4 ms·

I don't really understand the need for a desktop client to begin with. The site works just fine and there's no extra software to install, just a web browser. Th

I don't really understand the need for a desktop client to begin with. The site works just fine and there's no extra software to install, just a web browser. That said, I also think an official Twitter Mac client is redundant now that Mountain Lion is out. The built in sharing and that thingy that swipes out from the right of the screen and lets you Tweet work fine for making posts then the site itself is just fine for consuming them. I've never understood needing a desktop client for most websites really. To me they're just a waste of space, one more app to have running, and a constant distraction with all their alerts. My phone alerts me enough as it is. I'm on my Mac to get stuff done most of the time. I don't know, maybe I'm just an old fashioned 26 year old. To each their own I suppose. Now, that last bit in the post I didn't quite get - "out of spite". Is there some political reason that Twitter would be spiteful toward the Mac platform? If so I don't understand why especially since Twitter is now built into iOS and OS X. Can someone explain that please?

masklinn 14y ago
> The site works just fine For low values of fine, it takes a huge amount of resources, is pretty slow (especially on older hardware or browsers), doesn't — as far as I know — remember where you were in your timeline and what you have or have not read yet (and yes, I do like seeing all the tweets of the people I'm following), etc... > The built in sharing and that thingy that swipes out from the right of the screen and lets you Tweet work fine for making posts Except if you want to make arbitrary tweets or discuss things. > the site itself is just fine for consuming them. It does not. > I've never understood needing a desktop client for most websites really. Because there are situations and services for which a desktop client simply works better. > To me they're just a waste of space Great, here's an idea, don't use them if you don't like them. Others don't agree and will just keep using them. Deal?
- bpatrianakos 14y ago
  Why the tone? I don't use them. I tried. I gave my opinion, asked some questions, and my opinions were there to give context as to why I'm asking the questions. I know we're used to seeing everyone spout off their opinions as if their opinions were facts but what I said was clearly an innocent opinion. What's with everyone being on edge here? Why does everyone want to pick a fight or be the guy that tells everyone else why they're wrong? Sheesh, everyone complaining about HN going downhill is right (now that is an opinion said as if it were fact). In any case, I'm actually really interested in the comment about spite Gruber makes at the end. Can anyone answer that?
  - akaBruce 14y ago
    I'm going to start by saying I really don't know, but here are my guesses. It's all about the way they collect data for advertising and for analytics. For example, Twitter gives you the option to tailor itself (its ads?) based on the websites you visit. http://i.imgur.com/EWU2l.png http://i.imgur.com/EWU2l.png Facebook tracks you with their Like button, I imagine Twitter is doing something similar. And while they can track you while logged out, they would probably be better off if they could tie that information to all the followers, followees, and behaviors associated with an account. My second example is embedded tweets. Although I can't find the article or blog post, I remember seeing a while back that Twitter wanted to start pushing people to use their embedded tweets rather than images. https://dev.twitter.com/docs/embedded-tweets https://dev.twitter.com/docs/embedded-tweets Aside from providing the user with a better experience (like being able to click on the users' names to go to their profiles) or letting Twitter control the user experience, this also allows Twitter to embed tracking pixels. Highlighted in this picture are the tracking pixels loaded in Chrome when I embedded the latest tweet from the Twitter account on a web page. http://i.imgur.com/SeVaQ.png http://i.imgur.com/SeVaQ.png And this next example wasn't made for the web, but it plays into how they're trying to boost their own analaytics. While wrapping every link with their t.co url shortener does give them control over thing like killing spam links, it also lets them track which links became popular from which tweets. That's why they'll still use their t.co links on already short links (reminder: in my opinion). I believe this solution works out for them because if someone clicks a link from their official Android app or from a 3rd party app like MetroTwit, they can still track the referral came from a tweet. To summarize, I believe they're trying to boost their advertising relevance and trying to improve their analytics offerings to business accounts by using browser cookies.
    - bpatrianakos 14y ago
      So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the spite Gruber mentions comes from the fact that they can't track you I'm the native app. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption but I don't think it really has much to do with spite. I read in another comment that maybe they're getting rid of all traces of the old guard's legacy and that seems to me more likely to be where the spite Gruber mentions plays into this.
yesimahuman 14y ago
I'm using TweetDeck extensively as I now manage multiple accounts for my personal and business accounts. I really like that the Twitter for iPad version has this already built in. This is the biggest lacking feature on the web version. I do hope they fix this.
- bpatrianakos 14y ago
  Yeah I get this. I never thought of this and it actually applies to me too. I manage like 6 accounts right now but since I use only one so much I forget. I tend to go on my other accounts on my iPad and iPhone more because of the Twitter app so good point. I wonder though if Twitter really wants to encourage people to have multiple accounts? I mean, they don't do much to stop it but they also don't encourage it. So two questions: 1. Does or would It make sense for Twitter to frown upon multiple accounts per user? Honestly asking, I can see both good and bad in it and I wonder, if you (the collective "you", that is) were Twitter, would you want this, not like it, or not care either way? 2. If the Twitter site had an easy way to switch between accounts like the iOS apps do, would this encourage more people to create multiple accounts? Or would only the portion of users who already seek out multiple accounts use it while those who don't have them simply not use the feature? To put it another way (sorry to repeat myself but I just want to be really clear) does having that feature encourage people only have one account to use the ability to switch between accounts just because they can?
lukifer 14y ago
Part of the value of the web is that it need not be confined to browsers. As an open protocol, content can be parsed by a variety of clients, and/or wrapped up in candy-coated shells (Fluid, etc), and/or served up via API for the benefit of native apps and mashups. Twitter wants to have their cake and eat it too: to benefit from the open web while contributing back as little as possible. Also, the Twitter website is currently a terrible poster child for web apps: it's slow and bloated, to the point that I'll sometimes forget what I was going to tweet by the time it fully loads. If we were talking about the old site, which was clean and minimal HTML with a handful of progressive enhancements, it might be a different story.
- bpatrianakos 14y ago
  Though I haven't used it in a long time I really like Fluid. Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying about APIs and their relation to native apps as well as the protocol thing. Those are all really good reasons to have native apps. I was specifically talking about Twitter and yeah I guess I did throw in other sites but I had a very narrow segment of web apps I use in mind actually. I never knew so many people hated the web based twitter. I never had a problem with it. So now I get why people love their twitter app so much. Thanks for not getting all defensive in your reply. I didn't realize people would take my original comment as if it were aggressive or something.
hansy 14y ago
"I've never understood needing a desktop client for most websites really." One less tab in my already inundated browser (20+ tabs open at any given time easy) makes a world of difference. At least for me, it's so much easier to swipe to a different desktop on my Mac than it is to hunt for a particular tab.
sbarre 14y ago
> The built in sharing and that thingy that swipes out from the right of the screen and lets you Tweet work fine for making posts then the site itself is just fine for consuming them. One simple concept that makes all of this fall flat: Multiple accounts. If you're just looking to share things on Twitter, then the built-in stuff in OS X, or a bookmarklet, can work. But if you use Twitter primarily as a newsfeed, to read/monitor things, and if you need to quickly check multiple accounts, doing so via the twitter.com website is extremely painful and slow.
brigade 14y ago
Are you using the same site I am? It's faster than it used to be but it's still one of the slowest sites I know of. Not to mention that they randomly break core functionality for months at a time.
rhizome 14y ago
The site works just fine How do I add text to a retweet?
- bpatrianakos 14y ago
  Copy and paste it into a new tweet and add "RT" to it. There's a difference between the site functioning as intended and the site being all things to all people. Just because there isn't a one-click solution for every feature doesn't mean the site isn't working fine. It means it leaves something to be desired for you. By the same token just because the site works fine for me doesn't mean it's right for everyone else. I get what you're saying though. I didn't say this to argue that I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I learned from the replies to my original comment that I am not a typical Twitter user. I had no clue so many people had such a problem with the site. See, I'm socially retarded. I just don't get how to be social online and often offline (the only time I shine socially is when I'm performing like in an interview, selling, or giving a presentation). So my Twitter usage is less than others' and not typical. At the same time, I still think the site does what it was intended for and I havent seen any function of it not available through the web interface. When it comes down to it, you're right and I'm right. But you're definitely more right.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Right, because it's not "every feature," it's just probably the most common one after tweeting itself, and one that is probably a top-3 driver for third-party clients. Then again, I'm of the mind that they're rolling up all this functionality in order to launch something new. It's just the beginning, and there's a reason why it's going drip drip drip: building interest.

masklinn 14y ago

> The site works just fine For low values of fine, it takes a huge amount of resources, is pretty slow (especially on older hardware or browsers), doesn't — as far as I know — remember where you were in your timeline and what you have or have not read yet (and yes, I do like seeing all the tweets of the people I'm following), etc... > The built in sharing and that thingy that swipes out from the right of the screen and lets you Tweet work fine for making posts Except if you want to make arbitrary tweets or discuss things. > the site itself is just fine for consuming them. It does not. > I've never understood needing a desktop client for most websites really. Because there are situations and services for which a desktop client simply works better. > To me they're just a waste of space Great, here's an idea, don't use them if you don't like them. Others don't agree and will just keep using them. Deal?

bpatrianakos 14y ago
Why the tone? I don't use them. I tried. I gave my opinion, asked some questions, and my opinions were there to give context as to why I'm asking the questions. I know we're used to seeing everyone spout off their opinions as if their opinions were facts but what I said was clearly an innocent opinion. What's with everyone being on edge here? Why does everyone want to pick a fight or be the guy that tells everyone else why they're wrong? Sheesh, everyone complaining about HN going downhill is right (now that is an opinion said as if it were fact). In any case, I'm actually really interested in the comment about spite Gruber makes at the end. Can anyone answer that?
- akaBruce 14y ago
  I'm going to start by saying I really don't know, but here are my guesses. It's all about the way they collect data for advertising and for analytics. For example, Twitter gives you the option to tailor itself (its ads?) based on the websites you visit. http://i.imgur.com/EWU2l.png http://i.imgur.com/EWU2l.png Facebook tracks you with their Like button, I imagine Twitter is doing something similar. And while they can track you while logged out, they would probably be better off if they could tie that information to all the followers, followees, and behaviors associated with an account. My second example is embedded tweets. Although I can't find the article or blog post, I remember seeing a while back that Twitter wanted to start pushing people to use their embedded tweets rather than images. https://dev.twitter.com/docs/embedded-tweets https://dev.twitter.com/docs/embedded-tweets Aside from providing the user with a better experience (like being able to click on the users' names to go to their profiles) or letting Twitter control the user experience, this also allows Twitter to embed tracking pixels. Highlighted in this picture are the tracking pixels loaded in Chrome when I embedded the latest tweet from the Twitter account on a web page. http://i.imgur.com/SeVaQ.png http://i.imgur.com/SeVaQ.png And this next example wasn't made for the web, but it plays into how they're trying to boost their own analaytics. While wrapping every link with their t.co url shortener does give them control over thing like killing spam links, it also lets them track which links became popular from which tweets. That's why they'll still use their t.co links on already short links (reminder: in my opinion). I believe this solution works out for them because if someone clicks a link from their official Android app or from a 3rd party app like MetroTwit, they can still track the referral came from a tweet. To summarize, I believe they're trying to boost their advertising relevance and trying to improve their analytics offerings to business accounts by using browser cookies.
  - bpatrianakos 14y ago
    So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the spite Gruber mentions comes from the fact that they can't track you I'm the native app. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption but I don't think it really has much to do with spite. I read in another comment that maybe they're getting rid of all traces of the old guard's legacy and that seems to me more likely to be where the spite Gruber mentions plays into this.

yesimahuman 14y ago

I'm using TweetDeck extensively as I now manage multiple accounts for my personal and business accounts. I really like that the Twitter for iPad version has this already built in. This is the biggest lacking feature on the web version. I do hope they fix this.

bpatrianakos 14y ago
Yeah I get this. I never thought of this and it actually applies to me too. I manage like 6 accounts right now but since I use only one so much I forget. I tend to go on my other accounts on my iPad and iPhone more because of the Twitter app so good point. I wonder though if Twitter really wants to encourage people to have multiple accounts? I mean, they don't do much to stop it but they also don't encourage it. So two questions: 1. Does or would It make sense for Twitter to frown upon multiple accounts per user? Honestly asking, I can see both good and bad in it and I wonder, if you (the collective "you", that is) were Twitter, would you want this, not like it, or not care either way? 2. If the Twitter site had an easy way to switch between accounts like the iOS apps do, would this encourage more people to create multiple accounts? Or would only the portion of users who already seek out multiple accounts use it while those who don't have them simply not use the feature? To put it another way (sorry to repeat myself but I just want to be really clear) does having that feature encourage people only have one account to use the ability to switch between accounts just because they can?

lukifer 14y ago

Part of the value of the web is that it need not be confined to browsers. As an open protocol, content can be parsed by a variety of clients, and/or wrapped up in candy-coated shells (Fluid, etc), and/or served up via API for the benefit of native apps and mashups. Twitter wants to have their cake and eat it too: to benefit from the open web while contributing back as little as possible. Also, the Twitter website is currently a terrible poster child for web apps: it's slow and bloated, to the point that I'll sometimes forget what I was going to tweet by the time it fully loads. If we were talking about the old site, which was clean and minimal HTML with a handful of progressive enhancements, it might be a different story.

bpatrianakos 14y ago
Though I haven't used it in a long time I really like Fluid. Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying about APIs and their relation to native apps as well as the protocol thing. Those are all really good reasons to have native apps. I was specifically talking about Twitter and yeah I guess I did throw in other sites but I had a very narrow segment of web apps I use in mind actually. I never knew so many people hated the web based twitter. I never had a problem with it. So now I get why people love their twitter app so much. Thanks for not getting all defensive in your reply. I didn't realize people would take my original comment as if it were aggressive or something.

hansy 14y ago

"I've never understood needing a desktop client for most websites really." One less tab in my already inundated browser (20+ tabs open at any given time easy) makes a world of difference. At least for me, it's so much easier to swipe to a different desktop on my Mac than it is to hunt for a particular tab.

sbarre 14y ago

> The built in sharing and that thingy that swipes out from the right of the screen and lets you Tweet work fine for making posts then the site itself is just fine for consuming them. One simple concept that makes all of this fall flat: Multiple accounts. If you're just looking to share things on Twitter, then the built-in stuff in OS X, or a bookmarklet, can work. But if you use Twitter primarily as a newsfeed, to read/monitor things, and if you need to quickly check multiple accounts, doing so via the twitter.com website is extremely painful and slow.

brigade 14y ago

Are you using the same site I am? It's faster than it used to be but it's still one of the slowest sites I know of. Not to mention that they randomly break core functionality for months at a time.

rhizome 14y ago

The site works just fine How do I add text to a retweet?

bpatrianakos 14y ago
Copy and paste it into a new tweet and add "RT" to it. There's a difference between the site functioning as intended and the site being all things to all people. Just because there isn't a one-click solution for every feature doesn't mean the site isn't working fine. It means it leaves something to be desired for you. By the same token just because the site works fine for me doesn't mean it's right for everyone else. I get what you're saying though. I didn't say this to argue that I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I learned from the replies to my original comment that I am not a typical Twitter user. I had no clue so many people had such a problem with the site. See, I'm socially retarded. I just don't get how to be social online and often offline (the only time I shine socially is when I'm performing like in an interview, selling, or giving a presentation). So my Twitter usage is less than others' and not typical. At the same time, I still think the site does what it was intended for and I havent seen any function of it not available through the web interface. When it comes down to it, you're right and I'm right. But you're definitely more right.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Right, because it's not "every feature," it's just probably the most common one after tweeting itself, and one that is probably a top-3 driver for third-party clients. Then again, I'm of the mind that they're rolling up all this functionality in order to launch something new. It's just the beginning, and there's a reason why it's going drip drip drip: building interest.