Hacker News Reader

Comment by xenadu02 | Hacker News Reader

I still maintain that screwing over client developers had something to do with it. At the very least it didn't help them "control the twitter experience". Every time I see one of their new ads about how much Twitter loves developers I laugh out loud. There is zero chance I'll ever integrate Twitter into anything I do, period. I'll fight against it anywhere I work and encourage all my peers to do the same.

Did everyone forget they didn't even invent the word "Tweet"? Nor did they write their mobile clients. They had no idea what they were doing and stumbled into success. Then the MBAs turned around and stabbed us in the back.

Twitter can fuck right off.

View on HN

I feel the same way. I stopped using Twitter after that betrayal and never bothered to come back to it. Don't know if it made the difference to hurting their business, but I feel they missed out on something big by losing developer mindshare.

What "betrayal" are you talking about? I've never used Twitter, so my knowledge lacks a little.

IIRC, they changed their policies and APIs to being much more restrictive against 3rd party apps. Something to do with rate limits maybe.

After years of being increasingly hostile to 3rd party developers, Twitter finally decided that you needed their permission to have more than 100k users of your twitter client. That announcement was bundled with tightened rate limiting and stricter controls over how you could display tweets. This was the final stake in the coffin for many Twitter clients.

https://blog.twitter.com/2012/changes-coming-in-version-11-o...

There was a period here on HN where every week or two they'd be a story or an Ask HN about someone hitting the limit and having to shut down.

To add a bit more to the context to the parent, all these third party clients made it possible for people to use Twitter how they wanted to, to tailor it to them. Twitter decided they wanted you to use it in their way.

It was a big shift in the culture of twitter. It's hard to quantify as everyone has their own perspective on it.

The rate limit was bad, but the maximum user limit was a complete killer. Basically, if your app was a success, Twitter would shut it down. Overnight, it became a bad investment to make an app that tied into Twitter.

They didn't invent the hashtag either.

hahah right?

Yes, Twitter should become a non-profit. They just were spitballing around, then the users came and made them what they are today. All their good ideas, besides starting a micro-blogging platform, came from outside the company.

And how did they thank them? Cutting of 3rd party clients and shadowbanning users?

> Yes, Twitter should become a non-profit.

And what do you tell Twitter's investors ? "Thanks for the money, we are now going non profit!". A public company just can't do that, that's not how it work, investors want return on their investments and they didn't invest in a "non-profit".

yes, I know they won't do this. But one can dream.

Facebook parted ways with a lot of its developers as well (remember the Friends data API?), but then went on for more fast growth and happy investors.

These are my feelings... about Instagram.

Same with Facebook. It's actually a HUGE reason we're building in a "non-compete" clause into our corporate charter for our platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com