[archgrove]

Twitter are gambling that they are now powerful enough to say "No more 3rd party clients", and thus start streaming ads down peoples throats (oh, sorry - "Richer stories" is apparently the nuspeak). I'm not sure they're yet in a position to dictate this, especially given how bad their own clients are compared to some other options.

The interesting thing about Twitter compared to e.g. Facebook is that the social graph is very weak. I (and in anecdata, many people I know) use it to follow some "big names", and a splattering of smaller names, for broadcast information. I occasionally send something out, but it's not a strong set of connections. The network effect is thus minimal; migrating over to app.net would be easy, as I'm not that bothered that I have exactly the same followers/followees. When the pain of the service outweighs it's smallish value, I'll just jump ship.

Even more people out there are just passive followers of celebrity names. Facebook or similar could launch a "Flitter" that did everything they wanted, and get a mass migration pretty easily - once people get annoyed enough to start looking around. If Twitter continue on this path, that threshold will be reached much sooner than I originally expected.

[breckinloggins]

I just really don't get it.

If the problem is that they can't figure out how to monetize third party apps, the answer is staring them right in the face.

So, Twitter is already going to dictate what the tweet view looks like. In-stream ads won't be much more than tweets. So why not stipulate that an app MUST show in-stream ads in a given format? If the app wishes to not show ads or to use twitter for more of an "infrastructure-like" purpose, then there should be some kind of use-fee-based pricing model on the API side. Sure, people might bitch about the high API costs, but it's better than nothing.

Or maybe that was their plan all along: throw out these API changes threatening to cut everyone completely off, then eventually "concede" with new ad-supported and use-fee API rules and have everyone applaud them for "listening to their customers".

You'll have to forgive me for being more cynical than normal... but with this twitter stuff lately it just seems like we've all entered into the Twilight Zone of Suck.

[jad]

> If the app wishes to not show ads or to use twitter for more of an "infrastructure-like" purpose, then there should be some kind of use-fee-based pricing model on the API side.

No need for this complexity. They could just revoke API access for apps that don't show ads per their guidelines. It'd be easy to catch any Twitter client with a significant user base that isn't showing ads properly.

At the end of the day though solutions like this just aren't realistic. If Twitter's going to show ads and other content like cards in their stream, advertisers have to have confidence that the content and presentation will be preserved. The only way to truly do this effectively is to control how your product is presented in all cases.

The problem isn't that Twitter's making these changes. The problem is that Twitter's only getting around to doing this now, years after a vibrant ecosystem of third-party clients has been well established. No one complains that there isn't a rich market for third-party Facebook clients, even though the Facebook app historically has been pretty substandard. Facebook, wisely, never relinquished control over their platform.

Twitter, as ever, is cleaning up for previous incompetence, trying to clean up a mess that never should have existed. How could they not have assigned one or two people to build an iPhone client the minute the iPhone SDK was announced in 2008? How blind do you have to be to not anticipate that mobile will be huge for Twitter, a service originally engineered around being used over SMS?

Watching Twitter bungle issue after issue over the years gives the distinct impression that Twitter is successful in spite of their executive management, not because of it.

[MatthewPhillips]

> The problem is that solutions like this aren't realistic. If Twitter's going to show ads and other content like cards in their stream, advertisers have to have confidence that the content and presentation will be preserved. The only way to truly do this effectively is to control how your product is presented in all cases.

Thank you. It amazes me how people miss this. Look at it from the perspective of Twitter's customers (advertisers). Would you buy an ad without seeing exactly what it looks like, or without knowing with certainty that what they show you is what winds up in front of the users eyeballs? Having worked in advertising, companies pay attention to every last detail of an ad piece. This is the exact reason why Twitter has gone this way. That have to sell themselves to companies as trustworthy partner.

[natrius]

"Facebook, wisely, never relinquished control over their platform."

What did Facebook do differently? Third-party Facebook clients have been possible for quite some time, perhaps from the initial launching of their API.

[gurkendoktor]

I've tried various Facebook iPad apps and they all sucked. I think it's simply that Facebook has so many features and changes at such a rapid rate that it becomes unfeasible to write an app for it. Compare that to the wealth of Twitter- and RSS clients and weather apps. They're all gorgeous front ends around conceptually simple data.

[MatthewPhillips]

You're proposing 2 competing business models. Ads are devalued if some users can opt-out of them.

[troethom]

I think it could work. The set of users who would pay is a completely different demographic than those who are following Justin Bieber. You're only devaluing the market for the adverts that would appeal to everyone.

[MatthewPhillips]

Aren't "users who will pay" the most desirable demographic for marketing to?

[semanticist]

Different groups of people will pay for different things.

Beiber followers might not spend money on Twitter, but they might on whatever tat it is teenage girls get their parents to buy for them.

The kind of people who will pay to opt-out of adverts are probably not the kind of people who will click on your adverts.

[cstejerean]

Users who will pay for twitter API access to use as infrastructure != users who will pay in general

[breckinloggins]

Understood, but I'm wondering if there's a compromise somewhere.

[dusing]

"Twitter are gambling that they are now powerful enough to say "No more 3rd party clients"

Isn't it more: No more free data for 3rd party clients? (past a certain amount) Companies can still buy unlimited realtime data through twitter's monitization child DataSift. Meaning the death of free 3rd party apps. Maybe now that they have to charge a good chunk we will get better 3rd party apps?

[eridius]

I haven't really looked at it, but I don't think DataSift is intended for twitter clients to use.

[ConstantineXVI]

Not certain about DataSift, but we used Gnip and part of the terms was you couldn't display tweets to your users directly off the firehose. I'd imagine DataSift has a similar restriction.

Besides that; neither give you access to private tweets or DMs, so you pretty much have to use the API for a client of any worth.

[dabeeeenster]

Are Twitter and DataSift linked in any way in terms of their company ownership etc?

[twoodfin]

I (and in anecdata, many people I know) use it to follow some "big names", and a splattering of smaller names, for broadcast information.

Why is this a negative? To a first approximation, the "big names" you follow are an indication of your interests, and advertisers are very comfortable with broadcast media.

Following anyone also indicates a degree of commitment that simply hitting a "Like" button does not: You're willing to see everything that person/business Tweets.