Nothing like an "apology" that doesn't apologize for the real wrongdoing. How I love corporate speak.
"Our relationship with developers got confusing, unpredictable. We want to come to you today and apologize for the confusion."
Yeah it was the "confusion" that was wrong. Nothing like apologizing but not admitting fault either. He's basically saying "we did the right thing, we just didn't communicate it clearly."
Why does it seem it's only Twitter with this problem? (or at least the most frequent and public).
Twitter "hoses" developers all the time who were making money based on apps supporting Twitter. They "hose" the developer because Twitter would rather make that money instead of allowing others to, yet they then fail to capitalize on the vacuum they just created.
Over time, it's made Twitter a seemingly very unattractive platform to try to dev against. Twitter doesn't make much in terms of earnings on their own, it seems it would be in their best interest to allow an ecosystem around their platform.
Twitter only has this problem because Twitter's earliest users were developers, who's development on top of Twitter also happened to be a significant part of why the company grew in the early days. So the perception is largely that they've screwed over the very people who helped them grow. Thus the frequent public outcry from those developers while Twitter reaps the rewards.
On the other hand, Facebook's earliest users were just college kids snapping pics of each other.
I think what Alupis was trying to say is that when Twitter screws over developers, they aren't actually successful at reaping the rewards. Twitter has basically been saying to developers, "if we can't make money off of the platform, no one can!"
Facebook has also done this repeatedly, but most of their issues aren't arbitrary business decisions. They just make breaking changes to production APIs all the time.
> Facebook has also done this repeatedly ... They just make breaking changes to production APIs all the time.
They do, but that doesn't slam the door shut on a developer/business purely for the sake of slamming the door shut on a developer/business.
From what I've seen, Facebook encourages API usage. Twitter encourages it until you make money, then they shut you down - often stating they're building a similar app/service and you'd be competing with them -- only then to never launch said app/service.
Twitter as a platform isn't worth much (as evidenced by year after year of not turning profits). The value in Twitter is the data - but they are locking it away.
Why not go the Google route and charge for API usage over a certain threshold. Twitter could stop caring what users do with the data, and make money as their ecosystem grows and becomes more successful.
You can currently pay for GNIP if you want access to the API beyond what Twitter will give you for free. I have no idea if that will suffer the same issues of being cut off once you get popular enough, nor do I know how much it would cost, but it seems like they're at least vaguely headed in that direction.
It seems like the point of a API is to let third-party developers assume the risk of experimenting with new services. Then Twitter can acquire or copy the successful services.
> Then Twitter can acquire or copy the successful services.
I think this is what makes people so hostile towards Twitter.
Twitter neither clones successful services nor continues to run those they acquire. Instead they either shut them down, or acquire then shut them down - meanwhile completely missing opportunity after opportunity to capitalize on their massive ocean of data.
It seems, based on history, Twitter is not interested in running many services around the Twitter platform/API/data. Instead they really just want to be "Twitter".
I say, let them do what they do best - acquire data and build great API's. Let 3rd parties build Twitter's userbase and data, but charge them for access to the API. It's a simple monetization plan.
> but most of their issues aren't arbitrary business decisions.
Happens all the time. App.net was original an "app store" for facebook but they decided to make a competitor called App Center or something and told App.net they could either be acquired or shut down.
It is true that FB routinely breaks the APIs. It is also true that they will kill your app if it gets too big and they don't like it. It has happened to me 2x, and I have seen it happen to other apps as well.
Right on. It's the failure to build in the vacuum that is most upsetting to me. There is so much value in Twitter users' content that could be used in new and interesting ways. However, the company both fails to innovate on that front and prohibits its community from innovating. It's standing squarely in the way of progress :(
Because the other big platforms don't have as good APIs, and don't monetize them? FB or Tumblr don't t make money selling data streams like Twitter. Twitter's API is incredibly complete and attractive.
It's even more unfortunate because of all the social media platforms, I think Twitter is the most naturally appealing for third-party development. It's very data driven, there is a good API, the data model and flow is clear, it's almost begging to be parsed and extended. If they are ever going to get anywhere, they really need to embrace this and empower developers to create cool stuff in the Twitter ecosystem.
You're absolutely right. they should have said "We apologize for the kind of relationship we developed with IT businesses building on top of Twitter". Because this apology is basically "We apologize if we hurt someone but we're not going to change our policies, merely fire the guy in charge".
I was in the audience for the keynote, the clear message was that twitter was confused about what their relationship to developers should be, and they're looking to fix that.
Okay - I don't work for Twitter, I only care about twitter inasmuch as they're a big data source for my company. So I don't speak for Twitter.
That being said, this event is a whole event focused around Twitter developers, and this was seriously just a 9 minute talk by the CEO about a general vision of Twitter, with a 60 second part of it about the "we screwed up" piece. I don't think it's an appropriate situation for a self-flagellation and introspection.
Since then they've gone through and talked about new APIs, new toolkits, new data sources, all for developers.
I get that they still want to control their platform and that is objectionable to some folks, but it's hard to argue that they're not doing anything with developers.
If I want to drive my car on a highway and the state department says "really sorry there's so many potholes, we were confused about how we communicated to how you should drive on them", I'm still sitting here wondering whether I should continue to drive on that road for my business or not. Now if they said "we screwed up, we're sorry. going forward we have a 5 point plan to help make sure you can drive on that road" I would feel much better about continuing to use that road for my business.
The analogy is beyond tortured at this point, but I would say the way I see this is that the state department laid down a highway, and said, "Have at it!", and people built all kinds of different cars - kit cars, motorcycles, high performance vehicles.
Then, a few years later, the state department says, "Oh shit, nevermind", and pulls everyone's car registration except for the state department manufactured cars. Chaos reigns. People are angry.
A couple of years later, there's a lot of hard feelings, but the state department has changed their tune a little bit. You still have to use the state department cars for your personal vehicles, but you can mod them a little bit, or you can attach trailers to them, or you can pay extra to drive bigger cars, or a lot more to drive 18 wheelers. They make money from these things, and commit to those options with contracts and guidance about what is allowed and what isn't allowed.
At that point the state department says, "Geez, we're real sorry that we didn't think about what we were doing before". They've already demonstrated that they walked back on their earlier policy, and they have set clear guidelines and boundaries about what they do and don't allow.
I realize you still might be mad if you don't want to drive your government-issued car on the road, and you're entitled to that feeling, but what more do you expect the state department to do in terms of apologizing?
Yeah that came off very poorly and incredibly insincere. He can't promise immediate change but feels they will, in time? Fuck that. He could immediately undo the limitations if he wanted.
"Thank you for holding. You call is very important to us."
"Our relationship with developers got confusing, unpredictable. We want to come to you today and apologize for the confusion."
Yeah it was the "confusion" that was wrong. Nothing like apologizing but not admitting fault either. He's basically saying "we did the right thing, we just didn't communicate it clearly."