4 ms·

As a side note this is reason I've always believed building an business/app of any importance on-top of another site is just crazy. You're at their mercy and th

by Hates_ 17y ago

As a side note this is reason I've always believed building an business/app of any importance on-top of another site is just crazy. You're at their mercy and there's nothing you can ever do to stop them shutting you out.

RobbieStats 17y ago
I agree. That's what sucks about our dependency on Google too. Most Internet businesses are dependent on them and they can decide to remove you from the index as quickly as Twitter disabled the StatTweet accounts. Twitter effectively removed me from their index.
- dryicerx 17y ago
  There is a difference between depending on Google and depending on Twitter. Google is a multi faceted business, they have a good revenue model, have money, and are a proven company. Depending on them isn't crazy. What's crazy is depending on Twitter, it's new, still have no solid revenue model to make money and sustain, in simple it's a single egg in the basket.
  - snorkel 17y ago
    Google is just as fickle. If Google doesn't like the links on your web pages you get PageRank slapped. If your Google Ad Words don't get enough clicks they pull your Ad Words ads. If Google doesn't like your web site they kill your Ad Sense account and don't bother paying you for ads already delivered. All of these penalties are final and without appeal. Don't trust the cloud. Appreciate its gifts but don't expect it will always be so.
    - lacker 17y ago
      The penalties from Google aren't final. If you do black hat SEO stuff and get depageranked, and then clean up your site, then over time you will get back into the index. That said, it's certainly better if you don't have to rely on anyone else.
okeumeni 17y ago
I definitely agree especially at this point that Twitter is barely out of beta, the growth is enormous and the pressure is intense on the staff.
jfarmer 17y ago
Every business is built on other businesses. In the 1800s if you wanted distribution you had to play ball with the railroad barons. This is just the 21st century equivalent. Likewise, if you're building a destination website you're dependent on Google, email spam lists (don't get blacklisted!), browser vendors (MSFT and ESPN once conspired to make espn.com for IE-only), and even ISPs (see: Net Neutrality). The risks are higher on Facebook and Twitter, but the upside is also higher. For example, I launched a Facebook application late last week and it already has 500k users. That kind of distribution is hard to get elsewhere.
- dryicerx 17y ago
  There is a difference between those early dependence and Twitter. Twitter is still young, it's uncertain, and worst it's future is really unpredictable because it doesn't even have a business model to generate revenue yet. Building on top of a business is sensible when you are depending on something that's been there for a while, know it's dependable and have a reputation. This twitter does not have. If the same service as Twitter was provided by Google, Amazon or even Microsoft, you know it's backed by something solid.
  - jfarmer 17y ago
    Like I said: risk and reward. From the article it's clear that Twitter was a big benefit to his company. It became the #2 referrer after Google. Given the network effect inherent in Twitter, I bet it would become #1 over time. That's why he's so upset that Twitter cut him off. So, yes, building on Twitter is riskier. Building on Facebook is riskier. But as distribution channels they have huge upside. If the risk is too high don't build and wait for the channels to become more mature.
  - Confusion 17y ago
    It isn't wise to depend on it for your livelihood, but in this case he wasn't. He invested some time in it and reaped benefits. It may well have been a profitable investment.
philh 17y ago
At the same time, that site might be creating business opportunities that wouldn't otherwise exist. And almost any business will be dependant, to some extent, on others. It's a question of how many of your dependencies are irreplaceable, and how likely they are to shut you out. See for example http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/outage-10-08.html http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/outage-10-08.html - they went down and lost all their data because the hosting company had a fight with the people who owned the building where the servers were kept. (Including backups, which made the host irreplaceable - with offsite backups, that wouldn't have been the case.) Building on a site like twitter might increase the risk of being cut off on a whim, but it probably decreases the risk of competitors.

by Hates_ 17y ago

RobbieStats 17y ago

I agree. That's what sucks about our dependency on Google too. Most Internet businesses are dependent on them and they can decide to remove you from the index as quickly as Twitter disabled the StatTweet accounts. Twitter effectively removed me from their index.

dryicerx 17y ago
There is a difference between depending on Google and depending on Twitter. Google is a multi faceted business, they have a good revenue model, have money, and are a proven company. Depending on them isn't crazy. What's crazy is depending on Twitter, it's new, still have no solid revenue model to make money and sustain, in simple it's a single egg in the basket.
- snorkel 17y ago
  Google is just as fickle. If Google doesn't like the links on your web pages you get PageRank slapped. If your Google Ad Words don't get enough clicks they pull your Ad Words ads. If Google doesn't like your web site they kill your Ad Sense account and don't bother paying you for ads already delivered. All of these penalties are final and without appeal. Don't trust the cloud. Appreciate its gifts but don't expect it will always be so.
  - lacker 17y ago
    The penalties from Google aren't final. If you do black hat SEO stuff and get depageranked, and then clean up your site, then over time you will get back into the index. That said, it's certainly better if you don't have to rely on anyone else.

okeumeni 17y ago

I definitely agree especially at this point that Twitter is barely out of beta, the growth is enormous and the pressure is intense on the staff.

jfarmer 17y ago

Every business is built on other businesses. In the 1800s if you wanted distribution you had to play ball with the railroad barons. This is just the 21st century equivalent. Likewise, if you're building a destination website you're dependent on Google, email spam lists (don't get blacklisted!), browser vendors (MSFT and ESPN once conspired to make espn.com for IE-only), and even ISPs (see: Net Neutrality). The risks are higher on Facebook and Twitter, but the upside is also higher. For example, I launched a Facebook application late last week and it already has 500k users. That kind of distribution is hard to get elsewhere.

dryicerx 17y ago
There is a difference between those early dependence and Twitter. Twitter is still young, it's uncertain, and worst it's future is really unpredictable because it doesn't even have a business model to generate revenue yet. Building on top of a business is sensible when you are depending on something that's been there for a while, know it's dependable and have a reputation. This twitter does not have. If the same service as Twitter was provided by Google, Amazon or even Microsoft, you know it's backed by something solid.
- jfarmer 17y ago
  Like I said: risk and reward. From the article it's clear that Twitter was a big benefit to his company. It became the #2 referrer after Google. Given the network effect inherent in Twitter, I bet it would become #1 over time. That's why he's so upset that Twitter cut him off. So, yes, building on Twitter is riskier. Building on Facebook is riskier. But as distribution channels they have huge upside. If the risk is too high don't build and wait for the channels to become more mature.
- Confusion 17y ago
  It isn't wise to depend on it for your livelihood, but in this case he wasn't. He invested some time in it and reaped benefits. It may well have been a profitable investment.

philh 17y ago

At the same time, that site might be creating business opportunities that wouldn't otherwise exist. And almost any business will be dependant, to some extent, on others. It's a question of how many of your dependencies are irreplaceable, and how likely they are to shut you out. See for example http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/outage-10-08.html http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/outage-10-08.html - they went down and lost all their data because the hosting company had a fight with the people who owned the building where the servers were kept. (Including backups, which made the host irreplaceable - with offsite backups, that wouldn't have been the case.) Building on a site like twitter might increase the risk of being cut off on a whim, but it probably decreases the risk of competitors.