4 ms·

Here's the hard truth ... Lesson learned: don't build your business on top of someone else's business, especially if you're not paying (under contract) to acce

Here's the hard truth ... Lesson learned: don't build your business on top of someone else's business, especially if you're not paying (under contract) to access that other service.

rvz 4y ago
Absolutely. The creators of third-party clients have not learned anything about the risks of building on top of someone else's business and APIs and exactly when that service is a completely free API. As predicted here: [0] when a third-party Discord client had to shut down [1] because Discord Inc. controlled the platform, the same has happened to Twitter. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25685294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25685294 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684953
matwood 4y ago
Well said. Too often people say don’t build on others, but you always have to build on top of existing things. What you don’t want is to be building on something that you don’t have a contractual relationship with. Even better is if it’s clear how you both win financially or otherwise.
firecall 4y ago
I dont buy into that line of thinking. You make hay whilst the sunshines. If you can make money from an App, then do so. Of course you have to diversify; dont put all your eggs in one basket. But if there is an opportunity to make money, then go make it. You can build your name on a high profile popular product, even if the product is short lived. Businesses and product lines dont generally last forever! :-)
ProfessorLayton 4y ago
gestures broadly at the mobile app store duopoly
- acdha 4y ago
  This is true but I think there's a key difference which is worth considering if you're in this situation: app stores are in the business of selling apps. This means there's a risk of being Sherlock-ed but in general they're not going to decide that they suddenly want to stop existing. They want you to sell lots of copies since they get a cut of every sale: if you're successful, they make a ton of money for a modest level of expense. Something like a Twitter client is not only not part of their core business of selling ads but diametrically opposed to it so you have a much higher risk of unexpectedly being out of business because their success is not directly linked to yours. Arguments about innovation, bringing in super users, etc. are good but they're more tenuous and exactly the kind of thing some executive will dismiss when compared to the money they can make right now with more ad sales.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    Neither of the major app stores is in the business of selling apps. Apple is in the business of selling iPhones and Google is in the business of selling ads.
    - acdha 4y ago
      Apple and Google each make tens of billions annually from their portion of sales, they’re not going to lightly jeopardize that. In contrast, Twitter sees third-party developers as a cost.
- lmm 4y ago
  Yep. Building (consumer) mobile apps is a mug's game.
gilgoomesh 4y ago
I don’t think that’s the lesson. Twitterrific was a huge success and “kept the lights on” for Iconfactory for a decade. The lesson is not that building on the services of others is bad. It was good. But you don’t get to choose when it will end.
switz 4y ago
That's the wrong lesson to learn, in my opinion. One should understand the ramifications and risks of building a business on top of someone else's platform, but doing so can actually let you shortcut a lot of really difficult steps, such as user acquisition. These people built successful businesses for nigh a decade, and even if they were eventually shut off due to a change in ownership, they still presumably earned ample profit. Personally, I've built a business on top of someone else's platform (Valve) and it was hugely beneficial for me even though I was very aware I could be cut off at any point. All businesses are a gamble, pick what gambles you want to take and be honest about their upsides and downsides.
- tiffanyh 4y ago
  The difference is Valve is a platform built with the intent for others to build upon. It’s literally what the core service is and there’s a built in revenue share (contract) between the developers and Valve. No such construct nor intent existed with Twitter.
  - switz 4y ago
    > The difference is Valve is a platform built with the intent for others to build upon. Not necessarily. I'm not selling a game on Steam, I built my business providing a third party service around one of Valve's self-developed games. Generally speaking, Valve is friendlier to developers so it was a safer bet, but it was in no way a contract nor guaranteed. Twitter actually used to promote third party apps in their sidebar. Even though they long ago made it clear that third party apps were being hamstrung, for quite some time they actually encouraged third party apps being developed and didn't bother them too much beyond limiting their access to the streaming API.

Here's the hard truth ... Lesson learned: don't build your business on top of someone else's business, especially if you're not paying (under contract) to access that other service.

rvz 4y ago

Absolutely. The creators of third-party clients have not learned anything about the risks of building on top of someone else's business and APIs and exactly when that service is a completely free API. As predicted here: [0] when a third-party Discord client had to shut down [1] because Discord Inc. controlled the platform, the same has happened to Twitter. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25685294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25685294 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684953

matwood 4y ago

Well said. Too often people say don’t build on others, but you always have to build on top of existing things. What you don’t want is to be building on something that you don’t have a contractual relationship with. Even better is if it’s clear how you both win financially or otherwise.

firecall 4y ago

I dont buy into that line of thinking. You make hay whilst the sunshines. If you can make money from an App, then do so. Of course you have to diversify; dont put all your eggs in one basket. But if there is an opportunity to make money, then go make it. You can build your name on a high profile popular product, even if the product is short lived. Businesses and product lines dont generally last forever! :-)

ProfessorLayton 4y ago

gestures broadly at the mobile app store duopoly

acdha 4y ago
This is true but I think there's a key difference which is worth considering if you're in this situation: app stores are in the business of selling apps. This means there's a risk of being Sherlock-ed but in general they're not going to decide that they suddenly want to stop existing. They want you to sell lots of copies since they get a cut of every sale: if you're successful, they make a ton of money for a modest level of expense. Something like a Twitter client is not only not part of their core business of selling ads but diametrically opposed to it so you have a much higher risk of unexpectedly being out of business because their success is not directly linked to yours. Arguments about innovation, bringing in super users, etc. are good but they're more tenuous and exactly the kind of thing some executive will dismiss when compared to the money they can make right now with more ad sales.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Neither of the major app stores is in the business of selling apps. Apple is in the business of selling iPhones and Google is in the business of selling ads.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Apple and Google each make tens of billions annually from their portion of sales, they’re not going to lightly jeopardize that. In contrast, Twitter sees third-party developers as a cost.
lmm 4y ago
Yep. Building (consumer) mobile apps is a mug's game.

gilgoomesh 4y ago

I don’t think that’s the lesson. Twitterrific was a huge success and “kept the lights on” for Iconfactory for a decade. The lesson is not that building on the services of others is bad. It was good. But you don’t get to choose when it will end.

switz 4y ago

That's the wrong lesson to learn, in my opinion. One should understand the ramifications and risks of building a business on top of someone else's platform, but doing so can actually let you shortcut a lot of really difficult steps, such as user acquisition. These people built successful businesses for nigh a decade, and even if they were eventually shut off due to a change in ownership, they still presumably earned ample profit. Personally, I've built a business on top of someone else's platform (Valve) and it was hugely beneficial for me even though I was very aware I could be cut off at any point. All businesses are a gamble, pick what gambles you want to take and be honest about their upsides and downsides.

tiffanyh 4y ago
The difference is Valve is a platform built with the intent for others to build upon. It’s literally what the core service is and there’s a built in revenue share (contract) between the developers and Valve. No such construct nor intent existed with Twitter.
- switz 4y ago
  > The difference is Valve is a platform built with the intent for others to build upon. Not necessarily. I'm not selling a game on Steam, I built my business providing a third party service around one of Valve's self-developed games. Generally speaking, Valve is friendlier to developers so it was a safer bet, but it was in no way a contract nor guaranteed. Twitter actually used to promote third party apps in their sidebar. Even though they long ago made it clear that third party apps were being hamstrung, for quite some time they actually encouraged third party apps being developed and didn't bother them too much beyond limiting their access to the streaming API.