7 ms·

Because they haven't tried to control it too much, Twitter feels to everyone like previous protocols. One forgets it's owned by a private company. Makers of Tw

by r00k 13y ago

Because they haven't tried to control it too much, Twitter feels to everyone like previous protocols. One forgets it's owned by a private company. Makers of Twitter clients were eventually reminded of this fact in a rather painful way.

monsterix 13y ago
> Makers of Twitter clients were eventually reminded of this fact in a rather painful way. Isn't this a risk with all federated protocols - private or public immaterial?
- obviouslygreen 13y ago
  I would say not exactly: If you have a public protocol and it's intended to run in multiple places or in a distributed manner, then even if the rest of the world stops using it, you and your users can happily chug along in your own sandbox. If it's only used or useful in the context of a privately-owned/controlled environment... then you're in trouble, or likely to get there..
  - davewiner 13y ago
    That's absolutely correct. Google Reader ignored an important part of the RSS 2.0 spec, but I kept producing content that they couldn't parse, and if people used the tools that existed before GR, they didn't notice any difference, even though GR came to dominate RSS aggregators. BTW, that's probably a reason why Twitter never could really support RSS, not because the spec didn't cover what they were doing, rather Google didn't.
- austenallred 13y ago
  I would say yes, but unfortunately most of those that took that gamble have been shut out. If Twitter were really smart about the whole thing, given the amount of money they have, they should let others develop off of their platforms and acquire them as they start to gain traction.
  - davewiner 13y ago
    Instead, Twitter stays frozen in time. There haven't been any new features for users in years. Lots of features for advertisers.
davewiner 13y ago
It's not just Twitter clients anymore. Basically they're constantly turning off pieces of the protocol, or so effectively limiting them that they're turned off. For example, it's no longer legal to display a tweet unless you use their rendering. If you had asked anyone at Twitter in 2009 if they would ever do that, they would have (probably) said no. PG was right, then -- it had all the trappings of a new internet protocol, and therefore was almost a miracle. Except for the catch, which he also noticed -- that a private company could change the deal at any time. And they did.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Ahh, the days when Twitter wondered if they were the 'pulse of the planet'. http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/16/twitters-internal-strategy-laid-bare-to-be-the-pulse-of-the-planet-2/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/16/twitters-internal-strategy-... Such a stark difference between then and now.
  - davewiner 13y ago
    Yup -- I went looking for a piece I wrote around that time. http://scripting.com/stories/2009/06/05/formatsAreLikeTreesMicrobe.html http://scripting.com/stories/2009/06/05/formatsAreLikeTreesM... It was a response to TechCrunch saying RSS is dead, and Twitter's protocol was the new thing. I was sure they were wrong because of the same thing we're observing about PG's piece. The protocols last forever, it's the companies that die.
  - sriramk 13y ago
    I remember that leak very well as I was part of the MSFT team that had the 'deep infrastructure deal' meeting that is mentioned in that post. It was an interesting time for Twitter - Ev had to leave early because he was flying out. I learnt later that it was to appear on Oprah.
- danielrakh 13y ago
  Just wondering...why is it wrong for a private company to take control of their product and user experience? It's their service, why can't they set certain protocols on how to use it?

by r00k 13y ago

monsterix 13y ago

> Makers of Twitter clients were eventually reminded of this fact in a rather painful way. Isn't this a risk with all federated protocols - private or public immaterial?

obviouslygreen 13y ago
I would say not exactly: If you have a public protocol and it's intended to run in multiple places or in a distributed manner, then even if the rest of the world stops using it, you and your users can happily chug along in your own sandbox. If it's only used or useful in the context of a privately-owned/controlled environment... then you're in trouble, or likely to get there..
- davewiner 13y ago
  That's absolutely correct. Google Reader ignored an important part of the RSS 2.0 spec, but I kept producing content that they couldn't parse, and if people used the tools that existed before GR, they didn't notice any difference, even though GR came to dominate RSS aggregators. BTW, that's probably a reason why Twitter never could really support RSS, not because the spec didn't cover what they were doing, rather Google didn't.
austenallred 13y ago
I would say yes, but unfortunately most of those that took that gamble have been shut out. If Twitter were really smart about the whole thing, given the amount of money they have, they should let others develop off of their platforms and acquire them as they start to gain traction.
- davewiner 13y ago
  Instead, Twitter stays frozen in time. There haven't been any new features for users in years. Lots of features for advertisers.

davewiner 13y ago

It's not just Twitter clients anymore. Basically they're constantly turning off pieces of the protocol, or so effectively limiting them that they're turned off. For example, it's no longer legal to display a tweet unless you use their rendering. If you had asked anyone at Twitter in 2009 if they would ever do that, they would have (probably) said no. PG was right, then -- it had all the trappings of a new internet protocol, and therefore was almost a miracle. Except for the catch, which he also noticed -- that a private company could change the deal at any time. And they did.

steveklabnik 13y ago
Ahh, the days when Twitter wondered if they were the 'pulse of the planet'. http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/16/twitters-internal-strategy-laid-bare-to-be-the-pulse-of-the-planet-2/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/16/twitters-internal-strategy-... Such a stark difference between then and now.
- davewiner 13y ago
  Yup -- I went looking for a piece I wrote around that time. http://scripting.com/stories/2009/06/05/formatsAreLikeTreesMicrobe.html http://scripting.com/stories/2009/06/05/formatsAreLikeTreesM... It was a response to TechCrunch saying RSS is dead, and Twitter's protocol was the new thing. I was sure they were wrong because of the same thing we're observing about PG's piece. The protocols last forever, it's the companies that die.
- sriramk 13y ago
  I remember that leak very well as I was part of the MSFT team that had the 'deep infrastructure deal' meeting that is mentioned in that post. It was an interesting time for Twitter - Ev had to leave early because he was flying out. I learnt later that it was to appear on Oprah.
danielrakh 13y ago
Just wondering...why is it wrong for a private company to take control of their product and user experience? It's their service, why can't they set certain protocols on how to use it?