4 ms·

Twitter are gambling that they are now powerful enough to say "No more 3rd party clients", and thus start streaming ads down peoples throats (oh, sorry - "Riche

Twitter are gambling that they are now powerful enough to say "No more 3rd party clients", and thus start streaming ads down peoples throats (oh, sorry - "Richer stories" is apparently the nuspeak). I'm not sure they're yet in a position to dictate this, especially given how bad their own clients are compared to some other options. The interesting thing about Twitter compared to e.g. Facebook is that the social graph is very weak. I (and in anecdata, many people I know) use it to follow some "big names", and a splattering of smaller names, for broadcast information. I occasionally send something out, but it's not a strong set of connections. The network effect is thus minimal; migrating over to app.net would be easy, as I'm not that bothered that I have exactly the same followers/followees. When the pain of the service outweighs it's smallish value, I'll just jump ship. Even more people out there are just passive followers of celebrity names. Facebook or similar could launch a "Flitter" that did everything they wanted, and get a mass migration pretty easily - once people get annoyed enough to start looking around. If Twitter continue on this path, that threshold will be reached much sooner than I originally expected.

dusing 14y ago
"Twitter are gambling that they are now powerful enough to say "No more 3rd party clients" Isn't it more: No more free data for 3rd party clients? (past a certain amount) Companies can still buy unlimited realtime data through twitter's monitization child DataSift. Meaning the death of free 3rd party apps. Maybe now that they have to charge a good chunk we will get better 3rd party apps?
- eridius 14y ago
  I haven't really looked at it, but I don't think DataSift is intended for twitter clients to use.
  - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
    Not certain about DataSift, but we used Gnip and part of the terms was you couldn't display tweets to your users directly off the firehose. I'd imagine DataSift has a similar restriction. Besides that; neither give you access to private tweets or DMs, so you pretty much have to use the API for a client of any worth.
- dabeeeenster 14y ago
  Are Twitter and DataSift linked in any way in terms of their company ownership etc?
- lamebrain 14y ago
  Did you miss when Twitter explicitly told developers not to make any more third-party Twitter clients? The situation is simple, and just as the comment you replied to states.
breckinloggins 14y ago
I just really don't get it. If the problem is that they can't figure out how to monetize third party apps, the answer is staring them right in the face. So, Twitter is already going to dictate what the tweet view looks like. In-stream ads won't be much more than tweets. So why not stipulate that an app MUST show in-stream ads in a given format? If the app wishes to not show ads or to use twitter for more of an "infrastructure-like" purpose, then there should be some kind of use-fee-based pricing model on the API side. Sure, people might bitch about the high API costs, but it's better than nothing. Or maybe that was their plan all along: throw out these API changes threatening to cut everyone completely off, then eventually "concede" with new ad-supported and use-fee API rules and have everyone applaud them for "listening to their customers". You'll have to forgive me for being more cynical than normal... but with this twitter stuff lately it just seems like we've all entered into the Twilight Zone of Suck.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  You're proposing 2 competing business models. Ads are devalued if some users can opt-out of them.
  - breckinloggins 14y ago
    Understood, but I'm wondering if there's a compromise somewhere.
  - troethom 14y ago
    I think it could work. The set of users who would pay is a completely different demographic than those who are following Justin Bieber. You're only devaluing the market for the adverts that would appeal to everyone.
    - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
      Aren't "users who will pay" the most desirable demographic for marketing to?
twoodfin 14y ago
I (and in anecdata, many people I know) use it to follow some "big names", and a splattering of smaller names, for broadcast information. Why is this a negative? To a first approximation, the "big names" you follow are an indication of your interests, and advertisers are very comfortable with broadcast media. Following anyone also indicates a degree of commitment that simply hitting a "Like" button does not: You're willing to see everything that person/business Tweets.

dusing 14y ago

"Twitter are gambling that they are now powerful enough to say "No more 3rd party clients" Isn't it more: No more free data for 3rd party clients? (past a certain amount) Companies can still buy unlimited realtime data through twitter's monitization child DataSift. Meaning the death of free 3rd party apps. Maybe now that they have to charge a good chunk we will get better 3rd party apps?

eridius 14y ago
I haven't really looked at it, but I don't think DataSift is intended for twitter clients to use.
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  Not certain about DataSift, but we used Gnip and part of the terms was you couldn't display tweets to your users directly off the firehose. I'd imagine DataSift has a similar restriction. Besides that; neither give you access to private tweets or DMs, so you pretty much have to use the API for a client of any worth.
dabeeeenster 14y ago
Are Twitter and DataSift linked in any way in terms of their company ownership etc?
lamebrain 14y ago
Did you miss when Twitter explicitly told developers not to make any more third-party Twitter clients? The situation is simple, and just as the comment you replied to states.

breckinloggins 14y ago

I just really don't get it. If the problem is that they can't figure out how to monetize third party apps, the answer is staring them right in the face. So, Twitter is already going to dictate what the tweet view looks like. In-stream ads won't be much more than tweets. So why not stipulate that an app MUST show in-stream ads in a given format? If the app wishes to not show ads or to use twitter for more of an "infrastructure-like" purpose, then there should be some kind of use-fee-based pricing model on the API side. Sure, people might bitch about the high API costs, but it's better than nothing. Or maybe that was their plan all along: throw out these API changes threatening to cut everyone completely off, then eventually "concede" with new ad-supported and use-fee API rules and have everyone applaud them for "listening to their customers". You'll have to forgive me for being more cynical than normal... but with this twitter stuff lately it just seems like we've all entered into the Twilight Zone of Suck.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
You're proposing 2 competing business models. Ads are devalued if some users can opt-out of them.
- breckinloggins 14y ago
  Understood, but I'm wondering if there's a compromise somewhere.
- troethom 14y ago
  I think it could work. The set of users who would pay is a completely different demographic than those who are following Justin Bieber. You're only devaluing the market for the adverts that would appeal to everyone.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    Aren't "users who will pay" the most desirable demographic for marketing to?

twoodfin 14y ago

I (and in anecdata, many people I know) use it to follow some "big names", and a splattering of smaller names, for broadcast information. Why is this a negative? To a first approximation, the "big names" you follow are an indication of your interests, and advertisers are very comfortable with broadcast media. Following anyone also indicates a degree of commitment that simply hitting a "Like" button does not: You're willing to see everything that person/business Tweets.