The Twitter Platform(blog.twitter.com)
blog.twitter.com
The Twitter Platform
http://blog.twitter.com/2010/05/twitter-platform.html
54 comments
Ad.ly and a bunch of other stream advertising solution are in a precarious position.
"There are over 100,000 applications leveraging the Twitter API"
That's probably evidence enough that investing in developing for Twitter is kinda fruitless. There's just too much crud out there.
This coming from a Twitter iPhone app and web developer. Likely adding to the crud...
That's probably evidence enough that investing in developing for Twitter is kinda fruitless. There's just too much crud out there.
This coming from a Twitter iPhone app and web developer. Likely adding to the crud...
"Oh, paid tweets. That's a cool idea. We'll take over from here. Now get off our service."
That's hardly fair. Paid tweets are a blindingly obvious method for generating revenue - they're just Twitter's version of advertorials. The hard part is, as they say here, trying to have paid tweets that do not ruin the user experience.
Given how many webpages look these days, with more ads than content, they can't really be blamed for being concerned about third-party advertising ruining the service.
Given how many webpages look these days, with more ads than content, they can't really be blamed for being concerned about third-party advertising ruining the service.
A more delicate way to handle the situation would have been to acquire one of the ad networks or at least launch their own service to compete with the others instead of making such an aggressive move. Facebook has been working to take marketshare from their platform's ad networks with their own credits and offers system, but it doing it in a slow, deliberate way that is not traumatizing their platform ecosystem.
Joel Spolsky said it best in his Mixergy interview:
basically, if you were a platform developer ... you're in a dangerous position. You are snatching nickels in front of an oncoming bulldozer.
basically, if you were a platform developer ... you're in a dangerous position. You are snatching nickels in front of an oncoming bulldozer.
Which is funny, because Joel in the past year has launched one platform (FogBugz Plugins) and has another brewing (StackExchange + just released API).
What, he's not the one snatching nickels in front of an oncoming bulldozer. ;P
Have you ever crossed the road, and looked the wrong way? A car's nearly on you? So what do you do? Something very silly. You freeze. Your life doesn't flash before you, 'cause you're too fuckin' scared to think - you just freeze and pull a stupid face. But the pikey didn't. Why? Because he had plans of running the car over.
The idea is that you want to own the plantation.
This is just stupid. We are now in the age where the most compelling apps interact with and remix the data that is created by other apps. Dangerous? Not exactly the word I would use. How about innovative, exciting, interesting, etc.
I've shared this feeling my entire life. I never really understood why anyone would want to build a product on the back of someone else. This is going to sound harsh, but it kind of feels like a cop out to me. And if not a cop out, certainly ridiculously risky and limiting.
Every piece of software we write is built on the back of someone else. We're all vulnerable to the whims of the people who build the operating systems, the browsers, heck, even the protocols. The important question probably comes down to ability and motive: "can this platform be turned against me, and do those who control it gain some advantage from doing so?"
Your thinking is correct, though I agree with spencerfry that you are taking this a bit too far to prove the point.
However, there is nothing wrong with building a business and relying on another service to provide key functionality.
When people say 'built on the back', I am visualizing that like an elephant with a bunch of people riding on its back. Don't be amazed when the elephant changes direction and you get bumped off.
If you can find a way to harness the skill and capabilities of the elephant, then do that. If you can help the elephant and yourself at the same time, you could be the next summize.
So, I would urge peole to leverage apis and platforms, but maybe don't build your business solely trying to get a piece of somebody elses action.
However, there is nothing wrong with building a business and relying on another service to provide key functionality.
When people say 'built on the back', I am visualizing that like an elephant with a bunch of people riding on its back. Don't be amazed when the elephant changes direction and you get bumped off.
If you can find a way to harness the skill and capabilities of the elephant, then do that. If you can help the elephant and yourself at the same time, you could be the next summize.
So, I would urge peole to leverage apis and platforms, but maybe don't build your business solely trying to get a piece of somebody elses action.
You're taking it too for to the extreme. Building on top of a browser or an operating system is a proven and solid model. Building on top of another software company, web app, etc., is a whole different ballgame. Web browsers aren't going to turn against you. Other companies can.
Maybe this is just my programmer mentality of making abstract connections between things, but is building on top of another software company's platform really all that new? What makes an operating system platform different than a web platform, other than the fact that OSes have been around much longer?
Any business needs to mitigate risks, and I'm not trying to downplay that. You can see this with Zynga and Facebook, for example. At the same time, you have to remember that the platform is also a business, too. Platforms don't have a business without customers to build on top of them.
Any business needs to mitigate risks, and I'm not trying to downplay that. You can see this with Zynga and Facebook, for example. At the same time, you have to remember that the platform is also a business, too. Platforms don't have a business without customers to build on top of them.
> Building on top of a browser or an operating system is a proven and solid model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape#History
Microsoft's entire corporate history is full of incidents like Twitter's new policies. Building on top of browsers sounds safer than the Microsoft/Netscape scenario until you consider the possibility that the browser vendor might launch a competitor and use the browser to promote it (e.g. MPEG LA vs. Google/WebM).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape#History
Microsoft's entire corporate history is full of incidents like Twitter's new policies. Building on top of browsers sounds safer than the Microsoft/Netscape scenario until you consider the possibility that the browser vendor might launch a competitor and use the browser to promote it (e.g. MPEG LA vs. Google/WebM).
However, those browsers or operating systems are written by companies. See Apple and iPhone OS for a recent example.
Building on top of anything is risky unless the platform (whatever that be - OS, Facebook, Twitter) provider gives you some guarantees (and you have enough trust in them that they will stick to those guarantees).
If you build your app on top of someone's service and the terms of use say "we reserve the right to change anything", it's like loading a shotgun, giving it to the service provider, and hoping they'll be nice to you.
If you don't/can't accept that risk, don't build on top of them.
Building on top of anything is risky unless the platform (whatever that be - OS, Facebook, Twitter) provider gives you some guarantees (and you have enough trust in them that they will stick to those guarantees).
If you build your app on top of someone's service and the terms of use say "we reserve the right to change anything", it's like loading a shotgun, giving it to the service provider, and hoping they'll be nice to you.
If you don't/can't accept that risk, don't build on top of them.
[deleted]
This is a rather interesting question to ask. Why does developing for an operating system - OSX, say - feel better than developing for Facebook (e.g.: the Zynga/FB relationship you mentioned)?
The only good answer I can come up with, at the moment, is that OSX has been around for longer, and there are plenty of successful apps on the platform to date - which shows that it can be done.
The only good answer I can come up with, at the moment, is that OSX has been around for longer, and there are plenty of successful apps on the platform to date - which shows that it can be done.
I think most businesses are built "on the back of somebody else". That's the way commerce works. Think of things in the real world:
- A store in a mall... depends on the mall operator to maintain and promote the mall
- A auto parts manufacturer... depends on the auto manufacturer to sell parts and maintain the brand
- An MacOS developer... depends on Apple to sell Macs to supply a market.
- A franchisee (e.g. McDonalds)... depends on the corporation to promote the brand.
That's far less true for the Web and that's what's relevant here.
Are you saying that web applications are more standalone than most other pieces of software?
In denial.
I've decided to only build on platforms from now on. You know why - the amount of marketing you have to do to reach people when you are not on a platform is huge. For people who have a marketer in their team, avoiding platforms may be a bad idea, for those who don't platforms will help you.
It's like selling craft through a website vs selling it through etsy.
You are seeing the issue too strongly through the lens of your own abilities. Try to see how it works for other people.
It's like selling craft through a website vs selling it through etsy.
You are seeing the issue too strongly through the lens of your own abilities. Try to see how it works for other people.
Well that's what APIs are for. Why release an API and publicize it in that case?
fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice, shame on me. By now we should realize the pattern with twitter is that any company that adds real value to twitter, they are more than willing to take the idea, and build a competing service. Search, trends, ads, alt. clients, and url shorteners. They fooled us all when they said they just wanted to be the pipe.
They fooled us all
This is at variance with my recollection of events.
This is at variance with my recollection of events.
Twitter development is transitioning into a hobby. As a business opportunity, it sucks. Anything of real business value you create will get sucked into the platform, so, really, there is not much point to it.
search was purchased (summize)
Why don't people patent their Twitter apps then? It may take three years before you get it approved, but once it's in you can sue Twitter into oblivion for stealing your idea, right?
You can't just "patent an app"
If you have a patentable concept, perhaps - but even then, patents need to be surprisingly specific. For a platform vendor like Twitter that makes it pretty easy to work around their claims.
For example, if you managed to patent the idea of broadcasting advertisements on twitter, the patent claim would probably have to say the method is something like "insert advertisement using Twitter API". Twitter can work around that by inserting the advertisement by other means.
In other words - don't waste you time with this strategy.
If you have a patentable concept, perhaps - but even then, patents need to be surprisingly specific. For a platform vendor like Twitter that makes it pretty easy to work around their claims.
For example, if you managed to patent the idea of broadcasting advertisements on twitter, the patent claim would probably have to say the method is something like "insert advertisement using Twitter API". Twitter can work around that by inserting the advertisement by other means.
In other words - don't waste you time with this strategy.
How does 3rd-party ads add value to twitter?
If they do a better job ad showing ads you want to see than the official Twitter ads, then it adds value. But now there's no chance for competition -- you eat your twitter ads because you don't have a choice (aside from the obvious one of not using twitter, which I find wholesome and life-enriching so far).
I don't really feel more ads are valuable, no matter the quality.
Well they just have to be better than promoted Tweets I guess, then they would add value over the advertising your going to see anyway.
This begs the question: how does Twitter define a "paid" tweet? Does payment from advertiser to service or service to publisher matter? Do both? What about Foursquare/Gowalla checkins? Would those count as "paid"? What if a business rewards its mayor for all his checkins... do the mayor's tweets now count as "paid"?
Much like "How does Google define if a link is paid?", asking this question is less useful than you'd think: they're under no particular obligation to have consistent standards, enforce them without caprice, or avoid changing them on a whim and/or retroactively.
Plus, even if your conduct is currently kosher, they can always invent a new policy that you've already broken tomorrow.
Plus, even if your conduct is currently kosher, they can always invent a new policy that you've already broken tomorrow.
They did say that they are going to clarify that...
I wonder if Scoopler's @WTF tweets count.
"First, third party ad networks are not necessarily looking to preserve the unique user experience Twitter has created."
Hmm this sounds familiar...
Hmm this sounds familiar...
Goodbye Ad.ly.
TL;DR - Fuck off, ad.ly
Really? I wasn't quite sure what they meant by injecting ads into the timeline. I thought it meant what the free version of Echofon does, IIRC, which is take a friends_timeline and display it with ads in between, rather than something that add advertisements to a user's statuses.
I think they meant the twitter timeline and not the timeline in a user interface. This article pretty much just says what the twitter blog post says, but after reading it several times it sounds clear to me what they meant.
http://www.socaltech.com/twitter_takes_aim_at_ad_ly_bans_in_...
http://www.socaltech.com/twitter_takes_aim_at_ad_ly_bans_in_...
The terms [1] were just updated to reflect these changes. There are some interesting tidbits under the commercial use section, including: "In cases where Twitter content is the basis (in whole or in part) of the advertising sale, we require you to compensate us..."
[1] - http://dev.twitter.com/pages/api_terms
[1] - http://dev.twitter.com/pages/api_terms
They should call it the "twax".
Should be easy for Twitter to put a limit on the number of ads that will be inserted during a period of time. Like build it into their API. API ads.
Kinda lame though. They could have just made it part of their TOS. Only X number of ads can be shown after X tweets.
Twitter must have $$ in the eyes.
Kinda lame though. They could have just made it part of their TOS. Only X number of ads can be shown after X tweets.
Twitter must have $$ in the eyes.
So I take it I was the only one who thought this was a strikingly clear explanation of how Twitter sees itself and how they intend to develop their ecosystem? A really excellent piece of communication.
At first I was happy that the service I work on was not banned by this ToS change. Even though we use twitter data for monetisation, we don't insert data into timelines.
However, when I look at the services that have now been banned, I can't see any warning signs other than that they were competing with Twitter for monetising their data. This is what my service does. Even though it's not currently banned, doesn't it make sense to abandon development now? The best I can hope for it that it isn't wildly successful, so Twitter doesn't consider it competition...
Every time I read Twitter's explanation for the situation, it reads as "we know our monetisation strategy can't compete with third parties in the short term, so we're banning all competition". Hardly conducive to fostering the best solutions, particularly when Twitter will always have the upper hand with their "official" monetisation platform and analytics for resonance, anyway. What's even worse is the the new ToS is still completely ambiguous. Until I saw Peter's post here I had no idea that the ban was only in the publishing end, not insertion.
Of course all this makes sense from Twitter's perspective, but for third parties... that just leaves us on an ever changing playing field with invisible goals. I could have lived with rules and rev share additions, but completely banning competition... not so much.
PS what's the point of this paragraph from the blog post? "We understand that for a few of these companies, the new Terms of Service prohibit activities in which they’ve invested time and money. We will continue to move as quickly as we can to deliver the Annotations capability to the market so that developers everywhere can create innovative new business solutions on the growing Twitter platform." a slap in the face? We understand that we've wasted your time and money, so here's the next thing for you to waste time and money on. No guarantees, no apologies.