Dewald, it's because you have amateurs running the zoo that are learning as 
they go.

Honestly my opinion is that it's Twitters rights to change the rules as they go 
- it's their network and their right to do so, but it's also my right as an 
investor in application development to not invest any more time or money on 
Twitter until they bring in a management layer that has experience I building 
ecosystems and knows how to encourage sustainable development.

Can you imagine if salesforce pulled a stunt like this?


Cheers,
Dean


 > -----Original Message-----
> From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto:twitter-development-
> t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dewald Pretorius
> Sent: Monday, 24 May 2010 9:27 PM
> To: Twitter Development Talk
> Subject: [twitter-dev] Re: TWITTER BANS 3rd PARTY ADVERTISING
> 
> Liz,
> 
> You are 100% correct in summarizing the problem. Not only were those
> businesses built with the full knowledge of Twitter, Twitter even had
> specific rules governing sponsored tweets (had to be clearly marked as
> sponsored, etc.).
> 
> I'm really baffled by this decision of Twitter, because I don't
> understand how they expect to have integrity and trust with developers
> while doing this type of stuff.
> 
> Right now we are all being pointed to Annotations as the holy grail of
> new development. But how do we know that they won't yet again change a
> rule in the future that will kill businesses that were built on top of
> Annotations?
> 
> On May 24, 3:56 pm, Liz <nwjersey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Peter, I think the problem is that business have been created,
> > received funding and developed over the past year, with the full
> > knowledge of Twitter, and this just undercuts & destroys them.
> >
> > I think people can understand the rationale (and the desire for
> > Twitter to eliminate competition) but this is a policy decision that
> > should have been made over a year ago. Twitter should have included
> > this in an earlier terms of service instead of giving an implicit
> > "okay" to services like Sponsored Tweets which has turned into a
> > successful company.
> >
> > It also seems disingenuous that the blog post says that a "guiding
> > principle" of Twitter is that "We don't seek to control what users
> > tweet. And users own their own tweets." and allow adult-oriented
> > content and photos but for some reason, users can't Tweet ads. That
> > sounds like control of content to me.
> >
> > Liz

Reply via email to