3 ms·

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

by 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.