5 ms·

I think you missed the point of the article. Right now, Twitter has rigid limits in place - you don't think it'd be better for developers to at least know in ad

by pytrin 14y ago

I think you missed the point of the article. Right now, Twitter has rigid limits in place - you don't think it'd be better for developers to at least know in advance they can go past that limit, even if it means they have to pay? There are many uses for twitter data outside of just repeating the tweets with a different design. There are quite a few Twitter apps that generate revenue and some have also been acquired by bigger companies. Twitter and Google main service offering are not comparable, since Twitter has the actual data while Google is a gateway.

diego 14y ago
I didn't miss the point. Twitter does not want developers to go past that limit. Pay or no pay, it doesn't matter to Twitter. It's not part of the plan.
- pytrin 14y ago
  Glad to hear this was never a discussion. You should've just stated originally that you know exactly what twitter wants, and left it there.
  - diego 14y ago
    Have you spoken with someone at Twitter about this? I have. If you haven't, there's nothing to discuss.
    - pytrin 14y ago
      So you've specifically asked someone in a position to make those decisions at twitter, whether they'd considered taxing their API? and they told you explicitly "No, we want to cap API usage regardless if it can be a profitable channel or not"
- hythloday 14y ago
  From the actual announcement: "we will require you to work with us directly if you believe your application will need more than one million individual user tokens"[0] which sounds like "show us the money" to me. You can of course assert that "we want to talk to you" obviously means "we don't want to talk to you", but once you do so without evidence you're firmly in tinfoil hat territory. [0] https://dev.twitter.com/blog/changes-coming-to-twitter-api https://dev.twitter.com/blog/changes-coming-to-twitter-api
  - diego 14y ago
    Of course they mean they want to talk to you. But that doesn't mean they want money. More likely they'd want to acqui(hi)re you and incorporate whatever made made you successful into their product.
    - denzil_correa 14y ago
      Which in some sense is still wanting the money!

by pytrin 14y ago

diego 14y ago

I didn't miss the point. Twitter does not want developers to go past that limit. Pay or no pay, it doesn't matter to Twitter. It's not part of the plan.

pytrin 14y ago
Glad to hear this was never a discussion. You should've just stated originally that you know exactly what twitter wants, and left it there.
- diego 14y ago
  Have you spoken with someone at Twitter about this? I have. If you haven't, there's nothing to discuss.
  - pytrin 14y ago
    So you've specifically asked someone in a position to make those decisions at twitter, whether they'd considered taxing their API? and they told you explicitly "No, we want to cap API usage regardless if it can be a profitable channel or not"
hythloday 14y ago
From the actual announcement: "we will require you to work with us directly if you believe your application will need more than one million individual user tokens"[0] which sounds like "show us the money" to me. You can of course assert that "we want to talk to you" obviously means "we don't want to talk to you", but once you do so without evidence you're firmly in tinfoil hat territory. [0] https://dev.twitter.com/blog/changes-coming-to-twitter-api https://dev.twitter.com/blog/changes-coming-to-twitter-api
- diego 14y ago
  Of course they mean they want to talk to you. But that doesn't mean they want money. More likely they'd want to acqui(hi)re you and incorporate whatever made made you successful into their product.
  - denzil_correa 14y ago
    Which in some sense is still wanting the money!