4 ms·

It's amazing how much devs want to build on top of Twitter. There's got to be an opportunity for Twitter to monetize that instead of fighting it and pissing eve

It's amazing how much devs want to build on top of Twitter. There's got to be an opportunity for Twitter to monetize that instead of fighting it and pissing everyone off. Why can't they just have some reasonable fees for API access?

ecaradec 14y ago
Or just a share on ads like adsense does...
mootothemax 14y ago
There's got to be an opportunity for Twitter to monetize that instead of fighting it and pissing everyone off. Agreed, and speaking personally, I would love to pay Twitter $XXX/month, especially if it included some form of "we'll reply to X emails within an hour" support. The fact that they're not even charging $20/month for minimal API access is baffling to me. I'd expect it'd only help reduce spam as well!
- Guvante 14y ago
  > The fact that they're not even charging $20/month for minimal API access is baffling to me. The devs who experiment and make something cool are often worth more than the minimal charge. However I would agree that rather than having arbitrary limits using devs as a revenue stream makes sense (give everyone a portion of what you currently allow and allow payed upgrades)
  - mootothemax 14y ago
    give everyone a portion of what you currently allow and allow payed upgrades Exactly - there are plenty of options available. The devs who experiment and make something cool are often worth more than the minimal charge. I'm just wondering how many such developers would be put off by such a relatively small charge? Obviously, the situation now is very different to when Twitter was still building momentum. I'm just confused that they don't come out and say "From the 1st of May, we will be charging all new API accounts for access."
    - Guvante 14y ago
      Making someone make a purchase decision to play around with your platform blocks some people from ever using your platform. You don't need to let everyone play for free, but allowing say 1,000 requests a month at no cost would get some extra people to try out your platform.
- TylerE 14y ago
  For $20/month they'd probably spend more on the accounting infrastructure and payment gateway than they'd generate. It's like (snail) mailing someone a bill for $0.25.
  - umsm 14y ago
    This isn't accurate. The infrastructure is setup once they started billing people. I think the support side is what will eat at the profits... a million $20/month users can be very demanding until they figure out what they're doing.
  - lucaspiller 14y ago
    Amazon seem quite happy to charge me $0.50 a month, and they seem to be doing alright.
    - TylerE 14y ago
      Yes, but that's Amazon's core business. It's not Twitter's core business.
      - saalweachter 14y ago
        Charging people money for goods and services is everyone's core business.
        TylerE 14y ago
        No, it's not actually. You could maybe make the argument that it should be, but it isn't.
        bifrost 14y ago
        It is, but only when it actually makes sense.
Finster 14y ago
If they put a paywall on their IP, then they'd be bound to have a reasonable support structure in place. No one in their right mind would want to support the Twitter or Facebook API's...
- mootothemax 14y ago
  No one in their right mind would want to support the Twitter or Facebook API's... This could be done sensibly though: limit the number of emails per month; or only include support in higher-priced plans. eBay's API can be pretty tricky at times, and if you want any help that doesn't involve using their forums, it costs $75/hour: http://developer.ebay.com/join/pricing/ http://developer.ebay.com/join/pricing/
- brown9-2 14y ago
  I don't follow. Why does any company implement and support a pay-for-access API then? I'm sure there are folks at Square or Stripe who are happy to support their API. I think employees would be happy to support an API, if it is a revenue producing product.
- frogpelt 14y ago
  Nonsense. They wouldn't be bound to anything. There are people making millions using these APIs now with no support. Why would charging them $25/month suddenly require support?

ecaradec 14y ago

Or just a share on ads like adsense does...

mootothemax 14y ago

There's got to be an opportunity for Twitter to monetize that instead of fighting it and pissing everyone off. Agreed, and speaking personally, I would love to pay Twitter $XXX/month, especially if it included some form of "we'll reply to X emails within an hour" support. The fact that they're not even charging $20/month for minimal API access is baffling to me. I'd expect it'd only help reduce spam as well!

Guvante 14y ago
> The fact that they're not even charging $20/month for minimal API access is baffling to me. The devs who experiment and make something cool are often worth more than the minimal charge. However I would agree that rather than having arbitrary limits using devs as a revenue stream makes sense (give everyone a portion of what you currently allow and allow payed upgrades)
- mootothemax 14y ago
  give everyone a portion of what you currently allow and allow payed upgrades Exactly - there are plenty of options available. The devs who experiment and make something cool are often worth more than the minimal charge. I'm just wondering how many such developers would be put off by such a relatively small charge? Obviously, the situation now is very different to when Twitter was still building momentum. I'm just confused that they don't come out and say "From the 1st of May, we will be charging all new API accounts for access."
  - Guvante 14y ago
    Making someone make a purchase decision to play around with your platform blocks some people from ever using your platform. You don't need to let everyone play for free, but allowing say 1,000 requests a month at no cost would get some extra people to try out your platform.
TylerE 14y ago
For $20/month they'd probably spend more on the accounting infrastructure and payment gateway than they'd generate. It's like (snail) mailing someone a bill for $0.25.
- umsm 14y ago
  This isn't accurate. The infrastructure is setup once they started billing people. I think the support side is what will eat at the profits... a million $20/month users can be very demanding until they figure out what they're doing.
- lucaspiller 14y ago
  Amazon seem quite happy to charge me $0.50 a month, and they seem to be doing alright.
  - TylerE 14y ago
    Yes, but that's Amazon's core business. It's not Twitter's core business.
    - saalweachter 14y ago
      Charging people money for goods and services is everyone's core business.
      - TylerE 14y ago
        No, it's not actually. You could maybe make the argument that it should be, but it isn't.
      - bifrost 14y ago
        It is, but only when it actually makes sense.

Finster 14y ago

If they put a paywall on their IP, then they'd be bound to have a reasonable support structure in place. No one in their right mind would want to support the Twitter or Facebook API's...

mootothemax 14y ago
No one in their right mind would want to support the Twitter or Facebook API's... This could be done sensibly though: limit the number of emails per month; or only include support in higher-priced plans. eBay's API can be pretty tricky at times, and if you want any help that doesn't involve using their forums, it costs $75/hour: http://developer.ebay.com/join/pricing/ http://developer.ebay.com/join/pricing/
brown9-2 14y ago
I don't follow. Why does any company implement and support a pay-for-access API then? I'm sure there are folks at Square or Stripe who are happy to support their API. I think employees would be happy to support an API, if it is a revenue producing product.
frogpelt 14y ago
Nonsense. They wouldn't be bound to anything. There are people making millions using these APIs now with no support. Why would charging them $25/month suddenly require support?