Hopefully it’s a little better than the infamous “ComcastCares”.
I am really looking forward to this update.[^f2948].
[^f2948]: An update that I never thought would actually come.
This is Harry Marks at his best.[^fn1] I love it when he does posts like this. Even the title is great.
[^fn1]: Well, most things that Harry does are pretty good. Please do not take this to mean I have any doubts about his fiction writing, either. I am really looking forward to reading some of his stuff.
Tweetbot 3 is Available Now
Tweetbot 3 is [now available in the App Store](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tweetbot-3-for-twitter-iphone/id722294701?mt=8)[^fn1]. It is a separate app from the previous version and costs $2.99.
[^fn1]: Affiliate Link (as is the post link)
What Makes App.Net So Great
This list from Dalton Caldwell about all the ways that people can use App.net’s data just emphasizes how different of a service it is from Twitter. I wish more of my friends would shift over to it.
Ben Brooks, after explaining the difference between public and private golf courses:
> That’s the difference between Twitter and App.net to me. Twitter is the public golf course, the coach seat. It’s where everyone is, and that’s exactly the problem. App.net is where a few people that are invested in the product, its direction, and the overall health of the service, go to socialize online.
He makes a pretty spot-on comparison.
Tweebot for Mac Has Arrived
This is probably the last Twitter client that most people will ever buy and it’s [now available in the Mac App Store](http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/stat?id=r*bqlTuiXSo&offerid=146261&type=3&subid=0&tmpid=1826&RD_PARM1=https%253A%252F%252Fitunes.apple.com%252Fus%252Fapp%252Ftweetbot-for-twitter%252Fid557168941%253Fmt%253D12%2526uo%253D4%2526partnerId%253D30)[^f5557].
[^f5557]: Affiliate Link (as is the post link itself.)
I Will Believe It When I See It
They say Twitter will have tweet archiving by the end of the year. I will not be holding my breath.
Marco Arment commenting on [MG Siegler’s tweet that Twitter for Mac is dead](https://twitter.com/parislemon/statuses/243850588452945920):
> Of *course* it’s dead. The difference now is that Twitter won’t let anyone else replace it, probably because they can make far more money by making people use their website. (emphasis in original)
The next step for Twitter? Turn the mobile application into nothing more than webview wrappers for the website[^tracking].
[^tracking]: The wrappers will probably enhance the ability to track users’ activity even more than a standard browser.
Tweetbot for Mac Beta Released
You cannot add new accounts though due to [Twitter’s new API restrictions](http://www.marco.org/2012/08/16/twitter-api-changes)[^fn1].
[^fn1]: As [The Beard](http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/08/31/tweetbot-for-mac-beta/) says “Amazing that these developers are still trying to improve their apps and Twitter can’t release an update for their piece of s\#$t app.”
> If you want App.net to succeed, that is if you are morally or otherwise opposed to what Twitter is doing with its API, then why are you still actively or otherwise using Twitter?
Ben Brooks has gone “all in”[^fn1] on [App.net](http://alpha.app.net)[^fn2] and is urging people to follow his lead. I have tried to take the leap, but I have only managed to shift about 60-70% of my “tweetposts” to App.net. There are still too many people on Twitter that I want to interact with that are not on App.net.[^follow]
[^fn1]: Wait, the current buzz phrase is “double down” not “all in,” right? Maybe I should change that.
[^fn2]: As a side note, I think it is time that the App.net alpha, and possibly App.net itself, get a better name. [This week’s Talk Show](http://muleradio.net/thetalkshow/14/) convinced me.
[^follow]: Also, I admit that it is kind of a bummer to go from 450 followers on Twitter down to 4 on App.net.
Twitter’s “Certified Products”
Twitter is just trolling us now right? They are not serious with this are they?[^marco]
[^marco]: If you want to see how ridiculous this post is, just read [Marco Arment’s “business-speak only” version](https://dev.twitter.com/blog/twitter-certified-products). An example: “We’ve summarized the program’s verticals along with example functionality to indicate features that businesses and Twitter find interesting.” What a bunch gobbledygook.
Romney to Buy a Twitter Trending Topic
As much as I disagree with how Twitter is handling their business currently, I applaud the Romney-Ryan campaign for taking advantage of the opportunity.[^fn1] I am sure there was already going be plenty of efforts by people online tomorrow night to try to “take over” the RNC’s hashtag, so it is a good move by Romney-Ryan to get out in front of it.
[^fn1]: I also laugh at those who made jokes during President Obama’s Reddit Q&A that Mitt Romney has no idea what the Internet is but are now upset that Governor Romney is leveraging Twitter’s reach with an advertising purchase.
*Watermark*. I like it. Also, it now includes [App.net](http://alpha.app.net) archiving.
What happened when Jeremy Keith asked a friend at Twitter about the new display guidelines and how they would apply to personal websites?
> The answer I got surprised me. Apparently the display guidel… requirements do apply to me. If I want to quote a tweet on my website, I’m supposed to use the embed code to make sure that people can favourite/retweet/follow, etc.
> F#$k. That. Shit.
> I’ve gone back through my previous blog posts where I was using the official embed code and I’ve stripped it out of each and every one. If you are quoting a tweet on your site, I strongly encourage you not to use the offical embed code. I strongly encourage Twitter to stick their display requirements where the sun don’t shine.
Thankfully, Ryan Sarver of Twitter [issued a clarification](https://twitter.com/rsarver/status/240216189828218880) after Mr. Keith made his post:
> sorry if that isn’t clear, but the new Display Requirements only apply to use through the API
You would think Twitter could at least get their message straight about how they are going to try and hose people.
The money quote:
> The developers have tried to work with Twitter to come up with a way to have the alpha not eat up the limited amount of slots available to them, but says that Twitter has been uncooperative.
The Road Not Taken
Dieter Bohn on The Verge:
> In a different world, Twitter would have stayed open to all developers, big and small, and found a way to build an ad platform that utilized Twitter’s unique insights into users’ interests but still managed to stay open to third-party developers. In theory, at least, it would have the potential to be a new AdSense, an advertising platform with a deep understanding of its users that enriches both Twitter and its developers.
That is the path a lot of the backers of [App.net](http://alpha.app.net) wish that Twitter would have taken.
> If we think Twitter the service has long-term value as a fundamental Internet service—and I do—then Twitter the company needs to be disrupted. That’s not going to happen by building a clone with a more liberal software license or a better business model. It’s only going to happen if such a service becomes Internet infrastructure, no matter how many business models that breaks along the way.
I think Mr. Martin is confusing the current [alpha.app.net](http://alpha.app.net) with [app.net](http://app.net) as a whole. App.net’s founder Dalton Caldwell has said that he does intend for App.net to be infrastructure. In fact, he said he did not want to put out the alpha originally because he was afraid that people would miss the point of what App.net is. I encourage Mr. Martin to listen to the first 30 minutes of this week’s [This Week in Google](http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-google/159), where Mr. Caldwell explains his actual vision for App.net. I think it is much more in line with what Mr. Martin wants than he realizes[^baxter].
[^baxter]: Kyle Baster has written [a commentary building on Mr. Martin’s piece](http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/tightwind/~3/uYD5HjR_ndY/). His argument seems to be slightly different from Mr. Martin’s: he would prefer that Twitter’s replacement be some kind of “open standard” like RSS or IMAP since that will allow for everyone to use it. I would counter Mr. Baxter by saying that an open standard and its associated technological hurdles would be a barrier to entry similar to the existing App.net membership fee. In fact, the skill required to implement the open standard might be a higher barrier than the current fee structure.
What bothers me most about [Twitter’s upcoming API changes](https://dev.twitter.com/blog/changes-coming-to-twitter-api) is Twitter’s apparent claim to our content. Not only is Twitter a service that was built upon the backs of third-party developers and their associated apps, but it is also a service that relies exclusively on content generated by its users[^facebook]. Now, after users have been piping their content into the service for years, Twitter has decided to restrict the way that content can be viewed on the other end.
The argument for why this is problematic is very similar to the argument that has been had over various “read later” applications. Content controllers were upset because these applications stripped out the formatting and marketing associated with their content. Their opposition was countered by saying that, essentially, these read later sites are simply “text-only web browsers” and information on the web has always been viewable via such browsers. Through these read later applications, any content, no matter what platform posted or formatted it, can be viewed in a manner preferred by the end user.
Twitter aims to remove this ability with its “Display Requirements.” It prevents end clients, essentially browsers of Twitter’s user’s content, from displaying content generated by the users in a manner that the users would prefer[^browser]. This does not sit right with me. It is far too much control for a company to try exert over content that it did not create. The blocking of third-party clients is just one symptom of this much larger issue of control.
[^facebook]: One might argue that Facebook is similar in that it is built exclusively on user generated content. I would counter by saying that Facebook at least provides some extra value in its profiles, events, photos, etc… that is not available on Twitter. Stated another way, Facebook is more than simply the content of user’s status updates.
[^browser]: Twitter is technically limiting access to its API, not to various pages on its website that display the information. I feel that this does not change my argument. The exact technical method by which Twitter broadcasts their information does not change that it is essentially a broadcaster of information on the web.
Nate Weiner of Pocket:
> We have a strong relationship with Twitter so we reached out to their team for further clarification. We’ve been told that the new API guidelines are not intended to affect or hamper your ability to integrate Pocket with Twitter apps or clients. The ‘social actions’ refer to Twitter’s own actions like Fav, RT, and Reply.
One would have to assume that the same is true for Instapaper as well. If that is the case, that is good news. Of course, Twitter has made it clear than they can change the rules any time they feel like it.