[flurp]

I actually think they've been very clear on this from the beginning, including the reason why (although it wasn't spelled out).

They've always meant apps that offer more or less the same functionality as official Twitter clients.

For the people who actually read the terms instead of picking up their pitchforks back when Twitter had that big tos "change of heart" would have understood that They definitely could have handled it better and been clear that the user limit was really meant for Twitter-clones.

It's clear they want to control the way most people use Twitter, but also to show advertising. As best I can recall, the tos change came around the same time as they started putting in ads. Besides the few remaining twitter clones always play catchup when Twitter puts out new features (recent example; polls).

[ksk]

>They've always meant apps that offer more or less the same functionality as official Twitter clients.

That would mean that if I wrote a Twitter clone that consumed 100x less memory and was much more performant, it would still be a "banned" application even when there is clear benefit for the users.

>been clear that the user limit was really meant for Twitter-clones.

Even if that was true, its backstabbing developers who are popularizing Twitter in their own way.

>Besides the few remaining twitter clones always play catchup when Twitter puts out new features (recent example; polls).

And why is that a problem? What if an app developer thinks that new features are not worth them spending development time/money on?

It would be like Apple forcing ios developers to support force touch if they want to continue selling their apps.

[flurp]

> 100x less memory and was much more performant

Technically you're not prevented from doing so - you would just have to keep it to yourself (/family/friends/etc). Non-technical people rarely care about these things.

> backstabbing developers

I don't disagree. Would be interesting if there are any stats on who/what made Twitter popular, got any?

> And why is that a problem?

It's a problem for Twitter when you're trying to run a top-brand. Clients who don't keep up-to-date actually make Twitter look bad to the public. It also makes it harder for Twitter to innovate, move quickly (and probably get usage stats), without coordinating with external developers. Apple actually does (in some aspects) force developers to keep their apps up to date. I develop iOS apps and this actually consumes way more time than I wish it did.

Your concerns are valid from a third-party concern but from Twitter's first-party concern they are distractions.

[ksk]

>It's a problem for Twitter when you're trying to run a top-brand. Clients who don't keep up-to-date actually make Twitter look bad to the public. It also makes it harder for Twitter to innovate, move quickly (and probably get usage stats), without coordinating with external developers

Yes ! But shouldn't we let the users decide that? If one of the clients implements the newer features and users like them, they would switch to the other client. That is assuming Twitter believes in competition. This makes it seem like they want to eliminate competition and consolidate control. Its rather anti-capitalistic.

>Your concerns are valid from a third-party concern but from Twitter's first-party concern they are distractions.

Yes, I'm siding with with the third parties. Twitter is a giant company with a megaphone to make their argument anywhere they want. Personally, I don't think anyone should care about Twitter's bottom line except Twitter themselves.

[hellbanner]

Sorry that I can't remember which apps, but I think it was a Twitter client which Apple removed from their store and then came out with their own. Several apps they cannibalize into the OS.

[flurp]

Yep. Apple have released many apps after similar ones had success on the AppStore.

They have much much harsher ToS (and enforce them) than the discussed Twitter ones.

[mooreds]

Does Apple get a pass? Or do developers avoid writing apps for iOS just as they do for Twitter?

Seems like the field is a lot larger for iOS products, and that Apple wins either way (30% haircut on the app store), so maybe incentives for Apple are a bit more aligned then they are for twitter.

Which points to the fundamental thing twitter needs to do to get developers back on board: provide opportunities for both parties to make money. If Twitter was making a 30 cents every time a developer made 70 cents from the API, you can bet that that API would be protected and the developer respected.

[callumlocke]

Most people would agree it's fair that Twitter wants to disallow outright clones. The problem is it's not obvious where the limits are, as the wording "apps replicating Twitter’s core user experience" is open to interpretation (by Twitter).

[ksk]

>Most people would agree it's fair that Twitter wants to disallow outright clones.

I don't. Could you articulate why you think its fair?

[callumlocke]

It's their API, they can offer it to people on whatever terms they want. As long as people know what they're getting into, it's fair.

[ksk]

>As long as people know what they're getting into, it's fair.

Huh? No, its not. What is fair has nothing to do with what is legal.

[cbsmith]

> They've always meant apps that offer more or less the same functionality as official Twitter clients.

No, it started out that way, but then the functionality of the official Twitter clients was expended, and then they redefined it to be so broad as to potentially hit anything that tweeted, and they they went farther still and started going after API keys for things that just consumed the data for their own ends.