Twitter yanks firehose from DataSift, other resellers Twitter has aggressively taken control of its firehose and severed third party reseller access to it as the microblabbing site moves to grow its analytics biz following the buyout of Gnip last year. DataSift was one of the biggest players to be affected by the decision. Its CEO Nick Halstead confirmed the partnership with …
Ok, maybe this fact needs to be impressed into people before they enter YCombinator or whatever pipeline out there is pumping this type of company out, but:
Closed Systems are not Ecosystems
Regardless of what closed system you examine, whether it be the App Store or Facebook, or Twitter, if you are hitching your business plan onto one of these, you are essentially dooming your company to eventual extinction.
You don't even have to be an MBA to misunderstand this - if your business model siphons value from the ecosystem, where 'value' is defined by the host of this system, then you become a threat to the host who then responds to your company as a parasite.
There is simply no other way to see this.
Your company or project is a parasite to the host.
This works across not only technology systems but ideological ones too. With all due respect to Dr. Stallman, this same dynamic is operative with the GPL - you have a set of constraints you impose on anyone entering or interacting with your system, anything that eventually becomes successful will by simple physics come into violation of those constraints.
In the case of the GPL, even though the intentions were good, a project will be doomed to stagnation due to the simple fact that those who don't or can't buy into the manifesto (for ANY reason) are prevented from contributing value to the system.
In the case of this second-order derivative cottage industry springing up around these social media companies, the dynamic is exactly the same - how could you possibly justify making money at the expense of your host without expecting pushback? These social media companies are hemorrhaging investor cash like there's no tomorrow, their investors would scream bloody murder if a company was able to monetize Twitter's data when even Twitter itself can't do this.
The moral here is clear:
If you love something, set it free. Write useful, permissively licensed open-source software against open API's - build for the future and not the past.
"If your business model siphons value from the ecosystem, where 'value' is defined by the host of this system..."
You mean profit, not value. What you're speaking of is modern business practices taught strongly in business classes since about 1965. This wasn't always the case. There used to be some form of a pyramid in place with not only employees, but clients. Essentially, that went away with the increase of profit margins that are demanded for higher bonuses (essentially, what else?).
Once upon a time, Twitter would of been proud that companies have found ways to expand profit margins with their company beyond their forecasts. And that would of been the 'value' in Twitter. However, today all companies seem to see it as profit they are loosing because they don't want to share. There is a 5 letter word, starts with a G.
But, where does the profit come from, what is the real value to any of this? Your personal data. You're the profit. Which essentially just makes the whole thing reek of greed because nobody anywhere, not in the front, back or middle is making money from any tangible resource they offer exclusively. There isn't anything exclusive about fetching and serving up someone else's words in text, so why all the fuss about who gets what? It's similar to how thieves make a score then turn on each other for a bigger piece of the pie...actually, it might be that exactly (depending on your view).
I only posted to comment on your opinion because the actual story here is just bandits screwing over other bandits, which makes your points more interesting than this heist story. BTW, I do understand your points, it's just that if you widen the scope, I find your points and my own worthless because the whole thing is metaphorically...legally challenged.
+1
That's why Apple, Oracle and even MS et al, want to own the whole stack. Not only does it ensure that they aren't the ones kicked out (ending up like Novell) but it also allows them to be the kick-er if they spot profit. It doesn't have to be an explicit kick, but controlling the platform gives you an edge.
Its also why so many have gone to Linux. It prevents anyone from pulling the platform-rug out from underneath you and allows you to control the platform as little or as much as you like.
The root cause is: "Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got one.".
The problem is that, in the past, many arseholes found no outlet for their opinions, causing blockage. Previous attempts at solving this problem used some variation on the "Speaker's corner" approach which tended to result in a secondary problem, arseholes being pelted with rotting fruit[1] by those listening to the diatribe of rabid cobblers which was invariably on offer.
Twitter solves that problem by allowing opinionated arseholes to publicise their opinions, without actually obliging anyone either to listen or give a toss if they do.
[1] Or, worse still, being elected to government.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
