

Twitter responds to IFFFT - rameadows
http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/21/twitter-api-dick-costolo/

======
kolektiv
It _feels_ like a fairly passive aggressive message. Kicking off with a "blame
the victim" jibe in the homework line (I'm not commenting on whether they are
actually the victims here, merely the phrasing), it strikes an initial tone of
"this is _their_ fault, not ours".

Moving on to an entirely disingenuous non-apology ("i'm sorry you were
offended" vs. "i'm sorry I offended you"), it doesn't get much better. Then on
to an appeal to authority - we tried it with other developers and _they_
didn't care at all.

The thing is, I can't criticise from a business level. I have no idea what
their internal world looks like (we can all have our own guesses). But the
message is inept at best. The upshot is that it's hard to imagine anyone
building something (innovative or not) on the Twitter platform. If it's within
the TOCs today, would this message give you confidence that it will be next
week?

By attempting to kick out half of your hangers on, you end up kicking out all
of your hangers on. Seems like a lesson worth heeding for giants and hangers
on alike.

~~~
InAnEmergency
The "homework" line is referring to people blaming unrelated events on
Twitter's API changes.

------
shazow
> “We continue to spend an extraordinary amount of money providing a free API”
> that’s being accessed at “a ridiculous rate of queries per second.” As
> Twitter continues to build out its platform, it will do so in an open way,
> he added.

If the proportion of API calls are increasingly from Twitter's own apps, does
that count?

Also related, this quote from @dickc:

> Twitter's committed to stay open & is building free tools to access the
> stream, saying it's closing misses bigger picture

(via <https://twitter.com/saila/status/249248288472199169>)

Maybe I am indeed missing the big picture but I feel like their words aren't
matching up with their actions. Unless they mean they'll be open to consumers
and getting more users onto the network, without consideration to third-party
developers who want to create their own vision on top of the API.

(I acknowledge that Twitter has the right to do all this and more--that's not
my point.)

~~~
rhizome
Well, the question being raised by Costolo is, "why don't we know what the big
picture is yet, are you just holding it over our heads?"

I've said since the beginning of these recent actions that there's going to be
another shoe to drop (the last weeks' actions all being the first shoe). I'll
say now that "the big picture" he mentions but neglects to describe is indeed
this other shoe.

------
aero142
Thank you tech crunch, I'm now more confused than before. So, what does the
homework quote have to do with anything. Either IFTTT is allowed to use the
Twitter API or they are not. I don't see how a laziness accusation is
relevant.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Why are you blaming TC? That's Twitter's CEO trying to shift the blame off of
Twitter.

~~~
rhizome
Because if TC isn't clarifying, then the reporter is acting only as a
stenographer.

------
nicksergeant
I'm confused. Does TechCrunch know that the issue at hand is a (fairly recent)
change in Twitter's _Policy_ , not API?

~~~
Shank
For what it's worth, the policy changes ship with changes to the API.
TechCrunch published an article yesterday stating that IFTTT was in violation
of Twitter's policy for "months," so it'd be a fair assumption that this is
along that same channel.

> [http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/20/ifttt-has-actually-been-
> in-...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/20/ifttt-has-actually-been-in-
> violation-of-twitters-api-for-months-todays-move-unrelated-to-1-1/)

~~~
boon
For what it's worth, sometimes a policy/api change is a paper tiger. When
Twitter decided to do the cutoff on the 27th, that made it legit. No sense
scaring users earlier than you have to.

------
ars
It looks to me like twitter is hurting for money, and they are trying to
reduce costs by reducing API usage.

It could also be they want more ads, and 3rd party usage of the API would
bypass that.

If anyone wanted to buy them, now would be a good time.

~~~
protomyth
I wonder what would have happened if twitter had said all free accounts must
use the twitter app or website, and pro-accounts (let's say $5/month) can use
the full API with 3rd party apps?

~~~
adambarber
It could mean less money overall, if advertisers want to target the kind of
user who would sign up for an ad-free pro account.

~~~
protomyth
I never said ad-free, but I guess certain clients could block or hide those.

~~~
13rules
$5 a month would be totally worth it for a lot of people. Even with promoted
tweets, etc., I think people would go for it.

Charge, but let people do whatever they want with their own data ... give them
access to their full history of their own tweets and maybe some other advanced
features. Meanwhile let everyone use twitter.com for free if they want.

------
Spooky23
So if someone kicks me in the nuts, it didn't actually happen because I am
"one data point"?

The Twitter CEO's statements are reminiscent of the BlackBerry co-CEOs
laughing at the iPhone's lack of tactile keyboard.

------
jwilliams
So rather than clarify the new Twitter Policies, it would be more interesting
to be told _why_ they are making these changes.

Everyone is assuming it's because they want to lock down their platform... &
lock it down along what seem pretty moveable and arbitrary lines. Why else
would they do it? I'm a casual observer, but I have been following pretty
carefully, and it's completely unclear to me.

So -- If it's not, they should just say. If it is, the Twitter developer
ecosystem has plenty of reason to be worried about their homework.

~~~
amix
My guess is that they want full control. If you look at Apple it is clear that
there are huge advantages in having this control. Not only is it possible to
build a better and more streamlined experience, it's also much easier to
monetize a Twitter that they fully control.

~~~
madarco
They found really difficult to monetize their product, since it's only
composed of 140 characters displayed in a moltitude of format. Now they will
directly control the way tweets are displayed, for example they will soon
introduce the Twitter Card format (a sort like the facebook wall story with
picture/video/flash game embedded)

Think of the several monetization "experiments" of Facebook: ads, sponsored
likes, sponsored posts, page offers, ecc They were been possibile only because
Facebook manage the way his data is displayed across all platform.

------
pioul
IFTTT* (IF This Then That)

------
leoedin
Fundamentally, the problem is that usage of twitter is both as a social
network and an easy to use messaging protocol. Twitter wants you to use it
solely as a social network, because that's where the money is.

It's unfortunate because it was a hugely useful platform for "protocol" uses.
It's an easy way to tie together two incompatible systems, and a good way to
provide automated notifications without additional clients.

------
gms
Why do people consider it a right to have constant access to a Twitter API?
Twitter is a private, for-profit company, not a charity, no?

~~~
MichaelApproved
Even a charity has the right to do what they want (sans contracts).

The outrage is because they changed their possession and it's serving as a
warning to other developers who are interested in developing on their
platform. It's important to point out when a business is hostile or friendly
to API developers so they'll know if it's worth their time to develop a
product based on said API.

~~~
001sky
The answer lies somewhere between <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-
switch> and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold-up_problem>.

------
squarecat
Dick sez: Play nice or I'm taking my ball and going home.

------
pasbesoin
If I need a lawyer to use your API, well then, bye!

