3 ms·

is it incompetent to not maintain something you don't want to maintain?

• addisonl 4y ago
  It's incompetent to not want to maintain it.
  • 100721 4y ago
    * without taking it offline
• pcthrowaway 4y ago
  The incompetence is at the very top, choosing not to maintain something that they were apparently making $400m/year from paid subscribers for
  • cutemonster 4y ago
    Yes, at the same time, this: > complete incompetence over there sounded to me as if it also includes the employees
  • dev_daftly 4y ago
    The post seems to talk about 2 different APIs, a public one they are not continuing to work on and a commercial one that makes $400mm/year
• yamtaddle 4y ago
  The API's the thing that makes Twitter tolerably-usable to heavy users—the ones who draw eyeballs to the site so the ads are worth more than $0.00—right? If so, not wanting to maintain it would probably count as incompetent, yes.
  • imiric 4y ago
    I'm not familiar with Twitter or its API, but are ads also returned via the API? If not, then it would be more profitable for them to heavily restrict API access, and kill off 3rd party clients, so that more people would use the official clients where ads are actually shown. I.e. they don't care about heavy users if they can't make a profit from them.
    • yamtaddle 4y ago
      Heavy users are the ones who generate the content that gives the site value in the first place, though. Advertisers aren't there to sell products to the 1% of users who make most of the posts, they're there to sell to the 99% reading those posts. Making posting on twitter a bigger pain for the people who do most of the posting—and especially for celebrity and brand accounts that get tons of "engagement" they want/need to keep track of—is probably not a great move.
• marcellus23 4y ago
  Yes, without either taking the API down or publishing a disclaimer that it's deprecated.
• nonethewiser 4y ago
  Nope