Comments on: Twitter’s Token Rush Official blog of Red Sweater Software Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:11:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: DDA Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:35:51 +0000 @Park: See my first comment and note they are talking about “…for the duration of the beta…” We also don’t know what TapBots proposed or what Twitter really said only that it, “…wasn’t acceptable to [Twitter].”

By: Park Silkenson Wed, 29 Aug 2012 04:03:58 +0000 @DDA
Read Tapbot’s blog post: They DID ask Twitter to see if they could wor something out:

“We’ve been working with Twitter over the last few days to try to work around this limit for the duration of the beta but have been unable to come up with a solution that was acceptable to them.”

By: DDA Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:10:56 +0000 Wow, only 4 comments to a Godwin’s Law violation; pretty impressive!

Thanks for the comments explaining why to assume the worst but I’d still like to see someone (TapBots, Icon Factory, etc.) who makes a Twitter client actually ask Twitter and see if they get permission.

By: Homer Jones Tue, 28 Aug 2012 06:26:58 +0000 This is the deal. Twitter is full of shit. It’s up to you all to decide if are you going to tolerate it or move on. If everyone moves on and Apple kicks out all the potentially offending Twitter apps, the onus goes back on Twitter to deal with the results of its greed. If you just passively take it you’re doomed anyway. If you think of Twitter as Hitler the situation and how you deal with it becomes obvious.

By: Aristotle Pagaltzis Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:21:23 +0000 And to make the converse point to DDA’s:

Is there any indication that Twitter will not see this as contravening the 100,000 token limit – that they will condone attempts to maximise the yield of tokens in “proper” users by the use of measures that can be argued to recycle previously-used-up tokens?

By: Daniel Jalkut Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:23:30 +0000 @DDA: thanks for the typo fix. As for the question: “why assume the worst?” A few things spring to mind:

  1. Shutting down access to 3rd party “traditional clients” is line with other comments Twitter has made over the past year or two expressing their general distaste for such uses of the API.
  2. The fact that Twitter is imposing the limit at 100K by default strongly implies that they expect to maintain the limit for most clients. In other words, it will be an exception if the limit is raised.
  3. Any client developer who doesn’t view the 100K limit as hard-and-fast runs a serious risk of over-investing in a business that could very realistically meet a dead end.
  4. If pessimistic interpretations of these policies are out of line, then it’s in Twitter’s best interest to reframe their message to make it easier for developers to be optimistic. The ball is in their court.
By: DDA Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:08:32 +0000 First off, a minor typo: “imrpove” should probably be “improve.”

Secondly, my understand is that Twitter said that the developer has to “get permission” to go over 100K (or double the existing number if grandfathered); while John Siracusa is correct in pointing out that Twitter never says how hard “getting permission” will be, why is there widespread belief it will be impossible?

I’m a bit disheartened by the fact that the Tapbots folks can’t come to an agreement with Twitter for their beta but still; why assume the worst?