8 ms·

I Haven't Quit Twitter - Twitter Quit Me

75 points by edent 14y ago

mattacular 14y ago
Yawn.
xpose2000 14y ago
I'm not sure exactly what people are expecting out of Twitter at this point? Developers were the ONLY victims here. They have a right to be angry. Twitter used them to build their platform and then bought out the bigger companies and said: "We'll take it from here folks". But what did the developers think was going to happen? Twitter's college days are long gone. Twitter needs to make money and take back control of their platform to provide a unified user experience. The truth is that 99% of the Twitter user base uses it as if nothing has changed. That's because it hasn't. Most people can deal with the occasional ad in their face. No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than ever before. Yet there are complaints that Twitter shows the occasional ad in your stream. So what. Twitter is still developing and working on useful features (Twitter Cards). Their website is still in the process removing hashbangs, which is making it faster. So I ask again, what are people expecting out of Twitter at this point?
- edent 14y ago
  (Author here) I think regular users miss out as well. Some of the changes that Twitter introduced were good for normal users (especially about embedded clients) - but I still have tens of thousands of people using my service. Presumably because it offers something which the "official" one doesn't. I would expect Twitter to try and work with me. Twitter Cards, for example, aren't available through the API. Why does Twitter need a unified experience? Email doesn't have one. Nor does any other form of communication. Twitter could have asked us to show their ads, or charged us for API use, or asked for community funding, or any of a hundred different way to keep developers and users happy. It comes down to respect. They've nothing but contempt for the people who helped them get where they are. And that's sad.
  - xpose2000 14y ago
    I hear you. Twitter Cards should be available through the API and find a better way to keep developers and their users happy. As far as the unified experience. I think Google+ is a good example of wanting a unified experience for the end user. As far as I know, they still do not offer a way to post via their API. Meaning, they want to control content creation (clients), but are open to developers using their data in new ways.
    - bduerst 14y ago
      Last time I checked the Google+ API was mostly read-only.
      - jat850 14y ago
        Currently, yes. Though I understand recently there was a preview window where some devs were given write access, which I (hopefully correctly) assume to mean that it's coming soonish.
- indiecore 14y ago
  >Most people can deal with the occasional ad in their face. No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than ever before. That's because of things like adblock which (let's face it) a large portion of people use. Hmm, I wonder if you can adblock Twitter ads, they have keywords you can filter out...
  - Sayter 14y ago
    Google Chrome has 310 million active users (according to Google at their I/O conference in June). In the Chrome Web Store, AdBlock is listed as having 9.3 million users, and Adblock Plus is listed as having 4.9 million users. Mozilla Firefox had 270 million users in 2009, and presumably has less than Chrome's 310 million now (given their smaller market share). Adblock Plus is listed as having 14 million users on Mozilla Addons. While it's entire possible (and indeed, likely) that these numbers are not completely accurate, it's also unlikely that they are outside of the ballmark (so to speak). For example, saying that Adblock usage numbers are off by half (that is to say that the usage would be closer to ~30 million than ~15 million), it would still only mean that 10% of Chrome and Firefox users choose to utilize the most popular Adblock choice(s). It's true that 10% or even 5% of users can be considered "a large portion" (due to the unquantified nature of the statement), but it also would not form a strong basis for confirming the assertion that "No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than before" (on the basis of Adblock usage by the general population).
  - adambyrtek 14y ago
    Large portion of people use AdBlock? Citation needed. Again, the discussion is not about developers, but the general population.
- mchanson 14y ago
  Its okay to criticize and be angry without any expectations that Twitter change.
- JoelSutherland 14y ago
  Wait, if screwing over developers doesn't affect 99% of users, what is the point of doing it in the first place. To capture 1% more revenue? I suspect in reality they expect their change to ultimately affect more than 1% of the user base. At this point I don't think people expect anything from Twitter. They may not have fully burnt the developer bridge but they are close. The way forward they chose, building another walled garden, was not the only way forward. It is the least creative and screws over the people that made them successful in the first place.
  - prawks 14y ago
    The point of doing it is to focus ads to generate revenue and provide a unified experience. It might not be creative, but it's not exactly uncommon.
  - redorb 14y ago
    The ratio of affected users and the profit received from reclaiming the whole platform aren't 1:1. That is to say I'm willing to bet twitter has gained more potential for revenue than 1% more revenue; while affecting 1% of their users.
- needle0 14y ago
  I imagine slightly more than 1% of the Twitter userbase will certainly be ticked off after their favorite third party client shuts down or removes valued features once the new requirements go into effect. For them something _has_ indeed changed - still a small number, but larger than 1%.
- ChiperSoft 14y ago
  > Twitter is still developing and working on useful features None of which are supported by the official mobile and desktop clients, if they're available through the API at all. Most of Twitter's extended functionality has come from third party developer involvement. And what happens when all the developers stop using Twitter and all the Twitter Clients stop working? Twitter doesn't seem interested in keeping their own clients up to date, so where will people go? Twitter is popular because the developers have made it convenient. When the convenience starts to wain, that 99% will start to drop. > No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than ever before Google's ads are not thrown into the middle of the content. On search results they are displayed above and on the side. In GMail they are displayed on a small bar above the main content region. YouTube ads appear before the main feature or as a dismissible popup along the bottom. What Twitter is doing is more akin to Google inserting an advertisement into the middle of your emails, or pausing a video to randomly throw up a full size banner that can't be dismissed. You bet your ass people would bitch about that!
Mike_Williams 14y ago
Agreed...
doktrin 14y ago
>> Twitter needs to make money. For some ridiculous decision, they’ve decided that selling eyeballs to advertisers is the way forward. >> Twitter decided that they needed to make money. There’s no shame in that. What is shameful is how boring they have been. At first glance, this attitude strikes me as being naive - however I acknowledge I do not have all the facts. I do not use Twitter, nor have a I followed their evolution particularly closely. However, I remember reading about them pursuing several different monetization strategies. Can someone comment on why they were abandoned? Were they insufficient or unsustainable?
- xpose2000 14y ago
  They do have other ways to make money. Brands can be shown as "recommended followers" to users for a price. Brands can also upgrade their accounts to show a banner of somesort (https://twitter.com/nylabone https://twitter.com/nylabone) and support "sticky tweets". Access to their API in large quantities is a source of revenue (I think). Promoted tweets in a user's stream is another source of revenue. There may be others, but these are the only ones I'm aware of.
blhack 14y ago
You pretty much lost all credibility when you quoted this: >Harvard – one of the most prestigious universities – awarded an MBA to George W Bush. A man many of us wouldn’t trust to sit the right way round on a toilet. As a reason not to trust Harvard. The world gets it. Those republicans surrreee are dummies. /puke The rest of your article is a bit naive. Computational linguistics is not considered a solved problem yet. Yes, twitter might have 26,000 or some odd tweets from you, but that doesn't mean that they "know" anything about you. It's dumb text. In fact, now that you've tweeted at the sun newspaper, how is twitter to know that you aren't interested in that newspaper? You're interacting with it, of course you would want to see ads from it, right? This [meaning targeted advertising] works for facebook (although arguably well since the meme is that facebook ads don't perform) because of the "like" system. I target ads at people who have "liked" things, not at people who have talked about them.
- edent 14y ago
  Hullo, Author here. I don't think Republicans are dumb - but I'm not convinced I'd want to invest in a company run by Bush http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/ http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/presid... On to your main point. Sentiment analysis is still imprecise - but seeing as the majority of my (news) links go to The Guardian or Independent, and none go to tabloids - it's not a stretch to say I'm unlikey to visit a News International title. I've never (knowingly) Tweeted or otherwise interacted with The Sun. That's one example out of many. At one point, I was sent targetted tweets about attending a conference in the USA - I live in the UK. If they were blindly targeted, it wouldn't feel so offensive.
  - blhack 14y ago
    What on earth does Bush running a company have to do with your article about twitter's advertising practices? This is the laziest form of writing I can think of and it makes you look juvenile. I have trouble taking anything you say seriously after that sort of nonsense, and I'd suspect that a big chunk of your readers are the same. -- Okay, you didn't tweet the sun, but you linked to a picture of somebody else who did. I'm sorry I don't know who you are well enough to recognize that handle as not yours. This is a serious question: how would twitter know what you're interested in? It's not a computational linguistics engine, it's a datastore. Explain to me how you would draw these connections if you had access to all of twitters data.
MetalMASK 14y ago
wait. the Author's name is Terence Eden, and who is the author of the quote appeared in the text? "Harvard – one of the most prestigious universities – awarded an MBA to George W Bush. A man many of us wouldn’t trust to sit the right way round on a toilet. – Terence Eden" Wow, I haven't never seen someone who is so narcissistic about his own quote before. Don't quote yourself. If you would like to, you may repeat yourself; but don't quote. Quoting is for referencing somebody else that support the point you are making, possibly from a more credible source than yourself.
benatkin 14y ago
The headline is misleading because the author hasn't really quit twitter.
- ChiperSoft 14y ago
  The title says "I Haven't Quit Twitter", what's misleading about that?

75 points by edent 14y ago

Yawn.

xpose2000 14y ago

I'm not sure exactly what people are expecting out of Twitter at this point? Developers were the ONLY victims here. They have a right to be angry. Twitter used them to build their platform and then bought out the bigger companies and said: "We'll take it from here folks". But what did the developers think was going to happen? Twitter's college days are long gone. Twitter needs to make money and take back control of their platform to provide a unified user experience. The truth is that 99% of the Twitter user base uses it as if nothing has changed. That's because it hasn't. Most people can deal with the occasional ad in their face. No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than ever before. Yet there are complaints that Twitter shows the occasional ad in your stream. So what. Twitter is still developing and working on useful features (Twitter Cards). Their website is still in the process removing hashbangs, which is making it faster. So I ask again, what are people expecting out of Twitter at this point?

edent 14y ago
(Author here) I think regular users miss out as well. Some of the changes that Twitter introduced were good for normal users (especially about embedded clients) - but I still have tens of thousands of people using my service. Presumably because it offers something which the "official" one doesn't. I would expect Twitter to try and work with me. Twitter Cards, for example, aren't available through the API. Why does Twitter need a unified experience? Email doesn't have one. Nor does any other form of communication. Twitter could have asked us to show their ads, or charged us for API use, or asked for community funding, or any of a hundred different way to keep developers and users happy. It comes down to respect. They've nothing but contempt for the people who helped them get where they are. And that's sad.
- xpose2000 14y ago
  I hear you. Twitter Cards should be available through the API and find a better way to keep developers and their users happy. As far as the unified experience. I think Google+ is a good example of wanting a unified experience for the end user. As far as I know, they still do not offer a way to post via their API. Meaning, they want to control content creation (clients), but are open to developers using their data in new ways.
  - bduerst 14y ago
    Last time I checked the Google+ API was mostly read-only.
    - jat850 14y ago
      Currently, yes. Though I understand recently there was a preview window where some devs were given write access, which I (hopefully correctly) assume to mean that it's coming soonish.
indiecore 14y ago
>Most people can deal with the occasional ad in their face. No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than ever before. That's because of things like adblock which (let's face it) a large portion of people use. Hmm, I wonder if you can adblock Twitter ads, they have keywords you can filter out...
- Sayter 14y ago
  Google Chrome has 310 million active users (according to Google at their I/O conference in June). In the Chrome Web Store, AdBlock is listed as having 9.3 million users, and Adblock Plus is listed as having 4.9 million users. Mozilla Firefox had 270 million users in 2009, and presumably has less than Chrome's 310 million now (given their smaller market share). Adblock Plus is listed as having 14 million users on Mozilla Addons. While it's entire possible (and indeed, likely) that these numbers are not completely accurate, it's also unlikely that they are outside of the ballmark (so to speak). For example, saying that Adblock usage numbers are off by half (that is to say that the usage would be closer to ~30 million than ~15 million), it would still only mean that 10% of Chrome and Firefox users choose to utilize the most popular Adblock choice(s). It's true that 10% or even 5% of users can be considered "a large portion" (due to the unquantified nature of the statement), but it also would not form a strong basis for confirming the assertion that "No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than before" (on the basis of Adblock usage by the general population).
- adambyrtek 14y ago
  Large portion of people use AdBlock? Citation needed. Again, the discussion is not about developers, but the general population.
mchanson 14y ago
Its okay to criticize and be angry without any expectations that Twitter change.
JoelSutherland 14y ago
Wait, if screwing over developers doesn't affect 99% of users, what is the point of doing it in the first place. To capture 1% more revenue? I suspect in reality they expect their change to ultimately affect more than 1% of the user base. At this point I don't think people expect anything from Twitter. They may not have fully burnt the developer bridge but they are close. The way forward they chose, building another walled garden, was not the only way forward. It is the least creative and screws over the people that made them successful in the first place.
- prawks 14y ago
  The point of doing it is to focus ads to generate revenue and provide a unified experience. It might not be creative, but it's not exactly uncommon.
- redorb 14y ago
  The ratio of affected users and the profit received from reclaiming the whole platform aren't 1:1. That is to say I'm willing to bet twitter has gained more potential for revenue than 1% more revenue; while affecting 1% of their users.
needle0 14y ago
I imagine slightly more than 1% of the Twitter userbase will certainly be ticked off after their favorite third party client shuts down or removes valued features once the new requirements go into effect. For them something _has_ indeed changed - still a small number, but larger than 1%.
ChiperSoft 14y ago
> Twitter is still developing and working on useful features None of which are supported by the official mobile and desktop clients, if they're available through the API at all. Most of Twitter's extended functionality has come from third party developer involvement. And what happens when all the developers stop using Twitter and all the Twitter Clients stop working? Twitter doesn't seem interested in keeping their own clients up to date, so where will people go? Twitter is popular because the developers have made it convenient. When the convenience starts to wain, that 99% will start to drop. > No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than ever before Google's ads are not thrown into the middle of the content. On search results they are displayed above and on the side. In GMail they are displayed on a small bar above the main content region. YouTube ads appear before the main feature or as a dismissible popup along the bottom. What Twitter is doing is more akin to Google inserting an advertisement into the middle of your emails, or pausing a video to randomly throw up a full size banner that can't be dismissed. You bet your ass people would bitch about that!

Mike_Williams 14y ago

Agreed...

doktrin 14y ago

>> Twitter needs to make money. For some ridiculous decision, they’ve decided that selling eyeballs to advertisers is the way forward. >> Twitter decided that they needed to make money. There’s no shame in that. What is shameful is how boring they have been. At first glance, this attitude strikes me as being naive - however I acknowledge I do not have all the facts. I do not use Twitter, nor have a I followed their evolution particularly closely. However, I remember reading about them pursuing several different monetization strategies. Can someone comment on why they were abandoned? Were they insufficient or unsustainable?

xpose2000 14y ago
They do have other ways to make money. Brands can be shown as "recommended followers" to users for a price. Brands can also upgrade their accounts to show a banner of somesort (https://twitter.com/nylabone https://twitter.com/nylabone) and support "sticky tweets". Access to their API in large quantities is a source of revenue (I think). Promoted tweets in a user's stream is another source of revenue. There may be others, but these are the only ones I'm aware of.

blhack 14y ago

You pretty much lost all credibility when you quoted this: >Harvard – one of the most prestigious universities – awarded an MBA to George W Bush. A man many of us wouldn’t trust to sit the right way round on a toilet. As a reason not to trust Harvard. The world gets it. Those republicans surrreee are dummies. /puke The rest of your article is a bit naive. Computational linguistics is not considered a solved problem yet. Yes, twitter might have 26,000 or some odd tweets from you, but that doesn't mean that they "know" anything about you. It's dumb text. In fact, now that you've tweeted at the sun newspaper, how is twitter to know that you aren't interested in that newspaper? You're interacting with it, of course you would want to see ads from it, right? This [meaning targeted advertising] works for facebook (although arguably well since the meme is that facebook ads don't perform) because of the "like" system. I target ads at people who have "liked" things, not at people who have talked about them.

edent 14y ago
Hullo, Author here. I don't think Republicans are dumb - but I'm not convinced I'd want to invest in a company run by Bush http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/ http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/presid... On to your main point. Sentiment analysis is still imprecise - but seeing as the majority of my (news) links go to The Guardian or Independent, and none go to tabloids - it's not a stretch to say I'm unlikey to visit a News International title. I've never (knowingly) Tweeted or otherwise interacted with The Sun. That's one example out of many. At one point, I was sent targetted tweets about attending a conference in the USA - I live in the UK. If they were blindly targeted, it wouldn't feel so offensive.
- blhack 14y ago
  What on earth does Bush running a company have to do with your article about twitter's advertising practices? This is the laziest form of writing I can think of and it makes you look juvenile. I have trouble taking anything you say seriously after that sort of nonsense, and I'd suspect that a big chunk of your readers are the same. -- Okay, you didn't tweet the sun, but you linked to a picture of somebody else who did. I'm sorry I don't know who you are well enough to recognize that handle as not yours. This is a serious question: how would twitter know what you're interested in? It's not a computational linguistics engine, it's a datastore. Explain to me how you would draw these connections if you had access to all of twitters data.

MetalMASK 14y ago

wait. the Author's name is Terence Eden, and who is the author of the quote appeared in the text? "Harvard – one of the most prestigious universities – awarded an MBA to George W Bush. A man many of us wouldn’t trust to sit the right way round on a toilet. – Terence Eden" Wow, I haven't never seen someone who is so narcissistic about his own quote before. Don't quote yourself. If you would like to, you may repeat yourself; but don't quote. Quoting is for referencing somebody else that support the point you are making, possibly from a more credible source than yourself.

benatkin 14y ago

The headline is misleading because the author hasn't really quit twitter.

ChiperSoft 14y ago
The title says "I Haven't Quit Twitter", what's misleading about that?