
Twitter to developers: no new Twitter clients - samstokes
http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-api-announce/browse_thread/thread/c82cd59c7a87216a
======
danilocampos
It's the old casino analogy: When you're betting on a platform you don't own,
the house always wins.

I don't know much about Twitter politics, but we've got:

\- Developer hostility this week

\- User hostility last week, with the dickbar

So maybe this is just how it goes now that Costolo is in charge. "Fuck the
loyalists, we're here to make some money. Getting sick of these third party
tools charging coin for our damn API while we get nothing."

If so, the question becomes: who creates more value on Twitter? Is it the old
guard, who use it as a communications and community medium? Or is it the
mainstream, following celebrities and talking about sandwiches they're eating,
eyeballs to be sold to the highest bidder?

(edit: My hunch is that, too late, the Pareto principle will be discovered
hard at work: 20% or less of Twitter users actually generate 80% of the value.
I just can't see it as a bland, empty consumption tool. There's surely peril
in optimizing toward that.)

It sounds to me like Twitter wants to round up its user-cattle and drive them
on down to monetization gulch. Anyone who gets in the way of this is going to
be flattened.

~~~
webwright
"When you're betting on a platform you don't own, the house always wins."

Except when it doesn't.

It's not a zero-sum game-- the house winning doesn't mean that the bettor
loses. Zynga, Rovio, and FourSquare are all pretty fat on platforms they don't
own.

~~~
nhangen
are they really? Rovio might be the exception, but how fat are Zynga and
FourSquare right now, compared to their debt?

~~~
webwright
Uh, what?

Zynga is making $50M per month:
[http://www.engagedigital.com/2010/05/14/zynga-revenue-
estima...](http://www.engagedigital.com/2010/05/14/zynga-revenue-estimated-
at-50m-per-month/) (they've raised $500M).

Foursquare is a bit farther from monetizing... Not sure if I'd bet on them but
they would be nowhere without the FB/Twitter platforms under their feet. But
they've raised ~$20M on a rumored $100M valuation.

That isn't debt. In both cases, the companies sold a small minority stake of
ownership for a huge pile of cash into the company coffers.

~~~
nhangen
That post is nearly a year old. I'd be curious to see if anything has changed.

Not debt, but it's still money owed.

~~~
justin
"Not debt, but it's still money owed."

False, and inanity.

------
zaidf
When companies started releasing awesome APIs for free, we kinda wondered
"what's the catch?". Years later, we're finding out.

The hype surrounding free APIs without formal agreements is the biggest farce
in the Valley. We are now in that phase of the cycle where this will become
more and more apparent as these companies with awesome APIs get serious about
making money(and the free API impeding their revenue plans).

Free APIs--especially the powerful ones--should be seen as "cute things" with
little purpose beyond experimental side projects. If you ACTUALLY want to
build a company off someone's API, get a formal agreement with that company
_especially_ if that company insists you don't need one.

So much has changed since the 90s when access to APIs meant paying huge $. And
yet, so little has _really_ changed.

~~~
technomancy
> When companies started releasing awesome APIs for free, we kinda wondered
> "what's the catch?". Years later, we're finding out.

H.264, anyone?

~~~
po
H.264 was never without licensing fees and I don't think it can be considered
a bait-and-switch. The catch is right there in the licensing terms.

~~~
_delirium
I think they were attempting to pursue a bait-and-switch strategy but ended up
backing off. H.264 originally came with a "free for 5 years" license for
certain kinds of non-subscription online video, which was renewed for a second
5 years in 2010. It was widely assumed that the intent was to start charging
once everyone had been lured into being reliant on it.

But partly in response to competitors like WebM, they made the royalty-free
license permanent in August 2010:
[http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/08/mpeg-la-
counters-g...](http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/08/mpeg-la-counters-
google-webm-with-permanent-royalty-moratorium.ars)

------
jellicle
Twitter doesn't want you to build a twitter client that automatically filters
out ads in the twitstream, or doesn't have ads on the sidebar like the
official client, or in some other way is superior to the official client.

That is, Twitter is planning to monetize by making their product worse, and
they don't want anyone offering a service on the level of what Twitter used to
offer.

~~~
icarus_drowning
What is particularly galling is that Twitter has been saying for years that
they want to monetize without slapping ads over everything. Now they're
monetizing by... slapping ads over everything. And ensuring that no one can
threaten the business model they supposedly didn't want to use.

All of this would have been better had Twitter just started off by slapping
ads on their service and making it clear how they were going to protect it.
Instead, they've grown their userbase (at least among the technorati) by
asserting that they weren't going to pursue the exact model they seem so
ardently chasing now.

Sure, 3rd party app devs might be "suckers" for having latched on early, but I
don't think that excuses Twitter for such a (to use a Gruberism) dick move.

~~~
whatevermatt
I was about to upvote you until you used the word Gruberism to describe a
phrase that is probably older than he is.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Gruber refined the meaning so that it applies to such a move by anyone other
than Steve Jobs.

------
jfager
I don't get it. If twitter already provides the top 5 twitter clients, and 90%
of users interact with twitter through those clients, where's the fractured
landscape and user confusion coming from?

And if the organic trend is towards official twitter client adoption, why are
they taking the risk of coming out and bitching at developers to stop making
clients? Everyone already noticed the market for these sorts of apps drying
up, and has started wondering how serious twitter actually is about keeping a
robust 3rd-party platform for the long haul. This just adds fuel to that fire,
for no gain whatsoever.

I get what their goal is. They're positioning to make a serious push to get
ads/promoted tweets/etc in users' faces, and they want everything in place to
be able to shut down or prevent the 3rd party clients that pop up to filter
all that out. Okay, fine. But why make the big announcement like this? Why
explicitly freak out all of your developers while you're still on a trajectory
of solving the problem organically? Why not wait until it's actually a
problem, when you're actually seeing increased adoption of 3rd-party clients
that ruin your plans?

It's always interesting to watch a company work hard to solve a problem they
perceive from their perspective that's completely at odds with the problem the
rest of us see from ours. See also: record/movie companies and DRM, Rupert
Murdoch and Google, MS and Internet Explorer, etc, etc, etc.

~~~
ryanhuff
A Friday afternoon release of bad news is a typical PR move to blunt the blow.

~~~
jmathai
Too bad only nerds will care and nerds will be online over the weekend.

------
olivercameron
"More specifically, developers ask us if they should build client apps that
mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience. The
answer is no.".

How can a company who's user base has grown to such an amount because of third
party clients say something like this? Talk about showing a little
appreciation. As someone who develops a Twitter client, it is a huge kick in
the teeth.

~~~
rflrob
The thing is, if you look at the new terms of service, they aren't prohibiting
new clients, nor are they shutting down old ones without cause. They just
think that this particular niche is already filled, and suggesting that
developers pursue other areas. It's perhaps not the friendliest thing to do,
but I don't see it as a kick in the teeth.

~~~
robryan
Why not let the market decide this though? If someone wants to make a new
client because they either see a profit there or have some new ideas I don't
think they should be telling them not to.

~~~
lukifer
This highlights an interesting loophole in the libertarian "magic markets"
theory: a truly free market includes the right to create closed, authoritarian
ecosystems, such as the App Store, or the downloadable game markets on all
three major consoles.

Sometimes the model turns out to be inefficient and unsustainable, and such
companies are crushed by more open competitors, but not always.

------
olivercameron
Wow, this is written in a really weird tone, especially considering it's
coming from an official Twitter representative. It doesn't feel clear at all
what they want developers to do. Either way, it feels very hostile.

~~~
edw
It seems like Ryan Sarver, along with the senior and/or PR people who most
likely collaborated with him, is trying to channel the tone of Steve Jobs’s
“we don't need any more fart apps” speech.

If nothing else, I think it’s advice developers should seriously consider
heeding if they want to create value (and generate revenue) using the Twitter
ecosystem.

Regarding whether the tone is “hostile” or the message represents “a kick in
the teeth,” I think people need to keep some perspective: A hundred and how
many million tweets a day?! That's a lot! If I were responsible for the big
picture at Twitter, supporting your junior high science fair project Twitter
client would not be at the top of my to-do list.

~~~
pyre
It's hostile because it's purposefully ambiguous. They would catch a lot of
bad PR for coming out and stating that they are terminating all unofficial
Twitter clients, so they are trying to dance around the bush. There is now a
lot of grey area with respect to what is kosher and what is not.

~~~
icarus_drowning
Ironically, it is the ambiguity that is causing so many problems in the first
place. It is ambiguity over where they plan to extract revenue that is causing
3rd party devs to choose Twitter-based business models that later threaten
Twitter's new revenue model. It is ambiguity in their rules/TOS that is
getting 3rd party devs banned (see: Twitdroyd). Etc.

At this point, Twitter needs to realize that the ambiguity isn't helping their
PR, its the reason they have a PR problem in the first place.

EDIT: Minor grammatical correction.

------
boredguy8
As an end user (and by no means a power user) of Twitter, I have to say that I
don't want a consistent user experience. I want the best user experience for
how I use Twitter.

Right now that means TweetDeck, but if something better came along, I'd jump
to it. It lets me do things I can't do in Twitter's tools (or that I don't
easily see how to do).

So from an 'outsider' on this topic: boo!

------
jazzychad
Ugh, that tears it. I'm not doing any more Twitter development unless Twitter
acquires me. Not hires me, _acquires_ me.

I love Twitter and have several friends that work there, but I am losing all
confidence in developing on the platform when I am not a big-name company with
an official partnership.

Signed, A 3rd party twitter dev since 2007

~~~
calloc
Just a heads up, the website in your profile, tweethook has an expired SSL
certificate.

~~~
jazzychad
yeah... Since the service is now in violation of Twitter API TOS (tweet data
resyndication, now only samctioned through Gnip), I've decided to shut it down
shortly... no need to renew cert I'm afraid.

~~~
evanjacobs
As a tweethook customer, I'm sad to hear it.

~~~
jazzychad
As the creator I'm sad to say it :( however I will give plenty of notice
before this happens. Still running for now.

------
VladRussian
"in the name of user(experience)".

Back in the Soviet Union a lot of things were happening "by request of the
workers", for example an unpaid [and mandatory] additional day of work on
Saturday sometimes.

~~~
bl4k
That, and I don't know why they can't just be straight out and say what they
mean, instead of wrapping every quasi-statement in 'developers ask us if they
can..'

~~~
muuh-gnu
Being straight out when planning a unpopular move would do them more damage
then lying. Pretending to do the exact opposite of what you plan to do has
been a standard tactic in sports, politics, warfare or any kind of games for
ages.

* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_fake>

------
ajg1977
"Thanks for all your help getting us where we are. Now, get out and shut the
door behind you".

------
kmfrk
Man, TapBots just can't catch a break. First they are about to announce
TweetBot[1], when Twitter for iPhone (a free, first-party alternative to
competitors) is announced, and they recently announced the coming of a re-
imagined TweetBot[2].

On another note, I don't understand why Twitter are so callous to throw away
their community goodwill on a whim. They already have a lot - just look how
they took a stand when the data for one of their users was requested by the
U.S. government. And then they do something like this. (After
[this](<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2313152>).) And the dickbar!

[1]: <http://tapbots.com/blog/business/say-hello-to-tweetbot>

[2]: <http://tapbots.com/blog/tweetbot/tweetbot-is-coming>

------
famousactress
_According to our data, 90% of active Twitter users use official Twitter apps
on a monthly basis._

I notice the omission of the words _only_ or even _mostly_. I'm curious about
the raw percentage of tweets from official/non-official apps.. and the
percentage of users who use official applications say, 90+ % of the time.

~~~
zach
Presumably, twitter.com is by definition an "official Twitter app."

So if you follow a web link to a tweet while logged in or authorize with
oAuth, you've used an official Twitter app.

Given that possibly expansive criterion, 90% is on the low end of what I'd
expect.

------
whatevermatt
From the announcement:

\- _Display of tweets in 3rd-party services_. We need to ensure that tweets,
and tweet actions, are rendered in a consistent way so that people have the
same experience with tweets no matter where they are. For example, some
developers display “comment”, “like”, or other terms with tweets instead of
“follow, favorite, retweet, reply” - thus changing the core functions of a
tweet.

While I don't like the idea of 3rd-party services treating Twitter as a white-
label medium, it's hard to believe this is coming from the same service that
is famous for letting its users establish convention, and then supporting that
convention. (@, #, etc)

(Edit: s/email/announcement/)

------
dholowiski
March 11, 2011 - Twitter was fatally injured by a gunshot wound to the foot.
Initial reports are indicating this was not an accicdental shooting. Twitter
will be mourned and missed by a wide variety of tech enthusiasts.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Interesting that it caught fire during one sxsw and then poisoned itself
during another one.

~~~
dholowiski
Yup, and there's a dozen hungry startups who are ready to eat their lunch.

------
erikpukinskis
I think the biggest material difficulty this will present Twitter is in hiring
engineering talent.

I used to get the feel that they wanted to let the ecosystem develop naturally
so it could realize it's full potential. That "build great stuff and we'll
win" mentality. Now it feels like they've got a "strategy" that they're
executing. Without that light touch it just doesn't seem as fun a place to
work.

~~~
bad_user

         build great stuff and we'll win
    

Does that strategy work at all?

To me it seems companies like Google that did that are rather the exception
that confirms the rule - building a great business model should be a top
priority.

You know what I consider a fun place to work? A company that doesn't have to
borrow money to stay alive that also happens to work on cool projects. Even
Mozilla is profitable; and even if their partnership with Google goes away in
flames at some point, how fucked up is that?

~~~
erikpukinskis
_Does that strategy work at all?_

Sometimes! Twitter has done pretty well with it so far. Depending on the
specifics of your product you might fail. But my intuition is that making
stuff people care about, and only monetizing where it's painless is a pretty
airtight strategy, yes.

 _A company that doesn't have to borrow money to stay alive that also happens
to work on cool projects_

So you think the only two options are "sacrifice your community's goodwill"
and "having enough money to stay alive"? I think there's a middle ground where
you can leave some money on the table in order to stay focused on the stuff
you care about, but still pay your bills.

------
akmiller
"As we point out above, we need to move to a less fragmented world, where
every user can experience Twitter in a consistent way. This is already
happening organically - the number and market share of consumer client apps
that are not owned or operated by Twitter has been shrinking. According to our
data, 90% of active Twitter users use official Twitter apps on a monthly
basis."

If this is true, then what's the point of this announcement. They make it
sound like they are already getting what they want...people moving at a rapid
pace towards the official Twitter applications. Yet in the same release they
come off as scared that the fragmentation is growing. I don't get it.

------
fingerprinter
I think what we are seeing is quite a bit of chasm crossing from the
platforms. When that happens, the early technical users (who they don't make
much money from, btw) get pushed out or at least _feel_ pushed out.

Yes, we helped build the ecosystem and make it a viable company...but if you
read "Crossing the Chasm", it is almost a blueprint for what these platforms
are going through and doing...they rely on early technical folks to build a
base...but eventually need to reject those early users or marginalize them for
sake of profit...very interesting read.

~~~
dasil003
Yeah, as much as this post makes me not want to touch Twitter with a 10-foot
pole, I have to admit that they're not going to go any further as a company by
catering specifically to developers concerns. I am, however, counting the days
until Evan's departure.

------
code_duck
Fred Wilson pretty much announced that the status quo was over for Twitter API
developers in an article published last April, "The Twitter Platform's
Inflection Point": <http://avc.com/a_vc/2010/04/the-twitter-platform.html>

Notable quote:

"I think the time for filling the holes in the Twitter service has come and
gone. It was a great period for Twitter and its third party developers."

------
arpit
Does anyone think this could rejuvenate something like Status.net
(<http://status.net/>) or any other open system for status updates? (I always
hopeful about that)

------
MatthewPhillips
Yep. Last paragraph says it all: Use the API for something besides clients.

------
kouiskas
Can't wait for Twitter to join Myspace in the slow death club. This move is
certainly a step in that direction.

------
JCB_K
I don't understand why people are so upset about this. It's simple: Twitter
Inc. doesn't like apps which are the same as Twitter, or worse. (I don't mean
to say that Twitter is bad already: just that Twitter Inc. doesn't like 1.
apps recreating Twitter and 2. apps which give a low-quality UI.)

In other words: they urge devs to develop a client with added value. Wether
that's apps for "Company Tweeting" or Real-Time Data, it's adding something to
the core experience of Twitter.

Most importantly, I think Twitter Inc. still likes "normal" Twitter apps, as
long as they have added value: a superior UI. So get devving, and make the new
and better Tweetie!

~~~
mentat
Let the market decide. If developers are making clients that are worse than
the standard, people won't use them. What is Twitter's product here?

~~~
JCB_K
If the market was completely transparent, that would be the case, but that's
not how it is. For example Yfrog: it looks absolutely terrible, but still it's
very popular. If I made Twitter I wouldn't be happy about that.

A new normal Twitter-user (some who doesn't read HN, basically) might think
something like this: "Oh, so this is where you post images on twitter? Doesn't
look great. How do I login? Ah nevermind, I'll go back to Facebook." At the
same time, TwitPic adds something to Twitter, in such a way that it fits in
with it.

Bottom-line: users _will_ connect 3rd-party apps and experiences to the API
provider, so Twitter is right in making clear that they don't want crappy
apps.

------
taylorbuley
_A Consistent User Experience_. I believe I've heard that somewhere before...
[http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserEx...](http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGIntro/XHIGIntro.html)

------
pyrmont
Translation: Look, the VCs are expecting a payout at some point and the only
way we've worked out for making money is through ads. Now that's not going to
fly if people can just get some sort of 'ad free' client from you guys. Our
hands are tied.

PS. Thanks for helping us get this far!

------
itsnotvalid
There is no surprise with the aid of #dickbar. I am not going to use Twitter
for any serious purpose anymore. This bottom line has violated by basic
requirement of information freedom.

Just seeing this issue I really think that there is still spaces for even more
Twitter clients. Last months or so there is one called littlecosm.com which is
a client+game type.

It is like they simply don't want people to avoid looking at their public
timeline without promoted tweets and dickbar. What a shame.

------
mikeryan
I have to believe that this means that Twitter is looking at turning on the
revenues and likely with in stream "sponsored tweets" or some other similar
type of nonsense and they don't want third parties stripping out these ads.

Its always been strange that they'd let 3rd parties be a primary interaction
model since its very hard to monetize other peoples clients.

~~~
VladRussian
>since its very hard to monetize other peoples clients

Google API key seems to be at least one way to do it.

------
guilleiguaran
I just remembered an article written by Alex Payne (al3x), former engineer at
Twitter (and used to work in the API):

<http://al3x.net/2010/09/15/last-thing-about-twitter.html>

------
guptaneil
It definitely sounds hostile, but I can see where they're coming from. They
want to encourage more creative uses of their API, rather than just flooding
the market with hundreds of mostly subpar client apps. They've basically
reached critical mass as far as third party clients go. Any additional clients
are not going to increase their user base anymore. What they really need is
more use cases for the Twitter stream. I don't particularly agree with this
strategy of leaving a lot of developers feeling like they just got slapped
across the face, but it will be interesting to see where the API goes now.

------
elvirs
Twitter became twitter thanks to its community that always created value and
contributed most to its future path. The invention of hashtag and @ were also
contributed by community. the power users that always contributed high quality
content and conversations to twitter.

The developers that contributed best applications for twitter ecosystem.

but now that it has justin bieber and other celebrities along with millions of
their followers twitter feels like it does not need that core contributing
community anymore.

To me it looks like start of demise for twitter.

------
jrockway
Well, I'm done using Twitter. Their engineered experience sucks, but I do like
third-party clients.

------
alanh
As much as this sounds like the beginning of the end, I do have to agree with
one gripe:

> _For example, some developers display “comment”, “like”, or other terms with
> tweets instead of “follow, favorite, retweet, reply” - thus changing the
> core functions of a tweet._

Very true. I have accidentally tweeted by “logging in with Twitter” and then
“commenting” on comments. Despicable behavior, and it _should_ be stopped.
(Alert! Previous statement is narrow in scope!)

------
rmason
On the contrary this helps quite a bit. There was a cloud hanging over anyone
doing anything with Twitter whether they would find their product in
competition with the Mother ship itself.

It also explains apps suddenly losing access to the API and then regaining it.
Twitter was asserting its control over standards.

I think if you aren't building a client, following the rules and adding value
you don't have anything to worry about. To me that is great news.

------
whatevermatt
To expect enduring openness from a privately-owned medium or enduring
stability from a single point of failure is naïve.

------
jeffpalmer
This is an interesting turning point for Twitter and for API's of free
services in general. Building apps based on an ecosystem that you have no
control over has always seemed like a substantial risk to me, and this
assumption is starting to take shape. Twitter's recent move is an example of
what happens when a company is ready to monetize their content and wants to
cut out the "middle man" so to speak. It's pretty clear that they don't want
third parties encroaching on their ad revenue, and while sad, it was
inevitable.

I see this as a very disappointing move by Twitter for the fact that they are
alienating the very developers that helped build their brand. This is a
glaring warning sign for all applications that are based on an external
platform. If nothing else, this should serve as a lesson to all developers
that free API's should be utilized with discretion.

------
ekanes
Surprising: "According to our data, 90% of active Twitter users use official
Twitter apps on a monthly basis."

~~~
jellicle
You can read that as, 90% of active twitter users visit the twitter.com
website at least once per month.

------
Tichy
That's a shame, because I am still in the market for a good Android client.
Guess there won't be one, ever.

~~~
nailer
Tweetdeck is pretty good.

~~~
Tichy
Thanks, will try.

------
otterley
Can anyone point to language in the revised API Terms of Service
(<http://dev.twitter.com/pages/api_terms>) that implies "no new Twitter
clients"? I'm reading it, but I can't find the smoking gun.

~~~
dustyreagan
I believe that was pulled from Ryan's email:

"... developers ask us if they should build client apps that mimic or
reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience. The answer is
no." ... "If you are an existing developer of client apps, you can continue to
serve your user base"

~~~
otterley
That's fine, but that's just the author's commentary. The blog piece is just
an announcement about the new ToS, which is the defining policy. We need to
look for the language in there, not his blog piece.

------
kpanghmc
While I understand Twitter's motivation for doing this -- and no, I don't
believe it's about consistency -- I think they could have expressed at least
_some_ token of appreciation for the devs who helped get them to where they
are now.

------
trustfundbaby
It was bound to happen ... and about time, hopefully it gives someone enough
inspiration to come up with something to compete against twitter.

I want to see someone give twitter a run for their money. They're sloppy.

------
radley
I read it this way:

There's now 75k registered Twitter apps. You're not going to be successful
making a generic client. Think bigger: there's plenty of room for success in
other Twitter verticals.

(and boooo for the fake FUD headline)

~~~
bradly
Not all twitter apps are clients. I would guess that most are not clients.

~~~
mkramlich
Agreed. I've got a few little Python and shell scripts laying around that have
talked to their API at one point. By a loose standard, each is a client.
Perhaps there are 74,800 little shell scripts or integration adapters out
there, but not what an ordinary person would call a client app. That I'd
believe.

------
QuantumGood
Twitter claims preventing user confusion as a motive yet the move from old to
new Twitter on the web is the biggest source of confusion. I mean, come on.
Teaching people an interface isn't rocket science. Do something simple, such
as put out a video a week showcasing use of the new interface. Heck, have user
contests to come up with videos showcasing the new interface. Or go all out
and develop an awesome training and help system, and integrate it into the
interface. If users have a problem, do something about it!

------
noinput
This just got some more coverage TechCrunch:
[http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/11/twitter-ecosystem-
guideline...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/11/twitter-ecosystem-guidelines/)
TheNextWeb: [http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/03/11/twitter-tells-
devel...](http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/03/11/twitter-tells-developers-
to-stop-developing-new-twitter-clients/)

------
snissn
Anybody who in the first place developed and designed a product around a
third-party's ecosystem and API has what they have coming

~~~
VladRussian
in principle, you're right.

In practice, i must bring MS as a positive (!) example. Not that they were
saint or anywhere close to it, yet they didn't even come close to use legal
sh!t like EULA/Terms of service to hit developers on their platform. MS
provided their own competitive products and used [sometimes dirty] tricks to
win.

------
phil
This has got to be at least partially about UberMedia.

Still makes me glad I don't depend on Twitter's platform at all.

------
nhangen
This is why Twitter is soon to be bankrupt. They don't understand how to stop
insulting the people that actually provide the content and value. The value
isn't the technology, but the people developing and using it.

------
ffumarola
On one hand, I agree in terms of providing a consistent user experience.

On the other hand, I disagree and think people should be able to build
whatever experience they want.

------
nir
This is becoming an increasingly common mistake for tech CEOs: adopt Steve
Jobs' attitude without being Steve Jobs.

------
aDemoUzer
But I don;t want consistent experience. I dislike the experience and want it
done my own way!

------
fedd
i guess that's what investors call 'feature' as opposing to a standalone
product - turns out that many of these clients funded by them are features of
twitter

------
chegra
USERS>>EMPLOYEE>PROFIT>DEVELOPER

The precedence of things.

------
voxmatt
That is the deafening thud of the other shoe dropping

------
maxer
has google not bought twitter yet?

------
mkramlich
Funny timing considering how there's been a noticeable degradation in the
Twitter app quality since Atebits got Borg-ified by them. Their plan thus far
seems to be:

1\. identify best client out there

2\. buy it

3\. ruin it

4\. outlaw all other (well, new) clients

5\. ...

6\. profit!

------
borism
_consistency and ecosystem opportunities_

couldn't he just write "you're fucked, we're the boss" without all this
corporate BS speech?

------
mthreat
So if no new twitter clients are allowed, but existing ones are
"grandfathered" in, does this mean there will be a market of buying and
selling these grandfathered twitter clients?

