3 ms·

How would a union negotiate API usage limits that Twitter places on 3rd party developers? Unions as a whole have become pretty detrimental to society, no matter

How would a union negotiate API usage limits that Twitter places on 3rd party developers? Unions as a whole have become pretty detrimental to society, no matter how much they originally helped. More importantly, think of something to build besides another damn Twitter client. If you can't, get a job like everyone else until you have a better idea you can execute.

pytrin 14y ago
I didn't offer any easy solutions, only the concept of a body that can represent many developers in order to have actual leverage against those companies. Twitter is just one example.
- greghinch 14y ago
  So a union would help workers negotiate things like wages, benefits, and overall treatment of workers. What you are proposing with this analogy is some kind of organization that would somehow have the power from outside of a given business to force that business to adopt practices preferred by third parties. Not really the same thing, not sure how you would go about forming such an entity, and frankly it sounds pretty terrible for the business climate as a whole.
  - pytrin 14y ago
    A union doesn't have to necessarily regulate wages - just be a source for developer grievance against companies that generate value from their work. Also consider that you don't have to be a part of the union if you don't agree with its principles. The only power a union has is from his members willing to negotiate collectively, there's nothing more to it.
    - greghinch 14y ago
      The fundamental difference remains: a union is for influencing an organization by employees for the employees (within). What you want is to influence on behalf third parties with no affiliation with the organization.
      - pytrin 14y ago
        I'm not sure what is the 3rd party you are referring to. There are two sides here - individual developers or small dev companies, and giant tech companies - who should be working together to create a healthy ecosystem, but when one is in conflict with the other the giant companies do whatever they want. A union is a collection of individuals / small companies that together have enough leverage to negotiate on better terms with the giant companies.
        greghinch 14y ago
        First of all, I don't think you understand what a union is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Stat... Second, I don't think that's a very realistic picture of how things work. There are businesses which have a) a plan for how to operate and make money b) employees whom they pay to perform services. Then there are outside parties who may interact with that business in some way. But the business is going to operate in the fashion that makes the most sense for the business. So Twitter has decided that it is in it's own best interest to limit how outside parties interact with its service. You'll have to convince them otherwise if you want to reverse that. Similarly, Apple has decided that allowing outside parties to have a certain degree of free reign in developing for its products is best for its business. Hopefully the distinction is fairly clear, but I'll lay it out because it seems like maybe it isn't to you: Apple makes most of its money selling devices like iPhones, iPads, and computers. Third parties developing software for those devices only serves to increase their sales. Twitter, on the other hand, is still trying to nail down their business model for making money. Third parties developing software using Twitter's APIs really only serves to increase the load on their servers. Perhaps initially it helped drive traffic, generate interface ideas, and even offered a company or two for Twitter to buy and integrate, but they are beyond that need now. At best they may be interested in allowing outside parties to build software on top of their service IF you grant them a share of the money you make in doing so (hence the whole, "let's talk when you get over your token limit" stance). Businesses exist to make money. So if you want Twitter to open up their service, you'll need to demonstrate how it makes them money. That's the bottom line.

pytrin 14y ago

I didn't offer any easy solutions, only the concept of a body that can represent many developers in order to have actual leverage against those companies. Twitter is just one example.

greghinch 14y ago
So a union would help workers negotiate things like wages, benefits, and overall treatment of workers. What you are proposing with this analogy is some kind of organization that would somehow have the power from outside of a given business to force that business to adopt practices preferred by third parties. Not really the same thing, not sure how you would go about forming such an entity, and frankly it sounds pretty terrible for the business climate as a whole.
- pytrin 14y ago
  A union doesn't have to necessarily regulate wages - just be a source for developer grievance against companies that generate value from their work. Also consider that you don't have to be a part of the union if you don't agree with its principles. The only power a union has is from his members willing to negotiate collectively, there's nothing more to it.
  - greghinch 14y ago
    The fundamental difference remains: a union is for influencing an organization by employees for the employees (within). What you want is to influence on behalf third parties with no affiliation with the organization.
    - pytrin 14y ago
      I'm not sure what is the 3rd party you are referring to. There are two sides here - individual developers or small dev companies, and giant tech companies - who should be working together to create a healthy ecosystem, but when one is in conflict with the other the giant companies do whatever they want. A union is a collection of individuals / small companies that together have enough leverage to negotiate on better terms with the giant companies.
      - greghinch 14y ago
        First of all, I don't think you understand what a union is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Stat... Second, I don't think that's a very realistic picture of how things work. There are businesses which have a) a plan for how to operate and make money b) employees whom they pay to perform services. Then there are outside parties who may interact with that business in some way. But the business is going to operate in the fashion that makes the most sense for the business. So Twitter has decided that it is in it's own best interest to limit how outside parties interact with its service. You'll have to convince them otherwise if you want to reverse that. Similarly, Apple has decided that allowing outside parties to have a certain degree of free reign in developing for its products is best for its business. Hopefully the distinction is fairly clear, but I'll lay it out because it seems like maybe it isn't to you: Apple makes most of its money selling devices like iPhones, iPads, and computers. Third parties developing software for those devices only serves to increase their sales. Twitter, on the other hand, is still trying to nail down their business model for making money. Third parties developing software using Twitter's APIs really only serves to increase the load on their servers. Perhaps initially it helped drive traffic, generate interface ideas, and even offered a company or two for Twitter to buy and integrate, but they are beyond that need now. At best they may be interested in allowing outside parties to build software on top of their service IF you grant them a share of the money you make in doing so (hence the whole, "let's talk when you get over your token limit" stance). Businesses exist to make money. So if you want Twitter to open up their service, you'll need to demonstrate how it makes them money. That's the bottom line.