[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.