4 ms·

I don't know if anyone is surprised by the response as much as disappointed. I've seen the news that twitter is limiting api clients but I haven't seen news of

by pdenya 14y ago

I don't know if anyone is surprised by the response as much as disappointed. I've seen the news that twitter is limiting api clients but I haven't seen news of them denying someone who reached that limit more keys. I clicked this wondering what was going to happen with Tweetbot for mac when it hits the same limit and now I know. Maybe the "Don't build anything for Twitter" thing is a little heavy handed but the fact remains that if you build something that you hoping will get more than 100k users you can't count on twitter as a stable platform.

Argorak 14y ago
Its not heavy-handed. Twitter has shown repeatedly that they have no problem with: a) changing the rules of the game and b) leaving you in the dark of what the actual rules _are_ Make business with people that care about your business. Twitter clearly doesn't.
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  Twitter was quite happy to sit and watch as people built fantastic services and tools on the service that without a doubt increased engagement, then sort of went "oh shit we need to make some money" and proceeded to piss on the bonfire 3rd party developers have created. It's even handed for Twitter and heavy handed for people that expect rationality from a company.
  - blibble 14y ago
    they're acting perfectly rationally: they see third party clients as a threat to their ability to monetise, so they're killing them why anyone would expect a business to do anything else is beyond my understanding!
    - nicholassmith 14y ago
      When the popularity of your business has been built on the back of third party services and additions (hashtags? Retweets?) there's a certain level of expectation you're not going to turn around and stab them in the back.
      - ja2ke 14y ago
        The word "tweet" to refer to a post. A bird as the logo! Twitter started as barely more than a faceless service, and most of what is "Twitter" as a brand came from its users and developers. Not that there isn't precedent for their model. I remember being fascinated to read that the Big Mac and Ronald McDonald both came from local franchise restaurants, not corporate HQ. It's just a frustrating position to take. It feels short sighted. A really cool fried who suddenly shows up for lunch in a suit, then eventually stops calling you. Your mom reads about them in a magazine and excitedly tells you what they're up to for a few years, then you stop hearing about them.
  - shawn-butler 14y ago
    So would you say the same thing about people that abuse regulations adopted honestly in the spirit of helping the public and now having been captured by special interests abuse it to serve their own interest? For example, most taxi cab regulations were passed in an era where the public had extremely unsafe and unclear transportation in an unfettered race to the bottom, (were being extorted by drivers, unsafe cars and unlicensed drivers, no insurance, etc etc). So in many municipalities regulations after much debate were passed to address these concerns that the market seemed unable to correct. Now after enough time has passed, are the usages by taxi companies of those regulations to insure their market dominance in your view acting rationally or in an abusive manner?
    - bigiain 14y ago
      I suspect Über would have a different answer to the apparently assumed one in your question.
    - nicholassmith 14y ago
      Abusive, the regulations haven't adopted with the times, but it's apple to oranges in that situation.
    - NoPiece 14y ago
      You should take a look at the history of regulation of taxi's in New York. It had less to do with safety or clarity than protecting exiting cabbies and from competition during the depression. http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_regulationandprosperity.html http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_...

by pdenya 14y ago

Argorak 14y ago

Its not heavy-handed. Twitter has shown repeatedly that they have no problem with: a) changing the rules of the game and b) leaving you in the dark of what the actual rules _are_ Make business with people that care about your business. Twitter clearly doesn't.

nicholassmith 14y ago
Twitter was quite happy to sit and watch as people built fantastic services and tools on the service that without a doubt increased engagement, then sort of went "oh shit we need to make some money" and proceeded to piss on the bonfire 3rd party developers have created. It's even handed for Twitter and heavy handed for people that expect rationality from a company.
- blibble 14y ago
  they're acting perfectly rationally: they see third party clients as a threat to their ability to monetise, so they're killing them why anyone would expect a business to do anything else is beyond my understanding!
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    When the popularity of your business has been built on the back of third party services and additions (hashtags? Retweets?) there's a certain level of expectation you're not going to turn around and stab them in the back.
    - ja2ke 14y ago
      The word "tweet" to refer to a post. A bird as the logo! Twitter started as barely more than a faceless service, and most of what is "Twitter" as a brand came from its users and developers. Not that there isn't precedent for their model. I remember being fascinated to read that the Big Mac and Ronald McDonald both came from local franchise restaurants, not corporate HQ. It's just a frustrating position to take. It feels short sighted. A really cool fried who suddenly shows up for lunch in a suit, then eventually stops calling you. Your mom reads about them in a magazine and excitedly tells you what they're up to for a few years, then you stop hearing about them.
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  So would you say the same thing about people that abuse regulations adopted honestly in the spirit of helping the public and now having been captured by special interests abuse it to serve their own interest? For example, most taxi cab regulations were passed in an era where the public had extremely unsafe and unclear transportation in an unfettered race to the bottom, (were being extorted by drivers, unsafe cars and unlicensed drivers, no insurance, etc etc). So in many municipalities regulations after much debate were passed to address these concerns that the market seemed unable to correct. Now after enough time has passed, are the usages by taxi companies of those regulations to insure their market dominance in your view acting rationally or in an abusive manner?
  - bigiain 14y ago
    I suspect Über would have a different answer to the apparently assumed one in your question.
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    Abusive, the regulations haven't adopted with the times, but it's apple to oranges in that situation.
  - NoPiece 14y ago
    You should take a look at the history of regulation of taxi's in New York. It had less to do with safety or clarity than protecting exiting cabbies and from competition during the depression. http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_regulationandprosperity.html http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_...