3 ms·

I agree that the $99/yr stops me from making side apps (that could blow up into the next big thing, who knows) for Apple, I’ll just focus on the web platform in

by jmondi 4y ago

I agree that the $99/yr stops me from making side apps (that could blow up into the next big thing, who knows) for Apple, I’ll just focus on the web platform instead. Sorry to go on a tangent here to the bird site, but I can’t help but think how hysterical it is that the bird site wants to charge developers 12x the cost of the Apple developer program. $100/mo for twitter api access

Robotbeat 4y ago
Apparently Twitter plan to allow limited API access for $8/month? Still kind of silly, but more defensible.
- _boffin_ 4y ago
  I really don't understand your take. not one iota. To me, it seems that you're complaining about something that was once free, isn't anymore. It's a business and it's their data, electricity, servers, users, etc...
  - sneak 4y ago
    They're not Twitter's users. They are independent publishers publishing their information on the open web, and Twitter is rentseeking. It'd be the same as a web host prohibiting certain browsers, or trying to block you from publishing RSS.
    - aksss 4y ago
      Is that a good comparison though?? I mean, an API is a luxury if it’s exposed to the outside world for free, you’re still free to screen scrape Twitter. Or cross post your own feed to RSS. Twitter, like any company, isn’t obligated to facilitate programmatic access by third parties for free. Usually that kind of thing is done to build an ecosystem but obviously Twitter feels they get less value out of this deep access now than third party developers do. Not sure how this is anything like “a web host preventing you from publishing RSS”.
    - _boffin_ 4y ago
      - They have a Twitter account? - They use Twitter resources? - They use Twitter's platform? - If Twitter went down, they wouldn't be able to post their Tweet? > It'd be the same as a web host prohibiting certain browsers, or trying to block you from publishing RSS. You have a wild imagination.
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Huh? Publishing a website “on the open web” costs money. I pay Google to host my website. If I hosted it on my own machine I’d still pay domain registration and ISP fees plus electricity and hardware costs. It’s not totally indefensible for Twitter to charge a small fee for access, although I’m not sure it’s a good idea in this case.

by jmondi 4y ago

Robotbeat 4y ago

Apparently Twitter plan to allow limited API access for $8/month? Still kind of silly, but more defensible.

_boffin_ 4y ago
I really don't understand your take. not one iota. To me, it seems that you're complaining about something that was once free, isn't anymore. It's a business and it's their data, electricity, servers, users, etc...
- sneak 4y ago
  They're not Twitter's users. They are independent publishers publishing their information on the open web, and Twitter is rentseeking. It'd be the same as a web host prohibiting certain browsers, or trying to block you from publishing RSS.
  - aksss 4y ago
    Is that a good comparison though?? I mean, an API is a luxury if it’s exposed to the outside world for free, you’re still free to screen scrape Twitter. Or cross post your own feed to RSS. Twitter, like any company, isn’t obligated to facilitate programmatic access by third parties for free. Usually that kind of thing is done to build an ecosystem but obviously Twitter feels they get less value out of this deep access now than third party developers do. Not sure how this is anything like “a web host preventing you from publishing RSS”.
  - _boffin_ 4y ago
    - They have a Twitter account? - They use Twitter resources? - They use Twitter's platform? - If Twitter went down, they wouldn't be able to post their Tweet? > It'd be the same as a web host prohibiting certain browsers, or trying to block you from publishing RSS. You have a wild imagination.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Huh? Publishing a website “on the open web” costs money. I pay Google to host my website. If I hosted it on my own machine I’d still pay domain registration and ISP fees plus electricity and hardware costs. It’s not totally indefensible for Twitter to charge a small fee for access, although I’m not sure it’s a good idea in this case.