I'm still subject to some rules, but a heck of a lot less than the gardens you guys develop in like Facebook, Twitter and AOL.
I included AOL, because while it seems ridiculous someone would do that today, people used to until they got horrifically burned, and I think it'll be the same with non-decentralized platforms like FB and Twitter in the future.
My platform is mobile devices. I am happy to develop Android and iOS apps, and I feel like the companies who run these somewhat walled gardens play mostly fair. As an added bonus, they have provided me a way to make money.
People who have found their success on the internet at large are my colleagues, but occasionally they are also arrogant in their views that anyone who doesn't make an HTML website is an idiot. These people's tunnel vision will hold them back their whole lives, and this character flaw is likely evidenced in other views they espouse.
in all honesty I think the short sightedness is that .. this environment of developing 4 different applications with 4 different code bases to support the major mobile platforms (IOS,Android,Windows,RIM). Mobile web will win out in the end.
There will be a decentralized mobile web. SSL and CAs will eventually be done right and a trust model will exist to get apps from trusted sources. The amazon Android store is a fantastic first step. Amazon might not be the quality control police, but someone will step up to that plate.
This is all moving in the right direction. It's just not there yet today, so no thanks.
Replying to say that I agree, and it baffles me as to why people are willing to put so much of their technology at the mercy of massive corporations they have no contract with. I might accept building tools for Facebook and Twitter in the interim, but if I were a third party developer, I'd be supporting the open alternatives (Appleseed, StatusNet, etc), if only out of hedging bets for the future.
Also... Hello, David, I also worked at Electriciti in the late 90's, and remember you from back in the day. Sounds like things have gone well since then!
PS -- I use FB and Twitter a ton, and I love SmartTwitter.
I've even sent some emails on behalf of SmartTwitter to folks I know who might be able to fix this issue.
My point was simply that this will become par for the course, and you should expect and be okay with that if you are developing on OPP (other peoples platforms).
And that might be fine. SkyMall is at the mercy of the airlines, but still makes an absolute killing and so they put up with it.
I know what you mean, but I think maybe understanding the risk is better than avoiding it entirely. Sure, Facebook and Twitter can change their APIs, Google could shut down Gmail, and the world could end tomorrow, but in the meantime I think there are cool things to be done.
EDIT: Oops, I didn't see your follow-up until after I made my reply. You said what I am saying, but better.
I would see this as an opportunity. You have an app that has hit a hard limit in terms of number of users. It is clearly a useful app, otherwise it wouldnt be growing.
The natural thing to do is to make it a paid solution. You inform your users of the situation and say that in order to keep the service up and running you will start charging a signup fee of $1, the same as you would pay for a mobile app. Existing users however, get 50% off and only pays $.50. Give them a month to paypal it in and then another month of repeated notices to inactive users. After two months there will probably 50k+ users you will have to close out from the service. But give them an option to restore it easily.
This is not at all unreasonable, no one would ever be able to say so. Above all it would be a tremendous learning experience for you. Perhaps you also will make a few thousand dollars in the process, but that would not be the point.
There are two alternatives to this as I see it. Either you do the above but the only thing you require is for users to manually report in by clicking a button in a form. You will still be able to weed out thousands of accounts.
The other is to set up Smart Tweets 2, hosted on another ip, and refer new users there. Explain why and make it into something funny for the users.
Whatever you do, do something bold enough to make it to Techcrunch a second time.
They own the data. It is their ball and they can basically say "I'm taking my ball and going home".
Facebook, twitter, linkedin, google. All of them are in the data business and sell that data to make a profit. They don't really care about the devs as they just see the devs as a way to bring people to their ecosystem; the more small apps people write, the more ways they might be able to get data. But, if they get big enough, and all of them have, they can cut you out.
I understand building a business around someone else's data (cottage industry), and I would never say not to do it, but it isn't without peril. Though, I would do it in a heartbeat for a lifestyle business that I knew I could pivot on or build another if it failed.
They own the data. It is their ball and they can basically say "I'm taking my ball and going home".
Maybe, but that would make them assholes, especially from the perspective of the user. I'm trying to use an app to post my tweets to Facebook, and Twitter is shutting the app down because, as the reasoning goes, my tweets really belong to them? You might say "that's what you get for using someone else's service", but by that logic I should just have my own server in the living room because otherwise Posterous would own all my blog posts and Hacker News would own all my comments.
Read the terms of service for the sites. Who owns the data and when are they allowed to turn off? Answer: you "own" it but they can do whatever they want with your content, and they can turn off the service any time. Boot up that server in your livingroom if you want your content to live on.
Posterous :
however, by submitting material to Posterous you grant Posterous the irrevocable, fully transferable rights to use, reproduce, distribute, modify, transmit, prepare derivative works of, display and produce the material in connection with Posterous and Posterous's business, but solely in accordance with these Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Posterous is provided 'as-is' with no warranty of any kind. You use the service at your own risk. Posterous expressly disclaims any warranty, express or implied, regarding the site or its content, including any implied warranty of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement.
I know what the terms of service say, and I certainly know the terms of service allow Twitter to be assholes about this particular issue. They're still assholes, though, and they're assholes because they're getting in the way of their own users.
The tweet box doesn't have "What's happening" and the user's name doesn't link to their profile.
The official app does the right thing, IMO, it just shows how silly some of the guidelines are. Particularly requiring "What's happening?" I bet most Twitter apps violate that one.
The post Civil War South, actually. Sharecropping wasn't really a thing in the North, and before and during the Civil War, there wasn't very much sharecropping because slavery was more cost-effective.
Obviously Twitter does not want you to copy "their" data to Facebook. They don't get any money when you do that, and they want money. Hence, a problem.
There are several ways to get around this. Be a middleman that publishes to both Facebook and Twitter (a reverse FriendFeed). Or, sell a software product for the user to use to move his own tweets to Facebook. A user obviously owns his own content and can put it wherever he wants. A third party app, perhaps not.
(Also, why not just get tweets via whatever method the native UI gets tweets from? Do it from AWS if you are concerned about an IP ban.)
This story rings true for any popular app that depends on a third-party service, not just Twitter - often times you're at the mercy of the host once you become big enough to be noticed.
And who can blame them, providing 100,000 user tweets isn't free. Not sure where he got the idea he would never have to start paying.
Turning off basic auth also hastened this demise - whereas you could once pull whatever data you wanted from Twitter using a simple curl command, now you have to figure out OAuth. It's not that much of a challenge, but it is enough of a barrier to entry to dissuade somebody who's got a couple hours on the weekend and wants to have some fun.
Finally, their partnership with Gnip is yet another indicator that this is simply not the days of the wild west anymore. You want the data, you'll have to pay.
Of course you're at their mercy. This is the nature of using a third-party API. If you violate their rules, you have to accept the risk that they shut you down in the future, even if their rules aren't optimal for your app's user experience.
I recommend that you alter your product to conform to their rules, even if it makes your product a bit worse.
The way around API limitations on how much data can be read is to resort to scraping. However, Twitter probably blocks individual IPs that access too much data. The solution to that is to convince enough users to install software that lets you access their website - preferably via forwarded SSL so your users can't compromise data integrity. Users get some reward, presumably quite small, for relaying the requests for you.
The scheme could be opened to provide unofficial paid APIs for Twitter and other 'walled gardens' that make data available to unauthenticated users on the Internet.
With Microsoft monopoly you always had the opportunity to reverse engineering the OS but when you can't see the binaries because they are in the cloud you're in trouble, it's worse than closed source.
Building your business around web apis without an SLA is the most risky business, you don't have control,
Enjoy your 15 minutes of your application placebo fame!
I've had a whole litany of issues with Twitter doing stuff like this... but ultimately I've found work-arounds. It just depends how committed you are and how much time you have to make the fixes! More info here: http://pluggio.com/blog/
Microblogging sites in China are thriving, much better than SNS sites (IMHO). I often come to wonder why FB is worth so much more than twitter. Could this actually be one of the cases when copycats win over the original?
I had an even worse issue (entirely my own fault) which highlights the dangers of building on another platform. My app (tweetbars.com) had a tiny flaw in that it didn't time out the Curl calls to the Twitter API, and my host didn't kill hanging php executions.
So when Twitter started hanging (and eventually timing out after a minute or so) the app basically ate one of their shared servers and the host took my whole account down for 24 hours.
I've found when working with Twitter, even more so than other services, one must expect calls to fail frequently in a variety of novel ways. Code defensively!
One should normally be careful of any freely available service - they owe you nothing. If you really want to partner with twitter for a cool app, approach them about signing an official agreement or something, no?
with regards to the lack of approval, could it be that Twitter want to avoid app redundancy to save resources? 100,000 of these requests can't be cheap for them, so when there are already multiple apps do what this one does does it not make sense for them to say they're no longer supporting most to save money?
I could be way off the mark, but that's how it appears to me. Multiple apps with the same purpose that require lots of resources... makes sense to stick with one or two high users and limit the rest.
From what I understand, he is using the 'statuses/filter' call of the stream api, filtering with users that have installed his app. This allows him to get the tweets of all his users in a single connection to twitter. 'statuses/filter' and 'statuses/sample' are the only two methods provided to all accounts and they are very limited. I mean, 100K users is a big number for sure, but not a surprising number given it's a twitter app on facebook. We are far from the firehose level!
As a work around, he might be able to go back to the REST api, use statuses/friends_timeline, and stay within the 300 per hour/per user limit.
the author has some points, but he does not mention something obvious to the reader: He was always at the mercy of Twitter. It was his fortune that the cap was increased at his whim, and only now have they stopped it, for whatever reason.
The reason sounds fishy, and his retort is well-founded, but it's an important thing to note.
I hate being at the mercy of another; that is why I have my own business. However...
I just had my first major rejection from the app store on a unreleased app (similar to an already approved app called Fresh Faces, which has been approved four times).
I got a phone call from Apple today telling me it was rejected because it violated section 18.2. I should have asked him to read it to me because I think he was too embarrassed to let me know what it said. He mumbled something about "social media" blah blah.
Well, I looked up 18.2 and was insulted. 'Apps that contain user generated content that is frequently pornographic (ex "Chat Roulette" apps) will be rejected.'
My apps allow users to upload photos of themselves and have others rate them. All photos are examined before posting, and I would never allow anything bad to be posted.
By this standard, any app that allows users to create and view photos should be banned.
I'm still subject to some rules, but a heck of a lot less than the gardens you guys develop in like Facebook, Twitter and AOL.
I included AOL, because while it seems ridiculous someone would do that today, people used to until they got horrifically burned, and I think it'll be the same with non-decentralized platforms like FB and Twitter in the future.
Once again, my platform is the Internet.