Hacker News Reader

(Author here)

I think regular users miss out as well. Some of the changes that Twitter introduced were good for normal users (especially about embedded clients) - but I still have tens of thousands of people using my service. Presumably because it offers something which the "official" one doesn't.

I would expect Twitter to try and work with me. Twitter Cards, for example, aren't available through the API.

Why does Twitter need a unified experience? Email doesn't have one. Nor does any other form of communication.

Twitter could have asked us to show their ads, or charged us for API use, or asked for community funding, or any of a hundred different way to keep developers and users happy.

It comes down to respect. They've nothing but contempt for the people who helped them get where they are. And that's sad.

I hear you. Twitter Cards should be available through the API and find a better way to keep developers and their users happy.

As far as the unified experience. I think Google+ is a good example of wanting a unified experience for the end user. As far as I know, they still do not offer a way to post via their API. Meaning, they want to control content creation (clients), but are open to developers using their data in new ways.

Last time I checked the Google+ API was mostly read-only.

Currently, yes. Though I understand recently there was a preview window where some devs were given write access, which I (hopefully correctly) assume to mean that it's coming soonish.

Wait, if screwing over developers doesn't affect 99% of users, what is the point of doing it in the first place. To capture 1% more revenue?

I suspect in reality they expect their change to ultimately affect more than 1% of the user base.

At this point I don't think people expect anything from Twitter. They may not have fully burnt the developer bridge but they are close.

The way forward they chose, building another walled garden, was not the only way forward. It is the least creative and screws over the people that made them successful in the first place.

The point of doing it is to focus ads to generate revenue and provide a unified experience.

It might not be creative, but it's not exactly uncommon.

The ratio of affected users and the profit received from reclaiming the whole platform aren't 1:1. That is to say I'm willing to bet twitter has gained more potential for revenue than 1% more revenue; while affecting 1% of their users.

I imagine slightly more than 1% of the Twitter userbase will certainly be ticked off after their favorite third party client shuts down or removes valued features once the new requirements go into effect. For them something _has_ indeed changed - still a small number, but larger than 1%.

> Twitter is still developing and working on useful features

None of which are supported by the official mobile and desktop clients, if they're available through the API at all. Most of Twitter's extended functionality has come from third party developer involvement.

And what happens when all the developers stop using Twitter and all the Twitter Clients stop working? Twitter doesn't seem interested in keeping their own clients up to date, so where will people go?

Twitter is popular because the developers have made it convenient. When the convenience starts to wain, that 99% will start to drop.

> No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than ever before

Google's ads are not thrown into the middle of the content. On search results they are displayed above and on the side. In GMail they are displayed on a small bar above the main content region. YouTube ads appear before the main feature or as a dismissible popup along the bottom.

What Twitter is doing is more akin to Google inserting an advertisement into the middle of your emails, or pausing a video to randomly throw up a full size banner that can't be dismissed. You bet your ass people would bitch about that!

Its okay to criticize and be angry without any expectations that Twitter change.

>Most people can deal with the occasional ad in their face. No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than ever before.

That's because of things like adblock which (let's face it) a large portion of people use.

Hmm, I wonder if you can adblock Twitter ads, they have keywords you can filter out...

Large portion of people use AdBlock? Citation needed. Again, the discussion is not about developers, but the general population.

Google Chrome has 310 million active users (according to Google at their I/O conference in June). In the Chrome Web Store, AdBlock is listed as having 9.3 million users, and Adblock Plus is listed as having 4.9 million users.

Mozilla Firefox had 270 million users in 2009, and presumably has less than Chrome's 310 million now (given their smaller market share). Adblock Plus is listed as having 14 million users on Mozilla Addons.

While it's entire possible (and indeed, likely) that these numbers are not completely accurate, it's also unlikely that they are outside of the ballmark (so to speak). For example, saying that Adblock usage numbers are off by half (that is to say that the usage would be closer to ~30 million than ~15 million), it would still only mean that 10% of Chrome and Firefox users choose to utilize the most popular Adblock choice(s).

It's true that 10% or even 5% of users can be considered "a large portion" (due to the unquantified nature of the statement), but it also would not form a strong basis for confirming the assertion that "No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than before" (on the basis of Adblock usage by the general population).