[HN Gopher] Twitterrific has been discontinued ___________________________________________________________________ Twitterrific has been discontinued Author : erickhill Score : 197 points Date : 2023-01-19 21:15 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.iconfactory.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.iconfactory.com) | coldcode wrote: | To be honest, I expect Elon and Twitter will be discontinued at | some point, without any good feelings and thanks on the part of | any of their customers, unlike the app developers Twitter just | killed. | | What is needed is to do Twitter again, in some way that is more | open and supportive of client apps, but still has the immediacy | and global search that Twitter has. Mastodon has its uses, but it | isn't a real replacement. Twitter was always a terrible business, | but an incredibly useful idea. The idea needs to exist. | KerrAvon wrote: | Any centralized, VC-backed service like Twitter is going to | want to control the client UX. | | Seems like what you should be asking for is Mastodon, but with | performance improvements and improved search. | yokoprime wrote: | Wonder if they will use some of the IP they've built up to move | into the Mastodon Client space. While there is already a nice | crop of Mastodon clients, it seems like there is no dominant 3rd | party client yet. | madeofpalk wrote: | That is exactly what Tapbots has done with Ivory - Taking | Tweetbot and using that as the basis for a Mastodon client. | I've been using it for the past few weeks and it's fantastic | https://tapbots.com/ivory | josh64 wrote: | Honest question - I've been using Ivory for the past week but | it doesn't seem to do anything that Metatext or the Mastodon | app didn't already do. What's so fantastic about Ivory? I | feel like I'm missing something because everyone speaks so | highly of Ivory. | | Thanks! | madeofpalk wrote: | I haven't used those apps, but I figure it doesn't do | anything those apps don't do. | | I just prefer Ivory's UI. For me, it's a nicer app to use. | ceejayoz wrote: | In my case, I've got years worth of Tweetbot muscle memory. | Using different clients is... a little rough right now. | riwsky wrote: | is sad to see it go | baxtr wrote: | This is absolutely humiliating for these 3rd party people. | Twitter shows no respect whatsoever for these devs. | | You wanna shut them down to show more ads? Fine. But at least | communicate and let them know upfront. What a sh*t show. | bachmeier wrote: | > Twitter shows no respect whatsoever for these devs. | | Or for the users of those apps. | wahnfrieden wrote: | Or the workers | tazjin wrote: | There's probably a distorted view there where the percentage | of overall users using third-party clients is absolutely | minuscule, but if you look at the percentage of content | _creators_ it's much larger. At least I remember reading it | was like that around the time that I stopped using Twitter a | few years ago. | TillE wrote: | Pretty much everyone who does this stuff for a job (social | media managers, etc) is using third-party clients. | roydivision wrote: | It's not 'Twitter' showing no respect. Let's stop beating | around the bush, it's one person. | themitigating wrote: | You mean Elon Musk | madeofpalk wrote: | It's hard to overstate how much of an impact third party twitter | clients have had on Twitter and the broader mobile landscape - | like the post mentions, the word 'Tweet' and blue bird twitter | icon came from third party clients! The Tweetie app invented | pull-to-refresh, used by every (both) mobile operating systems. | toss1 wrote: | Yup! | | Also hard to overstate the impact the new ownership has had, | such that their assessment is now: | | >>"...an increasingly capricious Twitter - a Twitter that we no | longer recognize as trustworthy nor want to work with any | longer." | | This, from people that partnered with Twitter for a decade++ | | The new owner had a lot of us, me included, fooled into | thinking he was intelligent and trustworthy. Now, it is obvious | he's neither. | | Wealth reveals character, and it is sad to see that that | character is so rotten. | masklinn wrote: | Yeah original twitter allowed an explosion of creativity (both | in style and interaction) around clients, due to its simple | data and interaction model. | ceejayoz wrote: | Tweetie even got bought and turned into the official client. | radicalbyte wrote: | TweetDeck too as the official power-user web-client. | | At the time I thought of building a client but the dependence | on Twitter seemed like a huge risk. More fool me though given | that those companies were taken over for a decent amount. | ceejayoz wrote: | > We are sorry to say that the app's sudden and undignified | demise is due to an unannounced and undocumented policy change by | an increasingly capricious Twitter - a Twitter that we no longer | recognize as trustworthy nor want to work with any longer. | | They just documented it. Another after-the-fact policy like | @elonjet got. | | https://www.engadget.com/twitter-new-developer-terms-ban-thi... | | "The 'restrictions' section of Twitter's developer agreement was | updated Thursday with a clause banning 'use or access the | Licensed Materials to create or attempt to create a substitute or | similar service or product to the Twitter Applications.' The | addition is the only substantive change to the 5,000-word | agreement." | | Anyone with a shred of empathy would've given devs advance notice | of "we're destroying your business". | pessimizer wrote: | > What Sarver said to developers today was direct: If you don't | want to get burned, don't build pure-play Twitter clients. And | if your app displays and sends tweets, make sure it looks and | feels like Twitter. | | > "Developers ask us if they should build client apps that | mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client | experience," he wrote. | | > "The answer is no." | | _Twitter to Devs: Don 't Make Twitter Clients... Or Else_ | [2011] | | https://mashable.com/archive/twitter-api-clients | ceejayoz wrote: | That was never a _rule_ , and they removed the last vestiges | of the guideline entirely a couple years ago. | | https://www.engadget.com/twitter-new-developer-terms-ban- | thi... | | > In fact, Twitter previously changed its developer policies | in 2021 to remove a section that discouraged -- but didn't | prohibit -- app makers from "replicating" its core service. | The change was part of a broader shift by Twitter to improve | its relationship with developers, including the makers of | third-party clients. | | The guidelines they introduced in 2011: | | https://web.archive.org/web/20211105230857/https://developer. | .. | | See the section titled "If you create a service that | replicates Twitter's core experience or features you will be | subject to additional rules beyond what is already included | in the Developer Policy." | | It very clearly _permits_ clients like Tweetbot and | Twitteriffic. It only applies additional conditions to them, | which they 've entirely complied with. | pessimizer wrote: | Everything you're saying is absolutely true. The idea that | cutting off third-party clients is something radical or | something twitter didn't desire to do a long time ago is | laughable. | | All of the people gloating about how much Musk overpaid | when he was forced to buy their favorite thing should have | expected that as a result he'd have to do anything to | squeeze revenue out of it. | | > That was never a rule, and they removed the last vestiges | of the guideline entirely a couple years ago. | | I wasn't aware that traces of this _guideline_ lasted until | just a couple of years ago. | ceejayoz wrote: | > The idea that cutting off third-party clients is | something radical or something twitter didn't desire to | do a long time ago is laughable. | | It's not at all radical, and if it'd been done with a | month's warning, I think there'd have been grumbling but | that'd be about it. | | Destroying a number of small businesses _without warning_ | (and letting them swing in the wind for a week waiting | for a "why", and lying about them breaking "long- | standing" rules) in this nature was entirely unnecessary, | and is what has generated the backlash. | pessimizer wrote: | Absolutely agree. It's chaotic, but the reason Musk owns | all of these big companies was because of luck and | financial prowess, not any talent for management. | minimaxir wrote: | "long-standing API rules" indeed. | TillE wrote: | It's notable how that statement was just an absolute, | unequivocal lie. | | Most companies don't do that! | | https://twitter.com/TwitterDev/status/1615405842735714304 | minimaxir wrote: | There is a conspiracy theory that Elon himself wrote that | tweet, which IMO tracks. | rideontime wrote: | It's hardly a conspiracy theory considering he boasted | about writing the "This account may or may not be | notable" text for the "legacy" (real) verification | checks. | clouddrover wrote: | Here's what Musk said about Twitter an hour ago | (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1616179085507702785): | | > _" Twitter is arguably already the least wrong source of | truth on the Internet, but we obviously still have a long | way to go._ | | > _Enabling @CommunityNotes to operate at very large scale | and providing maximum transparency about how Twitter works | are fundamental to building trust. "_ | | It's maximum shamelessness. | ceejayoz wrote: | Let's hope Twitter puts the time machine up for auction | (https://www.npr.org/2023/01/18/1149731084/twitter-office- | sup...) someday. | [deleted] | culi wrote: | > Since 2007, Twitterrific helped define the shape of the Twitter | experience. It was the first desktop client, the first mobile | client, one of the very first apps in the App Store, an Apple | Design award winner, and it even helped redefine the word "tweet" | in the dictionary. Ollie, Twitterrific's bluebird mascot, was so | popular it even prompted Twitter themselves to later adopt a | bluebird logo of their very own. Our little app made a big dent | on the world! | | Wow they really helped make Twitter what it is today | [deleted] | binkHN wrote: | What are the chances Reddit goes down this path and kills the | many amazing third-party clients? I absolutely love the one I use | and detest the official Reddit app. | minimaxir wrote: | Given the amount of users that use and evangelize Apollo for | iOS (including myself), that might hurt Reddit more than the | loss of third-party apps for Twitter. | buildbot wrote: | Yeah the day Apollo is disabled is the day I stop using | reddit basically... It's so good using anything else is | annoying. | | Before Apollo, only Baconreader came close. | mschuster91 wrote: | Not much. No one cares about Reddit that much, it doesn't have | the ridiculous level of venture capital attached that forces | leadership to short-term benefits only, and most importantly: | Reddit caves when the mods of major subs do collective action. | Twitter and FB have in house moderation, whereas Reddit is | completely at the mercy of the volunteer mods. | donio wrote: | Reddit has learned a lasting lesson from Digg's self-destruct, | that's why old.reddit.com is still around too. It's been over a | decade so they might be starting to forget but perhaps the | Twitter meltdown will be a good refresher. Don't piss off your | core userbase. | perardi wrote: | Twitterrific, and a lot of these early iOS clients, really helped | defined the Twitter service, and even more so, our interface | idioms for mobile apps. | | Right from the bird's mouth, which by the way, they created, not | Twitter... | | _"Since 2007, Twitterrific helped define the shape of the | Twitter experience. It was the first desktop client, the first | mobile client, one of the very first apps in the App Store, an | Apple Design award winner, and it even helped redefine the word | "tweet" in the dictionary. Ollie, Twitterrific's bluebird mascot, | was so popular it even prompted Twitter themselves to later adopt | a bluebird logo of their very own. Our little app made a big dent | on the world!"_ | | And "pull-to-refresh"? Tweetie. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull-to-refresh | selykg wrote: | Tweetie was a great app. That was the last time I was really | actually "interested" in Twitter. It was all sort of downhill | for me. But I remember pull to refresh being an absolutely mind | bending feature at the time. It just felt natural. | mistersquid wrote: | This is a stretch, but I wonder if Twitter is open to liability | for summarily shutting down its third-party API access. | | Is there any potential upside to suing? | ceejayoz wrote: | I'm quite certain the developer agreement has a "can be revoked | at any time, for any reason" clause. | | edit: | | > Twitter may immediately terminate or suspend this Agreement, | any rights granted herein, and/or your license to the Licensed | Materials, at its sole discretion at any time, for any reason | by providing notice to you. | | Only possible wiggle room is they didn't do the "providing | notice" bit. | klelatti wrote: | It's obviously bad business (for Twitter given the cost / | benefit) and show's Elon's lack of empathy but also demonstrates | the perils of having a user like him run the show. | | He literally couldn't care about anything that doesn't affect his | own experience of the product. Features, clients, parts of the | world, even users - if Elon isn't interested then it will | probably go or be ignored. | samwillis wrote: | There was a quite moving exchange between Twitterrific and a | customer earlier: | | > Customer: _This makes me so sad. Your iPhone app allowed me as | a blind person to use Twitter so much better than the app that | they themselves produce. Sorry for the hostility you are | receiving from them, but know that you are appreciated for the | hard work you've done._ | | > Twitterrific: _Maybe the best thing anyone 's ever told us. | Thank you for this, truly. It is everything. Please take care._ | | https://mobile.twitter.com/RustyHilliard77/status/1616174474... | paxys wrote: | Considering Musk fired all the engineers working on | accessibility, I don't expect the official app to improve for | the better anytime soon. | barbazoo wrote: | That's heartbreaking | wlesieutre wrote: | And somehow I don't think accessibility in the official Twitter | app is about to get any better, having fired their | accessibility team | | https://twitter.com/owswills/status/1588625105101664256 | pavlov wrote: | The problem facing Twitter 2.0 is that Musk is personally | driving product development and he has essentially no empathy | for users. | | Can you blame him? He hasn't needed it until now. His companies | either specialize in binary-outcome engineering challenges | (rocket flies/explodes) or products where Musk himself is the | user, like a kid designing his own toys (and calling them | "S/3/X/Y"). Turns out that a lot of people want to drive the | car that he wants to drive himself, so he probably thinks this | impeccable taste applies to any kind of product. | | But Twitter, unlike a car, is used by hundreds of millions of | people in thousands of completely different ways. He has no | idea of what the experience is like for someone with only a | handful of followers, or blind, or trans, or Algerian, or | retired, a teenage girl, a suicidal anorexic, etc. etc. -- and | he doesn't seem at all interested in trying to understand. | tomcam wrote: | > he has essentially no empathy for users | | Mindreading much? | nickthegreek wrote: | More like reading the room. | WarChortle wrote: | I don't think he is mindreading, just forming an opinion | based on Elon's actions recently. | d23 wrote: | > Can you blame him? | | Yes, chiefly so. | hourago wrote: | A company with thousands of employees and the CEO is | micromanaging developers. | | I do not think that the problem is empathy. | | It's about not understanding his role in the company. It's | about not understanding collaboration, team work or | leadership. | | He does lack empathy, thou. | actionfromafar wrote: | I think these things you list, are what empathy is used | for. (Among others.) | madeofpalk wrote: | Yes, I can blame him. | | It was reasonably obvious to other people - those who have | and have not ran a rocket company - that running Twitter is | different to running Tesla. | | If you're blindsided by your own ego, it's your fault and | you're to blame. | micromacrofoot wrote: | It really is huge for people that need it, we should all try to | remember this. When you include accessibility you're opening up | a door for people who are _constantly_ walking into doors they | can 't open. | nickcw wrote: | Why has Twitter shut down the API? | | Is it because third party clients don't show adverts and it is | feeling the pinch? | | Or for some other reason? | pvg wrote: | [flagged] | rideontime wrote: | a couple of days ago? it says "one hour ago"... wait, this is a | link to the page we're on. | pvg wrote: | I mispasted the link heh: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34393485 | jiripospisil wrote: | If the issue is that 3rd party clients don't show ads, why not | just require them to do so? Surely that's a better alternative | than shutting them down completely. | _justinfunk wrote: | Are there any open-source options where I can have a non- | algorithmic timeline with my own API key? | skrause wrote: | Mastodon. | unpopularopp wrote: | Well you can get the linear non-algorithmic timeline in the | official mobile app, works perfectly for the time being | lukaszkorecki wrote: | It's almost acceptable, except that there's no timeline sync | between clients - personally for me it's a pretty big | dealbreaker | MBCook wrote: | On the web too. Plus you can use extensions to block ads, | promoted junk, suggestions on who to follow, etc. | | But none of it holds a candle to TweetBot or Twitterific. | mjmsmith wrote: | If you're on iOS/macOS, the developer of Tweaks for Twitter | [1] has been keeping up with recent downgrades to the web | UI. The version released today will hide the For You tab | and always show the Following tab (plus blocking ads / | promoted tweets etc etc). | | no connection / satisfied user | | [1] https://underpassapp.com/tweaks/ | jonjomckay wrote: | Fritter supports this, and much more, without even needing an | account or an API key! The beta version has a lot of nice | features and a fresh UI. | | https://fritter.cc | | Disclaimer: I'm the creator of Fritter | insin wrote: | The Userscripts extension [0] and the user script version of | Tweak New Twitter [1] are both open-source, used on top of the | web version that'll give you a forced non-algorithmic timeline | (and more) | | [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/userscripts/id1463298887 | | [1] https://github.com/insin/tweak-new-twitter#tweak-new- | twitter | schnebbau wrote: | > we would ask you to please consider not requesting a refund | from Apple | | If I pay for something and don't get the promised value why | should I be the one who eats it? | | This is going to hurt the dev but that's business and I'm sure | their bank balance is doing just fine. Appealing to the users | like this feels unfair. | CoastalCoder wrote: | I think there are two key questions here: | | (1) Exactly what did the user pay for? | | If it's an app that promises to provide access to Twitter, then | I'd think the app developer is responsible for making the | necessary arrangements with Twitter to uphold that promise. | | If it's an app that promises to make a best-effort attempt to | use Twitter's public APIs, then a refund doesn't sound | reasonable. | | (2) Should the user consider this a simple business | relationship, or something more personal? I.e., even if a case | could be made for a refund, should that matter? | pessimizer wrote: | Something more parasocial more like it. | | Remember, if Musk puts you out of work, you're a refugee, but | if anyone else puts you out of work, you're merely | unfortunate. | aaronbrethorst wrote: | I hope no one ever kicks you when you're down. You might want | to consider extending others the same grace. | schnebbau wrote: | They aren't some poor dev struggling to eat and pay bills, | they've been one of the most popular third party Twitter apps | for 15 years. They are not down. | ceejayoz wrote: | They'll _be_ down if everyone asks for a refund and they | wind up losing years worth of revenue. | schnebbau wrote: | They'll be slightly less rich, but still considerably | more rich than most of us. | aaronbrethorst wrote: | You seem to know a lot about the economics of being an | indie app developer and consulting firm. You should share | more about how much cash they must be rolling in. | jdminhbg wrote: | If everyone asks for a refund, won't they wind up losing | some fraction of one year's worth of revenue? | kelnos wrote: | Too bad? The idea that we should treat companies that | stop longer providing a product as charities deserving of | free money is a bit silly. | | Twitterific built their business on something that we | often acknowledge here as being very shaky: the whim of a | third-party platform. If the company hasn't considered | and prepared for the scenario where that third-party | platform completely cuts off your access, that's | irresponsible as a business owner. | pessimizer wrote: | You have to ignore an awful lot of kicked down people to | start donating to recently-employed developers. | bachmeier wrote: | > If I pay for something and don't get the promised value why | should I be the one who eats it? | | Why should the developer? It would be wrong to say "You won't | get a refund" but that's not what they're doing. | schnebbau wrote: | Because I paid them for something and I'm not receiving it? | This isn't a hard concept. | monsieurgaufre wrote: | That EM likes to burn bridges does not change the nature of | your transaction with Twitterific. You did not pay for | access to Twitter: you paid for an app that you received. | Asking for a refund is ... questionnable. | jacquesm wrote: | But: you did receive it. You received it immediately when | you paid for it. And you've used it in the meantime and | presumably derived value from it otherwise you would have | asked for a refund immediately upon delivery. | ceejayoz wrote: | Precisely. | | I wouldn't judge anyone who bought it a month ago for | asking for a refund, but if you've been using the app | since 2019 or something, you got what you paid for, for | years. | pessimizer wrote: | Does Apple give refunds for four-year old app downloads? | jacquesm wrote: | Good question. Anything over 90 days I would see as | unreasonable. | pessimizer wrote: | So anyone getting a refund is probably a recent | purchaser. | jacquesm wrote: | I don't know because I don't know the App store rules for | these refunds. But if they do allow longer refunds it | should have massive repercussions for any App store | developers that want to stay in business in the longer | term if they are basing their App on someone else's API, | even with permission. | stcroixx wrote: | Yeah, it was hard to believe what I was reading there. Building | something that can't stand alone as a product without a 3rd | party API is always a big risk for a developer. When it blows | up, should not be made the customers problem. | maxbond wrote: | It was a request and not a demand, if you value the service the | dev provided the community more than the money, you might not | refund it, otherwise, presumably you will. Recently I had a | pizza come an hour and a half late because the restaurant was | swamped, and I'd already gotten hungry and eaten something | else. I tipped the same amount as I would have otherwise | because the tip, in my mind, isn't about rewarding great | service, it's about providing a livelihood to the employees. | (Were things different for restaurant workers, I might feel | differently, but in the current incarnation stiffing someone a | tip isn't denying them a bonus, it's denying them a wage.) | musicale wrote: | If the app was actually usable for 18 days in January, it | doesn't make sense for users to ask for a full refund for the | January subscription charge. | | Wouldn't a fair solution be to offer a partial refund, | proportional to time that subscribers paid for but are unable | to use? | kelsolaar wrote: | Small business whose significant chunk of income just | evaporated asking to be nice with them seems fair. | pessimizer wrote: | Fair to who? If you're going to pay for a product you aren't | receiving, I'm sure you could find a better recipient. Every | charity would love to sell you nothing. | Felmo wrote: | It's a fair als nothing more. | | Get over your ego | smileysteve wrote: | "Please consider" | | Is just an appeal and makes the choice clear. | | Likely, some customers that did purchase it have received some | value; It's likely the difference between needing to claim | bankruptcy protection and quietly dissolving | whydoyoucare wrote: | Either way, and I am _absolutely not_ in a position to draw | _any conclusion_ about _any customer_ who requests or does | not request a refund. | kelnos wrote: | * * * | kivle wrote: | Would you also claim your money back if Twitter closed down? If | your logic became reality you could kiss goodbye to any third- | party client for any type of network service. The Twitter | clients are not at fault here. It's 100% on Twitter/Musk. | rideontime wrote: | > I'm sure their bank balance is doing just fine | | Source? | jacquesm wrote: | Let's hope that other people see it differently and have a more | empathic response. I get what you are trying to communicate but | realize that this was done without their control and in a way | that instantly destroyed their business as it was. If you pile | on and ask for a refund then you are making things _much_ worse | for them, and you _did_ get value out of it in the past. The | 'promised value' has been delivered, your beef is with Twitter, | not with the developers. | | Assumptions about their bank balance and 'that's business' are | the wrong way to approach this. | [deleted] | blibble wrote: | I wouldn't refund a one off app purchase, but this is an | ongoing subscription | | given this, it was certainly within their control to attempt | to negotiate a contract with their only supplier and then | they would have contractual guarantees about not being | summarily cut off | | (would musk have cut them off? probably, but then they could | go after him) | | without that the business model was always based on chance | | they knew this, and continued to sell the product regardless | jacquesm wrote: | Having an app key issued counts as permission in my book. | Subscription refunds should be limited to the period during | which service was _not_ provided. | | And good luck negotiating anything with a billion dollar | company, they'll be happy to stiff you if they want to but | in the meantime _you_ are beholden to the terms of the | contract. This because they typically have legal staff and | you probably don 't so there is a huge asymmetry in any | kind of legal tussle with them. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | So you'd try to get a refund on your beach vacation if it | rained? | sgarrity wrote: | This feels a bit more like the power & water was cut off to | the beach house, but I like taking metaphors one step to far. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | The basic point is that no-one pays for a Twitter client | expecting it to keep working if (say) Twitter closes down | or pivots into a rideshare company or decides to close down | third-party access to the platform. On any reasonable | viewpoint that's a risk accepted by the purchaser, not the | app seller. | esskay wrote: | If you bought a 12 month subscription to Netflix and they | closed down next week are you honestly saying you | wouldn't be asking for a refund? | | It doesn't matter that its an app for Twitter, you've | paid for someone to provide something they can no longer | deliver. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | If I bought a Netflix subscription, I'd expect them to | provide the Netflix service. If I bought a TV with a | Netflix app on it, I wouldn't expect a partial refund | from the people who sold me the TV. Do you honestly not | see these two things are different? | | One is "I paid for a service" and the other is "I paid | for something to help me use a service". | mads wrote: | Well, if he was promised 100% sunshine, he might. | [deleted] | yurishimo wrote: | To be ultra charitable, if I bought a subscription for the | app as a brand new customer and the very next week, Twitter | revoked their API keys and kills the app entirely, yea I'm | probably asking for a refund. | | If I had been a customer for years and years, obviously my | calculation would be different. | iLoveOncall wrote: | You are minimizing the situation with your metaphor. It's | more like if you arrived at the house and they told you that | you can't get in at all. Would you ask for a refund? | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | No; my metaphor is quite precise. You're renting the beach | house because it helps you enjoy the good weather while | sitting on the sand. However, the beach house owner isn't | responsible for providing the good weather: only the house | itself. The beach house owner isn't in control of the | weather, and you knew that at the time you rented. | baxtr wrote: | You might be right, but your comment comes across as cold | blooded. | yokoprime wrote: | Absolutely. And this is a mere request from them, not | something they can actually tell their customers. Apple is | the sole judge on whether you shall receive a refund. The | actual maker is not involved in that process. | abrookewood wrote: | If I didn't know better, I'd be wondering if Musk was shorting | Twitter's stock. Has anyone ever managed to do so much damage to | a company in such a short amount of time? | dang wrote: | Recent and related: | | _Official Twitter Statement on Revoking API Access to 3rd Party | Devs_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34416416 - Jan 2023 | (11 comments) | | _Twitter kicking off a developer API campaign on January 16, | 2023_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34410624 - Jan 2023 | (107 comments) | | _Tweetbot is back down again_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34396664 - Jan 2023 (210 | comments) | | _The Shit Show_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34393485 | - Jan 2023 (312 comments) | | _Twitter API Page_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34387834 - Jan 2023 (98 | comments) | | _Twitter 's API is down?_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34363743 - Jan 2023 (408 | comments) | ceejayoz wrote: | > Official Twitter Statement on Revoking API Access to 3rd | Party Devs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34416416 - | Jan 2023 (11 comments) | | To be clear, this statement was a lie. They added the "long- | standing policy" today, retroactively. | https://www.engadget.com/twitter-new-developer-terms-ban-thi... | | (Musk also promised a vote on major policy changes. | https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604616863673208832) | erenkaplan wrote: | It is very sad that mavericks kill good projects for their own | benefit. | klyrs wrote: | The sad thing is that third-party apps are actually good for | twitter. Musk continues to cut his nose to spite his face. | PenguinCoder wrote: | Make no mistake, there are no benefits to Twitter doing things | like this. | squarefoot wrote: | Having control on which ads are shown to users probably is | one. | rsynnott wrote: | > for their own benefit. | | I'd question the 'benefit' bit; this seems clearly bad for | Twitter. | saurik wrote: | I maintain the position I have had ever since Twitter sold people | on the ridiculous idea of "API keys": the correct path has | _always_ been adversarial interoperability (as we did back | forever ago when people built alternative apps for instant | messaging services); if Twitterrific had been designed to use the | same API and authority as the official app--maybe as a fallback, | if nothing else--Twitter would not have been easily able to kill | it... they could try, but it would be a cat and mouse game at | best, and the only real recourse they would have would have been | to try to detect API abnormalities (which Twitterific could | quickly fix, and frankly the skeleton crew at Twitter today | likely couldn 't do well anyway) to directly punish _the end | users_ for continuing to insist on logging in with alternative | clients (as Snapchat is forced to do); and, while it is easy to | just shut off Twitterific 's API key and tell the users "too | bad", I think having to take the war to Twitterific's userbase | (as the app would be able to keep working forever, with only | momentary brownouts) would be a tougher pill for Twitter to | swallow, given that it had way too much marketshare at this | point. | placatedmayhem wrote: | I don't know the specifics about Twitter's API saga over the | years but... why isn't this the case? Why does Twitter need to | be involved on the client side with consumption of the API? | vkou wrote: | > Why does Twitter need to be involved on the client side | with consumption of the API? | | They don't need to be involved, they _want_ to be involved, | and they have the legal backing to do so. | saurik wrote: | Can you provide any citation for them having "legal | backing"? I literally participate in hearings at the | Copyright Office at the Library of Congress over people | providing adversarial interoperability and I have never | seen any functional legal argument against such. | rgbrenner wrote: | Twitterific is made by Iconfactory in Greensboro NC. Twitter | can sue for violating their terms of service if they did as you | suggest. | saurik wrote: | So I am not a lawyer, and if you do this stuff you should get | a real lawyer (I mean, I have lots of real lawyers! ;P), but | I _am_ on the front lines of a lot of these battles (look | into who I am if you haven 't; hell: I've had Snapchat once | try to come after people in my ecosystem, and the only thing | their lawyers had as an argument was trademark law... I | easily shoved them away), and I am going to claim Twitter | would have no legs to stand on. At best-- _at BEST_ --they | could ban you and all of your company accounts from their | service. | solarkraft wrote: | > look into who I am if you haven't | | Heh. To save some people a click: An important figure in | the iOS jailbreaking scene (maker of the foundational | tweaking framework and app store). | | Thanks for all the good times. Jailbreaking was great for | my experimentation urge and taught me a lot about Unix. It | also informed some software opinions I still hold today | (much more things should work like WinterBoard's layering). | A jailbreakable iOS device is a great educational toy for a | kid interested in messing with technology (Amazon Kindles | are good for this too, by the way). | | And thanks for also being involved in legally defending | these freedoms. (I've been waiting for a chance to say this | without writing a completely unproductive comment) | rgbrenner wrote: | Thinking about it more, I think you're probably right. If | LinkedIn wasnt able to stop HiQ, then I dont see how this | would be different. | MatthiasPortzel wrote: | So maybe they can't sue the company making a third party | app. But take Discord for instance. It's against the | Discord terms of service to use a third party client, and | there are stories of Discord banning users who do use | third-party clients. | | Now, Discord doesn't need to sue anyone to stop me from | using a third party client--the threat of being banned is | enough deterrent to keep me on the official client. | saurik wrote: | I talked about that in at least half of my original | comment. To repeat, Twitterific managed to get to having | the kind of marketshare to make that war interesting (in | a way Discord clients never have and likely never will: | they didn't make the same bargain with third-party app | developers that Twitter did, where Twitter left most of | the innovation to third-parties). | ThatMedicIsASpy wrote: | That is the reason I only use it in my browser to apply | custom css and fix their ugly mess - design decisions - | to my liking. | CoastalCoder wrote: | I apologize if this comes across as a snarky tangent, but I'm | genuinely curious if law firms would even contract with | Twitter now, given Musk's willingness to not pay bills. | dylan604 wrote: | Somebody would be willing to do it for the clout | anotherman554 wrote: | Law firms can demand payment in advance. It's called a | retainer. | Klonoar wrote: | While I think I've come around to this position, the big | question here that comes to mind is: does this even work for | iOS apps, given Twitter could just go to Apple (the App Store | team, I guess) over it? | saurik wrote: | This is the rub, and I do believe the answer is "no" :/. But, | "Apple having central control over software development and | distribution is, at its best, an extra-judicial defense of | surveillance capitalism (...and, at its worst, an extra- | judicial defense of totalitarian regimes)" is at least | nothing new :(. | | I really miss the iOS jailbreak ecosystem--back before Apple | really started to win--as I felt like I could just build | whatever I wanted (as long as it was legal and I definitely | had lots of lawyers to check some of the stuff I had wanted | to release ;P) and push it without asking for permission from | Big Tech :(. | pavlov wrote: | Unauthorized "gray" third-party clients were a more viable | option in the days when vendors couldn't easily update first- | party client program installations in the wild, so the API had | to be backwards compatible. | | But it's not really like that for Twitter. They can do rapid | updates to the iOS and Android apps, and any holdovers of old | client versions would be a relatively small segment. | | I recall Microsoft tried to build and maintain their own | YouTube client for Windows Phone around 2011-12. That's | probably the last time a major tech company tried this approach | and it was out of massive desperation. Google seemed to make a | special effort to break the app. | saurik wrote: | I have been running the same copy of Facebook and Twitter and | certainly YouTube on my phone for many years now. The only | people who have been able to try to push updates at people | like that are Snapchat, and even they have a hard time doing | it quickly and at scale: and it only results in a temporary | loss of service for the alternative clients! | | (And, even then, most of the success for Snapchat comes | because 1) the official clients for Snapchat go far out of | their way to do crazy obfuscation techniques and 2) they | wield a ban hammer over _end users_ over trivial infractions | making it difficult to test; I fail to see how such would | work for YouTube, where third-party clients are, in fact, | _plentiful_ ). | | At F8 back forever ago, the reason Zuckerberg cited for | having to give up on "Move Fast and Break Things" and go to | "Move Fast with Stable Infra" is because they in fact | couldn't rapidly push updates to their apps across the myriad | supported platforms the way they could with their website, | and so they effectively had to maintain API compatibility | across ridiculously long timespans of client versions... much | long enough to let the alternative clients reverse engineer | the new builds and have updates out before Facebook can just | kill service to the old ones. | barbazoo wrote: | > But it's not really like that for Twitter. They can do | rapid updates to the iOS and Android apps | | They can do rapid updates to the apps but doesn't it take | time for users to apply the update? Where I work you can't | expect people to update their app right away, it takes days | or even weeks for people to catch up. | solarkraft wrote: | Android and iOS have had automatic background updates (on | by default) for years. | valleyer wrote: | No. All they have to do is to deny access to the old app | with a "you must update to the new version of the app" | alert, and people will comply. | solarkraft wrote: | There's probably a need for legislation here. It's completely | normal _and vital for competition_ that you can make things | that are (adversarially) interoperable with others in the | physical realm and you can 't really be stopped (as long as | you don't just copy). | | That's not really a thing once you involve software. It's | trivial to lock things down using cryptography and constant | changes, making any kind of interoperability entirely | infeasible. | | As far as I understand this is pretty unprecedented and very | bad for an efficient market. | tehwebguy wrote: | > They can do rapid updates to the iOS and Android apps | | Sort of! I haven't updated my iOS install in many months. I | don't see the new fake blue checks or a handful of other dumb | new features, it's kind of great! | runjake wrote: | This wouldn't play out like you want to believe. | | All your suggestions lead to a terms of service violation for | the Icon Factory and would likely result in their Apple | developer accounts being banned, especially if Elon wanted to | pursue it. | | Getting their developer accounts banned would affect their | other products, as well as any future products. | | Aside from all the above, the vast majority of their | Twitterrific customers doesn't understand API keys and will | complain and request app and subscription refunds, likely also | leading to developer account problems. | | Falken's Law applies here: _The only winning move is not to | play._ | saurik wrote: | I hate Apple :(. Like, isn't it kind of ridiculous how the | issue here isn't that doing this is somehow illegal, but that | Apple is willing to step in to remove apps that hurt fellow | Big Tech companies? Apple simply _should not_ have | centralized control over what software can and cannot exist: | that 's the real issue. | toxik wrote: | The writing is on the wall though, Apple is going to have | to let other app stores exist. I think the EU said so | already, and I would bet the Brussels effect will make this | happen elsewhere. | OrvalWintermute wrote: | > We are sorry to say that the app's sudden and undignified | demise is due to an unannounced and undocumented policy change by | an increasingly capricious Twitter - a Twitter that we no longer | recognize as trustworthy nor want to work with any longer | | I understand that many people are angry about recent Twitter | changes. This rightly so, because many 3rd party apps are | obviously a huge time investment and people have bought apps. | This seems unjust. | | However, with all the recent disclosures about Twitter | shadowbanning, deboosting, deamplifying, banning, and viewpoint | censoring, I cannot help but feel that Twitter has always been | capricious. | | It is only now that we are recognizing it : the unfortunate | reality that a private company controls a defacto public square. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-19 23:00 UTC)