive/twitter-api-clients https://mashable.com/archive/twitter-api-clients

ceejayoz 4y ago
That was never a rule, and they removed the last vestiges of the guideline entirely a couple years ago. https://www.engadget.com/twitter-new-developer-terms-ban-third-party-clients-211247096.html https://www.engadget.com/twitter-new-developer-terms-ban-thi... > In fact, Twitter previously changed its developer policies in 2021 to remove a section that discouraged — but didn't prohibit — app makers from "replicating" its core service. The change was part of a broader shift by Twitter to improve its relationship with developers, including the makers of third-party clients. The guidelines they introduced in 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20211105230857/https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/agreement-and-policy https://web.archive.org/web/20211105230857/https://developer... See the section titled "If you create a service that replicates Twitter’s core experience or features you will be subject to additional rules beyond what is already included in the Developer Policy." It very clearly permits clients like Tweetbot and Twitteriffic. It only applies additional conditions to them, which they've entirely complied with.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Everything you're saying is absolutely true. The idea that cutting off third-party clients is something radical or something twitter didn't desire to do a long time ago is laughable. All of the people gloating about how much Musk overpaid when he was forced to buy their favorite thing should have expected that as a result he'd have to do anything to squeeze revenue out of it. > That was never a rule, and they removed the last vestiges of the guideline entirely a couple years ago. I wasn't aware that traces of this guideline lasted until just a couple of years ago.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > The idea that cutting off third-party clients is something radical or something twitter didn't desire to do a long time ago is laughable. It's not at all radical, and if it'd been done with a month's warning, I think there'd have been grumbling but that'd be about it. Destroying a number of small businesses without warning (and letting them swing in the wind for a week waiting for a "why", and lying about them breaking "long-standing" rules) in this nature was entirely unnecessary, and is what has generated the backlash.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Absolutely agree. It's chaotic, but the reason Musk owns all of these big companies was because of luck and financial prowess, not any talent for management.
      - EricE 4y ago
        lol - richest man on the planet is where he is because..... luck. Right.
        sundaeofshock 4y ago
        He is the second richest person in the world after shedding over $200 billion in net worth.

ceejayoz 4y ago

That was never a rule, and they removed the last vestiges of the guideline entirely a couple years ago. https://www.engadget.com/twitter-new-developer-terms-ban-third-party-clients-211247096.html https://www.engadget.com/twitter-new-developer-terms-ban-thi... > In fact, Twitter previously changed its developer policies in 2021 to remove a section that discouraged — but didn't prohibit — app makers from "replicating" its core service. The change was part of a broader shift by Twitter to improve its relationship with developers, including the makers of third-party clients. The guidelines they introduced in 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20211105230857/https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/agreement-and-policy https://web.archive.org/web/20211105230857/https://developer... See the section titled "If you create a service that replicates Twitter’s core experience or features you will be subject to additional rules beyond what is already included in the Developer Policy." It very clearly permits clients like Tweetbot and Twitteriffic. It only applies additional conditions to them, which they've entirely complied with.

pessimizer 4y ago
Everything you're saying is absolutely true. The idea that cutting off third-party clients is something radical or something twitter didn't desire to do a long time ago is laughable. All of the people gloating about how much Musk overpaid when he was forced to buy their favorite thing should have expected that as a result he'd have to do anything to squeeze revenue out of it. > That was never a rule, and they removed the last vestiges of the guideline entirely a couple years ago. I wasn't aware that traces of this guideline lasted until just a couple of years ago.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > The idea that cutting off third-party clients is something radical or something twitter didn't desire to do a long time ago is laughable. It's not at all radical, and if it'd been done with a month's warning, I think there'd have been grumbling but that'd be about it. Destroying a number of small businesses without warning (and letting them swing in the wind for a week waiting for a "why", and lying about them breaking "long-standing" rules) in this nature was entirely unnecessary, and is what has generated the backlash.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Absolutely agree. It's chaotic, but the reason Musk owns all of these big companies was because of luck and financial prowess, not any talent for management.
    - EricE 4y ago
      lol - richest man on the planet is where he is because..... luck. Right.
      - sundaeofshock 4y ago
        He is the second richest person in the world after shedding over $200 billion in net worth.