Adam, what I wrote was not a case for or against Gnip and/or Twitter
selling the stream through Gnip. I simply quoted Gnip prices and
conditions from the Gnip pricing page, because it is relevant to this

This time I will venture further and say that I do not see where is
the value-add for the developer in getting his Twitter stream data
from Gnip instead of directly from Twitter. Perhaps it's because the
details on Gnip's site are still very scant on the Twitter feeds, or
perhaps it's a deal where only the benefits for Twitter and Gnip were
fully considered. I'd love to hear what are the benefits for the

On Nov 17, 3:49 pm, Adam Green <> wrote:
> Dewald, I can't speak for Twitter, but I think you are missing the
> path they seem to be building. As an independent developer you can
> still use the streaming API at the default level of 400 keywords and
> 5,000 follows for free. That is plenty to get a site started or build
> a proof of concept for a client at no cost. If the site gets traction
> or a client likes it, then you charge for it and get the money to
> scale up. The client could be the corporate purchaser of the feed, or
> if you have a site that charges for access, then you'd be crazy not to
> get limited liability by incorporating as an LLC or S corp. That costs
> $500 to file for in most states.
> I have no idea what Gnip's final prices will be. If they are
> exhorbitant, Twitter will either die, or they will give wholesale
> status to multiple vendors and let the market figure out the wholesale
> price. I think they are smart enough to choose the later. The big
> thing, the REALLY BIG thing, is that I just used the word price twice
> in relation to Twitter. That means people will pay for Twitter stuff.
> That means developers can get paid for Twitter stuff. Hooray! I like
> getting paid. I don't mind paying others if it means I can also get
> paid. As long as everything is free, nobody gets paid.
> Don't you want to get paid for your work?
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Dewald Pretorius <> wrote:
> > The minimum Gnip charge is $500 per month, with a minimum of a year
> > contract, if you want to use Gnip in a production application.
> > And that's before the -- still unknown -- additional access charges
> > for the Twitter feeds.
> > You can't use Gnip in a production application if you are not an
> > incorporated business, so that excludes access for many developers,
> > even if they can afford the charges.
> > Maybe there's a secondary market here, for an incorporated business to
> > provide access for one-man developers to Gnip data for a fee. Meaning,
> > Reseller Inc subscribes to Gnip and gets the data feeds, and resells
> > them to one-man developers. I haven't checked Gnip's TOS to see if
> > that's expressly prohibited.
> > On Nov 17, 2:51 pm, "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <zn...@borasky-
> >> wrote:
> >> Ryan, what about User Streams? I'm building something around User
> >> Streams but it is a "non-display" analytics application. Am I at risk
> >> for Twitter inserting another business into *my* data stream as well?
> >> And I'm curious how some of the other Streaming consumers are going to
> >> react to insertion of a monopoly middleman into their data source. I
> >> briefly dealt with Gnip a while back and found their API hard to use
> >> and their pricing exorbitant.
> >> --
> >> M. Edward (Ed) Boraskyhttp://borasky-research.net
> >> "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." - Paul 
> >> Erdos
> > --
> > Twitter developer documentation and resources:
> > API updates via Twitter:
> > Issues/Enhancements Tracker:
> > Change your membership to this 
> > group:
> --
> Adam Green
> Twitter API Consultant and Trainer
> @140dev

Twitter developer documentation and resources:
API updates via Twitter:
Issues/Enhancements Tracker:
Change your membership to this group:

Reply via email to