4 ms·

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.

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?
- snom380 13y ago
  Regardless of whether it's wrong, I think it's fair to say that Twitter would not have been as successful without the help of an open protocol and third party clients. So it was a bit unfair to all the people who wrote clients and helped Twitter gain popularity to start closing down the protocol.
- jrochkind1 13y ago
  I don't know if it's 'wrong', but it may not be in the best interests of us, the users, and some who think it is not may point that out.
- nikcub 13y ago
  Twitter proliferated on openness - they owe a large part of their success to it. Part of me feels they have broken a promise with early users - now that they have their critical mass and revenue pressure they can turn their back on 'open'. The free marketer in me would hope that a new open alternative would win over in the long term, but it doesn't look likely.
- corford 13y ago
  I agree. The problem lies with how people are defining success. If you choose to define success as a "wild level of user and developer adoption thanks to the service being free, fun and bankrolled by investors with hundreds of millions of dollars", then yes, twitter is successful and owes a lot of this to the open api and ecosystem that grew up around it. The problem is, this isn't success. Everyone (users, app developers and twitter itself) has been enjoying a free ride for the last x years, courtesy of investment money. It's been one big successful party... except for the fact it's been anything but for the investors. And when it comes to judging a company's success, the latter is the only kind that matters. Taken in that light, it's hard to feel sorry for those who were caught out when the music stopped and the party was over. The investors are free to take the company in whatever direction they like in pursuit of real success (i.e. turning a profit) and if that means strangling the third party eco system, then so be it. Whether or not that's a good idea (I'm not sure it is) is irrelevant. It's their call to make.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

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?

snom380 13y ago
Regardless of whether it's wrong, I think it's fair to say that Twitter would not have been as successful without the help of an open protocol and third party clients. So it was a bit unfair to all the people who wrote clients and helped Twitter gain popularity to start closing down the protocol.
jrochkind1 13y ago
I don't know if it's 'wrong', but it may not be in the best interests of us, the users, and some who think it is not may point that out.
nikcub 13y ago
Twitter proliferated on openness - they owe a large part of their success to it. Part of me feels they have broken a promise with early users - now that they have their critical mass and revenue pressure they can turn their back on 'open'. The free marketer in me would hope that a new open alternative would win over in the long term, but it doesn't look likely.
corford 13y ago
I agree. The problem lies with how people are defining success. If you choose to define success as a "wild level of user and developer adoption thanks to the service being free, fun and bankrolled by investors with hundreds of millions of dollars", then yes, twitter is successful and owes a lot of this to the open api and ecosystem that grew up around it. The problem is, this isn't success. Everyone (users, app developers and twitter itself) has been enjoying a free ride for the last x years, courtesy of investment money. It's been one big successful party... except for the fact it's been anything but for the investors. And when it comes to judging a company's success, the latter is the only kind that matters. Taken in that light, it's hard to feel sorry for those who were caught out when the music stopped and the party was over. The investors are free to take the company in whatever direction they like in pursuit of real success (i.e. turning a profit) and if that means strangling the third party eco system, then so be it. Whether or not that's a good idea (I'm not sure it is) is irrelevant. It's their call to make.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]