Tweetbot and Twitterrific Users Can Support the Developers by Declining Subscription Refunds

[PauloSera]

What world did you live in during the last decade and a half? One where twitter didn't famously open up to APIs then limit them then open up again?

Twitter's first API
The very first instance of the Twitter API was before the app store and was an initial offering letting anyone develop apps that linked to twitter so long as they authorized correctly...

Limits begin to be imposed
Over time twitter started to get more restrictive, but again, there isn't any sense of developers not having 'permission' to access the API

2020 Changes
Going in the other direction, in 2020, Twitter opened back up to third parties again, once more trying to encourage third party innovation

Furthermore, while I don't know if the apps used the free or premium tiers at the end of their life, there is further evidence that Twitter was quite open to third parties since they were trying to monetize their access! Monetization of the API


Finally,
Twitterific and Tweetbot need money to continue development over time. Given Apple's disregard for developing a saner App Store incentive structure there is little choice left to developers but yearly subscriptions that ensure they can finance continued development.

What world do you live in where it makes sense to build a business by creating an app thats basically a wrapper around someone else's service, and then actually sell subscription access to it? Without any contracts or legal agreements in place. They are next level stupid, and so is defending them.

 

[bcortens]

What world do you live in where it makes sense to build a business by creating an app thats basically a wrapper around someone else's service, and then actually sell subscription access to it? Without any contracts or legal agreements in place. They are next level stupid, and so is defending them.

1. The argument wasn't about whether or not it made sense to create a business built on an API, you were making the case that they were engaged in some sort of nefarious behaviour in the way in which they were using the API. It has been pointed out by myself and others that the Twitter API was both open and used within its existing stipulations until they decided to throw third party apps off the platform, they then retroactively made up a new rule to justify this decision. Retroactive rule creation
2. Plenty of Apps and businesses are built on wrappers around services and it makes perfect sense if you believe you can offer a superior product. Given that they did seem to be able to build a business around it I would say that there were enough people who found the third party experience superior to justify continuing the business. Twitter didn't even have an official app when some of the early iOS clients launched.
3. Subscription access, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is the only way to realistically keep a business afloat in the modern iOS world.
4. Then by your logic all businesses that offer apps on someone else's platform are "next level stupid". Apple, Microsoft, Valve, Epic, Sony, etc... all have the power to arbitrarily remove apps from their platforms and there is nothing an indie developer could do about it. Sure a big name like Amazon could fight app removal but a small 1-5 person team? No way. Open API access and terms of service are a huge part of what the digital App and game ecosystem is built upon and most developers trust that they can rely upon the companies not arbitrarily changing terms of service to wipe out the third party ecosystem without some notice. Not everyone using Amazon EC2 or AWS has an explicit contract negotiated by lawyers but that doesn't mean they are all idiots for doing so...
5. Businesses rely upon other businesses not to be dishonest untrustworthy actors all the time, I can't even imagine the level of bureaucracy and expense required to make sure that every single interaction was a legal contract with proper penalties for termination and setting up systems ensuring that small players would have the legal power to challenge the big players when they violate said contracts...

 

[maflynn]

I've largely stayed out of this conversation, I still have a twitter account but its largely dormant. I don't use apps and I don't really even follow tweets.

My $.02 is that while it sucks that twitter pulled the rug from under these developers, I'm definitely in the camp of cancelling a subscription. I get that its not much money, but at the heart of the matter is that if I pay for something I expect a service or a product in exchange.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

The amount of people in this comments section that didn’t even read the article is embarrassing lol

These greedy devs do know you’re entitled to a refund, they’re so aware of that they’re giving it to you automatically if you don’t do anything

I get y’all hate subscriptions but you look like a damn fool when you say something like “YOU SHOULD REQUEST A REFUND” when the screenshot flat out says “you don’t need to contact us for a refund”