7 ms·

I interpreted this as largely a protest in the hopes of getting Twitter's token policy changed. It seems very odd that they can get 100,000 tokens for free but

by GavinB 14y ago

I interpreted this as largely a protest in the hopes of getting Twitter's token policy changed. It seems very odd that they can get 100,000 tokens for free but can't pay for more.

danilocampos 14y ago
That's reasonable. And I agree it's odd. Why should Twitter care if 20% of their userbase is on third party clients with an experience that's not on-brand, if those clients pay a per-user fee? One explanation: not all users are created equal. It could be that the 20% who use third party clients are more/most engaged. Lassoing them back into the fold could have some strategic benefit.
- Encosia 14y ago
  Twitter can't enforce a "consistent experience" on third party clients, meaning they can't be sure that promoted tweets, accounts, and other forms of generally unwanted advertising will show up in timelines that aren't rendered with Twitter's own code.
  - beedogs 14y ago
    Seems to me like this will be the reason Twitter fades away and dies eventually.
  - ChrisLTD 14y ago
    They can revoke access for clients that don't comply with the display guidelines. They probably don't want to be in the business of policing 3rd parties like that, but they have the power if they want to use it.
    - lostlogin 14y ago
      Yes. Additionally, blocking access past 100k also stops one client from being the-tail-that-wags-the-dog too. Imagine a dispute where Twitter faced blocking the chosen mode of access to a significant percentage of users, or caving to the client owner.
brown9-2 14y ago
I think it's likely that Twitter is willing to sell them more, but the price is too extreme for TapBots.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  I doubt it. Even if Twitter would receive $100 per token, the total would still be peanuts for Twitter. 100,000 tokens × $100 = $10 million. Even if every single Mac user would pay Twitter a one time fee of $100 to use a third party Twitter client, that would result in just $5 billion. I think Twitter is betting they can earn more by controlling the experience.
pdeuchler 14y ago
Could that be a viable source of revenue instead of advertisement? Charge per 10k tokens or something, with the first 100k free. Make each token worth about $0.60 and you could make some serious dough via not just 3rd party clients, but also people trying to mine data, build on top of the platform etc. etc.

by GavinB 14y ago

I interpreted this as largely a protest in the hopes of getting Twitter's token policy changed. It seems very odd that they can get 100,000 tokens for free but can't pay for more.

danilocampos 14y ago

That's reasonable. And I agree it's odd. Why should Twitter care if 20% of their userbase is on third party clients with an experience that's not on-brand, if those clients pay a per-user fee? One explanation: not all users are created equal. It could be that the 20% who use third party clients are more/most engaged. Lassoing them back into the fold could have some strategic benefit.

Encosia 14y ago
Twitter can't enforce a "consistent experience" on third party clients, meaning they can't be sure that promoted tweets, accounts, and other forms of generally unwanted advertising will show up in timelines that aren't rendered with Twitter's own code.
- beedogs 14y ago
  Seems to me like this will be the reason Twitter fades away and dies eventually.
- ChrisLTD 14y ago
  They can revoke access for clients that don't comply with the display guidelines. They probably don't want to be in the business of policing 3rd parties like that, but they have the power if they want to use it.
  - lostlogin 14y ago
    Yes. Additionally, blocking access past 100k also stops one client from being the-tail-that-wags-the-dog too. Imagine a dispute where Twitter faced blocking the chosen mode of access to a significant percentage of users, or caving to the client owner.

brown9-2 14y ago

I think it's likely that Twitter is willing to sell them more, but the price is too extreme for TapBots.

Samuel_Michon 14y ago
I doubt it. Even if Twitter would receive $100 per token, the total would still be peanuts for Twitter. 100,000 tokens × $100 = $10 million. Even if every single Mac user would pay Twitter a one time fee of $100 to use a third party Twitter client, that would result in just $5 billion. I think Twitter is betting they can earn more by controlling the experience.

pdeuchler 14y ago

Could that be a viable source of revenue instead of advertisement? Charge per 10k tokens or something, with the first 100k free. Make each token worth about $0.60 and you could make some serious dough via not just 3rd party clients, but also people trying to mine data, build on top of the platform etc. etc.