[jasonlbaptiste]

Why? This doesn't make logical sense. It's a large company with enough resources. I get that the Mac is a lower priority, but why put your name on anything this bad. It's pretty clear how you should approach this:

a) We're going to do this and we'll do it right. It might be a smaller audience, but if we release this product under our name it will be awesome.

b) This isn't a priority, so we're not going to ship something half baked and outsource it. Here's a link to TweetDeck and TweetBot.

[morgante]

> b) This isn't a priority, so we're not going to ship something half baked and outsource it. Here's a link to TweetDeck and TweetBot.

Since the API now effectively forbids third party apps, that doesn't seem like a viable option.

[tedmiston]

TweetDeck hasn't been third party since Twitter acquired it in 2011.

[morgante]

Oh, in that case I completely agree.

They should have just rebranded TweetDeck as the new official Twitter OS X client.

[ChrisClark]

The old Twitter app for OS X wasn't theirs either, they just bought and re-branded Tweetie. So they could have re-branded TweetDeck even more easily.

[forrestthewoods]

> but why put your name on anything this bad

It's possible that someone signed a bad contract. I've seen terrible products worked on or released because certain rights were sold in ways they shouldn't have been sold. That's not an excuse as it should still never happen. But it can go down that way.

[jasonlbaptiste]

Totally, but even if it was say a 500k contract, you chalk it up as a loss and don't release it.

[mikeash]

Sounds like a case where the incentives for the company don't line up with the incentives for an individual manager. The responsible person might have suffered greatly (or at least thought they would) if they had just declared that much money to be a lesson learned on a bad idea, even if that might have been best for Twitter.