I don't really understand the need for a desktop client to begin with. The site works just fine and there's no extra software to install, just a web browser. That said, I also think an official Twitter Mac client is redundant now that Mountain Lion is out. The built in sharing and that thingy that swipes out from the right of the screen and lets you Tweet work fine for making posts then the site itself is just fine for consuming them.
I've never understood needing a desktop client for most websites really. To me they're just a waste of space, one more app to have running, and a constant distraction with all their alerts. My phone alerts me enough as it is. I'm on my Mac to get stuff done most of the time. I don't know, maybe I'm just an old fashioned 26 year old. To each their own I suppose.
Now, that last bit in the post I didn't quite get - "out of spite". Is there some political reason that Twitter would be spiteful toward the Mac platform? If so I don't understand why especially since Twitter is now built into iOS and OS X. Can someone explain that please?
For low values of fine, it takes a huge amount of resources, is pretty slow (especially on older hardware or browsers), doesn't — as far as I know — remember where you were in your timeline and what you have or have not read yet (and yes, I do like seeing all the tweets of the people I'm following), etc...
> The built in sharing and that thingy that swipes out from the right of the screen and lets you Tweet work fine for making posts
Except if you want to make arbitrary tweets or discuss things.
> the site itself is just fine for consuming them.
It does not.
> I've never understood needing a desktop client for most websites really.
Because there are situations and services for which a desktop client simply works better.
> To me they're just a waste of space
Great, here's an idea, don't use them if you don't like them. Others don't agree and will just keep using them. Deal?
Why the tone? I don't use them. I tried. I gave my opinion, asked some questions, and my opinions were there to give context as to why I'm asking the questions.
I know we're used to seeing everyone spout off their opinions as if their opinions were facts but what I said was clearly an innocent opinion.
What's with everyone being on edge here? Why does everyone want to pick a fight or be the guy that tells everyone else why they're wrong? Sheesh, everyone complaining about HN going downhill is right (now that is an opinion said as if it were fact).
In any case, I'm actually really interested in the comment about spite Gruber makes at the end. Can anyone answer that?
I'm going to start by saying I really don't know, but here are my guesses. It's all about the way they collect data for advertising and for analytics.
For example, Twitter gives you the option to tailor itself (its ads?) based on the websites you visit. http://i.imgur.com/EWU2l.png
Facebook tracks you with their Like button, I imagine Twitter is doing something similar. And while they can track you while logged out, they would probably be better off if they could tie that information to all the followers, followees, and behaviors associated with an account.
My second example is embedded tweets. Although I can't find the article or blog post, I remember seeing a while back that Twitter wanted to start pushing people to use their embedded tweets rather than images.
https://dev.twitter.com/docs/embedded-tweets
Aside from providing the user with a better experience (like being able to click on the users' names to go to their profiles) or letting Twitter control the user experience, this also allows Twitter to embed tracking pixels.
Highlighted in this picture are the tracking pixels loaded in Chrome when I embedded the latest tweet from the Twitter account on a web page. http://i.imgur.com/SeVaQ.png
And this next example wasn't made for the web, but it plays into how they're trying to boost their own analaytics. While wrapping every link with their t.co url shortener does give them control over thing like killing spam links, it also lets them track which links became popular from which tweets. That's why they'll still use their t.co links on already short links (reminder: in my opinion). I believe this solution works out for them because if someone clicks a link from their official Android app or from a 3rd party app like MetroTwit, they can still track the referral came from a tweet.
To summarize, I believe they're trying to boost their advertising relevance and trying to improve their analytics offerings to business accounts by using browser cookies.
So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the spite Gruber mentions comes from the fact that they can't track you I'm the native app. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption but I don't think it really has much to do with spite. I read in another comment that maybe they're getting rid of all traces of the old guard's legacy and that seems to me more likely to be where the spite Gruber mentions plays into this.
Oh, sorry. I misread "In any case, I'm actually really interested in the comment about spite Gruber makes at the end." as "In any case, I'm actually really interested in the comment Gruber makes at the end. Can anyone answer that?"
So I interpreted the comment at the end as "They want people to use the website."
Part of the value of the web is that it need not be confined to browsers. As an open protocol, content can be parsed by a variety of clients, and/or wrapped up in candy-coated shells (Fluid, etc), and/or served up via API for the benefit of native apps and mashups. Twitter wants to have their cake and eat it too: to benefit from the open web while contributing back as little as possible.
Also, the Twitter website is currently a terrible poster child for web apps: it's slow and bloated, to the point that I'll sometimes forget what I was going to tweet by the time it fully loads. If we were talking about the old site, which was clean and minimal HTML with a handful of progressive enhancements, it might be a different story.
Though I haven't used it in a long time I really like Fluid. Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying about APIs and their relation to native apps as well as the protocol thing. Those are all really good reasons to have native apps. I was specifically talking about Twitter and yeah I guess I did throw in other sites but I had a very narrow segment of web apps I use in mind actually.
I never knew so many people hated the web based twitter. I never had a problem with it. So now I get why people love their twitter app so much. Thanks for not getting all defensive in your reply. I didn't realize people would take my original comment as if it were aggressive or something.
> The built in sharing and that thingy that swipes out from the right of the screen and lets you Tweet work fine for making posts then the site itself is just fine for consuming them.
One simple concept that makes all of this fall flat: Multiple accounts.
If you're just looking to share things on Twitter, then the built-in stuff in OS X, or a bookmarklet, can work.
But if you use Twitter primarily as a newsfeed, to read/monitor things, and if you need to quickly check multiple accounts, doing so via the twitter.com website is extremely painful and slow.
Are you using the same site I am? It's faster than it used to be but it's still one of the slowest sites I know of. Not to mention that they randomly break core functionality for months at a time.
"I've never understood needing a desktop client for most websites really."
One less tab in my already inundated browser (20+ tabs open at any given time easy) makes a world of difference. At least for me, it's so much easier to swipe to a different desktop on my Mac than it is to hunt for a particular tab.
I'm using TweetDeck extensively as I now manage multiple accounts for my personal and business accounts. I really like that the Twitter for iPad version has this already built in.
This is the biggest lacking feature on the web version. I do hope they fix this.
Yeah I get this. I never thought of this and it actually applies to me too. I manage like 6 accounts right now but since I use only one so much I forget. I tend to go on my other accounts on my iPad and iPhone more because of the Twitter app so good point.
I wonder though if Twitter really wants to encourage people to have multiple accounts? I mean, they don't do much to stop it but they also don't encourage it. So two questions:
1. Does or would It make sense for Twitter to frown upon multiple accounts per user? Honestly asking, I can see both good and bad in it and I wonder, if you (the collective "you", that is) were Twitter, would you want this, not like it, or not care either way?
2. If the Twitter site had an easy way to switch between accounts like the iOS apps do, would this encourage more people to create multiple accounts? Or would only the portion of users who already seek out multiple accounts use it while those who don't have them simply not use the feature? To put it another way (sorry to repeat myself but I just want to be really clear) does having that feature encourage people only have one account to use the ability to switch between accounts just because they can?
Copy and paste it into a new tweet and add "RT" to it. There's a difference between the site functioning as intended and the site being all things to all people. Just because there isn't a one-click solution for every feature doesn't mean the site isn't working fine. It means it leaves something to be desired for you. By the same token just because the site works fine for me doesn't mean it's right for everyone else.
I get what you're saying though. I didn't say this to argue that I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I learned from the replies to my original comment that I am not a typical Twitter user. I had no clue so many people had such a problem with the site. See, I'm socially retarded. I just don't get how to be social online and often offline (the only time I shine socially is when I'm performing like in an interview, selling, or giving a presentation). So my Twitter usage is less than others' and not typical. At the same time, I still think the site does what it was intended for and I havent seen any function of it not available through the web interface.
When it comes down to it, you're right and I'm right. But you're definitely more right.
Right, because it's not "every feature," it's just probably the most common one after tweeting itself, and one that is probably a top-3 driver for third-party clients. Then again, I'm of the mind that they're rolling up all this functionality in order to launch something new. It's just the beginning, and there's a reason why it's going drip drip drip: building interest.
Ah, man. Twitter for Mac is the only Twitter client that I really, genuinely like -- I was hoping for a direct port to Windows one day.
I can only hope that, if true, it's to make room for Twitter for Mac 2.0, rather than to convince people to sit there with Twitter.com open, hitting "$x new tweets" every few minutes.
I agree.. They are being idiotic right now. It feels like they are trying to become a Facebook-type website, but it's just not the same kind of activity.. People go to Facebook and click around and do all kinds of stuff.. Twitter is like a glorified RSS feed, and it will never be an "Explore and browse" experience on their website.
I have the Twitter for Mac client open all the time at the right edge of my 2nd monitor, and if they get rid of that, I'm just going to lose the habit of following Twitter.
Given the least of several crappy choices, I would rather see in-stream ads in the native Twitter client for Mac if it means they continue developing it..
> I have the Twitter for Mac client open all the time at the right edge of my 2nd monitor
I'm in the exact same situation. I try to use the iOS client, and that works alright (much better than other apps I've tried), but I think you hit the nail on the head:
> if they get rid of that, I'm just going to lose the habit of following Twitter.
I'm not very good at tweeting. I try to make an effort to be part of the scene, to connect with my peers and colleagues, etc., but I'm just not that big of a Twitter guy. It's not for lack of effort.
Having the small, unobtrusive Mac app makes it so easy for me to see those relevant conversations and participate in them. If the app is discontinued, I would desperately search for a replacement before closing my Twitter account. If it's just a lack of active development, that's not as huge of a deal--I kind of like the app the way it is.
Again, I can only hope Twitter developers realize this, and have something new and better planned.
Check out MetroTwit ( http://www.metrotwit.com/ ). I stumbled across it about two months ago and I've been using it ever since. It is a bit pricey for premium, but I bought it anyways (before it looked like Twitter was killing API access).
Unfortunately it's Windows only which doesn't fix the issue of Twitter for Mac being put out to pasture. It is a great twitter app if you ever use Windows though
Yet I've been trained to think that the people with big degrees know best, so I'm still counting on them making my twitter experience, and thus my life, much much better. fingers crossed
This sucks, another web app comes out; tells the world use me & develop for me, now f* off.
Now they are punishing everyone because they can't figure out how to make money by magic or ads.
I'm not arguing that it is a smart move to create a company on top of someone else's single purpose platform, but now they are going after the users.
Try charging for a change. 172 million active users x 10c a day = $516,000,000 mo, that's 3 bucks a month, yes most won't pay, but you can't really expect to make more than 1/2 billion dollars a month with micro blogging. And you can also charge a fair fee for developers, per API usage, you could probably double up the revenue.
With this very basic math, you don't need to cripple the user experience to place ads customers don't want to see.
I hope app.net get’s it right, it’s unlikely but would be great. I’ve supported it.
Most people I know who use a Mac desktop app for Twitter use TweetDeck (which was acquired by Twitter last year), so it wouldn't surprise me if they're deprecating the Mac Twitter client in order to make TweetDeck their standard desktop client across platforms.
Given that TweetDeck seems fated to be abandonware, I highly doubt it. Their Android client became all but unusable soon after the acquisition, and I've heard iOS was dropped completely.
TweetDeck was mostly a defensive acquisition to begin with (they had a huge market share, and deck.ly was a perceived threat).
They abandoned mobile but not desktop, the last Mac update was about a month ago and looking at their jobs page they're actively hiring new people to work on it.
It would be inline with wanting to have one official client per platform.
The Mac client is what made Twitter useful for me. It has a dedicated place on the desktop and I can peek in any time quickly to see what's new. Like a personalized news ticker. In contrast, I can't stand using the website. So this might reduce my usage drastically and turn me into a mobile only user.
I can't really recommend the UI design, but it does work well. In particular, its implementation of filtering (and here we hit the reason Twitter would hardly mourn the end of third party clients) is simple and complete, permitting me to be rid of autotweets from the likes of FourSquare and RunKeeper.
As a consequence, I haven't used Twitter's website in months.
Ah well. If Twitter should wither, it's been an interesting ride; however, I suspect it's reached Fcbk inherent security of position.
That said, if anyone knows of a genuine (ie not a poll on a random website) survey on people's usage of Twitter, I'd be most interested to see how the public at large uses Twitter, and who's heard of Twitter's edging away from third party clients.
FWIW, the new Tweetbot for Mac client is pretty great. They took down the alpha link from their site, but if you can find a copy of the DMG, you can still register into the alpha.
Assuming this isn't a just a rumor, this reeks of corporate politics. Loren creates an app that gets peoples' attention. Loren leaves. Twitter for Mac slowly dies. I don't doubt that someone has a rationalization for this, but I have to question the motivations behind such a move. This sounds more like someone trying to get rid of someone else's "legacy", or at a minimum some "new guard" trying to get rid of the "old guard". The Twitter Mac App is well-designed and popular. What good reason could twitter have for killing this?
It sounds like twitter's attempts to "reinvent" itself are going to just push them further into irrelevance.
Of course, if this is just a rumor, then you can pretty much ignore the entirety of my rant.
It's pretty simple why Twitter would discontinue this app. They want to have a consistent user experience across all their clients and they will continue to introduce more rich content (such as Cards) from their brand partners. It's a lot easier for them to manage this consistency of experience by sticking to HTML5 for the client experience rather than maintaining and updating a set of native clients each time newer content features are released.
You know, life would be so much simpler if companies could just force their idea of "consistent user experience" on people. Sometimes we as engineers have to take on additional complexity and just give the fucking customer what they want.
You can give users a rich user experience in a desktop app. Yes it will be more complex. Will it ultimately end in a better overall user experience? It sounds like your stance is "yes", and mine is "no".
The heck? Even though it's integrated directly into the OS?
I'm hoping that the explanation is along the lines of Apple building their own Twitter client to replace the existing one.
Twitter having its own desktop client made it exciting like a whole new internet protocol: Usenet, the Web, IRC, email, Twitter. Having it just residing on that terrible website demeans it.
Having said that, the iPad client is vastly superior to the desktop one anyway. Although the select-text-and-tweet-it feature was a workflow with a unusually profound impact on social media.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Apple to build a Twitter client. They’re simply not interested in putting in that kind of work for a third party’s product/service, without incredibly strong incentive.
I believe the last time they did anything like this was on the iPhone, when they built custom apps for YouTube and Google Maps—but they did that almost out of necessity for the user experience, since there were no usable alternatives for those services. (Additionally, with the YouTube app, Apple wanted to encourage adoption of "HTML5" H.264 video, because the majority of video content still required Adobe Flash, unplayable on the iPhone.)
This is all besides the fact that Twitter is now strongly discouraging clients, which apparently now includes their own…
On the other hand, they already added the Twitter integration to the right-click menu, and there were rumours recently that Apple were in talks to buy a large stake of Twitter Inc.
I only use Twitter via the Mac app and their iOS apps. Use of the web interface is painful and sluggish compared to the native apps. With them killing off the Mac app, I don't think I'll be using Twitter any more, except in the bathroom or in line when I'm bored (on my phone/iPad). It's even more bothersome that there isn't a clear reason for this.
I know it'd probably violate some terms and conditions, but is there any reason a desktop-client couldn't be developed that just "consumed" the website's content in a webview in order to present it in a more app-like style? Kind of a real-time scraper to change how Twitter is presented to the end-user.
I've never understood needing a desktop client for most websites really. To me they're just a waste of space, one more app to have running, and a constant distraction with all their alerts. My phone alerts me enough as it is. I'm on my Mac to get stuff done most of the time. I don't know, maybe I'm just an old fashioned 26 year old. To each their own I suppose.
Now, that last bit in the post I didn't quite get - "out of spite". Is there some political reason that Twitter would be spiteful toward the Mac platform? If so I don't understand why especially since Twitter is now built into iOS and OS X. Can someone explain that please?