I believe this is the quote from Twitter -
"We’ve had conversations with UberMedia, the developer of these applications, about policy violations since April 2010, when they first launched under the name TweetUp – a term commonly used by Twitter users and a trademark violation. We continue to be in contact with UberMedia and hope that they will bring the suspended applications into compliance with our policies soon."
I agree with you entirely Mark that they can handle something like this better, but I think that a company like Twitter that is still figuring out the best way to monetize has a right to enforce their trademarks to reel in other people trying to make money off of their product.
Then again, at a $4-10bn valuation, they probably can afford to not cut off things that make their users happy.
You're totally right that Twitter "has a right to enforce their trademarks to reel in other people trying to make money off of their product."
That isn't in question.
My argument:
- today they affected millions of users
- they should have first issued a public statement to major media outlets that service would be cut unless UberMedia fixed problems in 72 hours. Users would then have a chance to migrate if they wanted
- I also think it's bad policy to cut off 3rd-party developers. Even mildly competitive ones. My view: let the ecosystem innovate on their dime. Then you either buy them or tax them.
My reaction today was as a user of UberTwitter who felt caught in the crossfire. And as such it felt like Goliath attacking David.
That all makes sense to me, and like I said, it seems really an issue of how they're handling it. If they were to tax them, what would it look like? Facebook and Apple both seem to be implementing ways to take a cut of the money going through 3rd-party apps... I don't know enough about Twitter myself. Is it possible for them?
Comments
I believe this is the quote from Twitter - "We’ve had conversations with UberMedia, the developer of these applications, about policy violations since April 2010, when they first launched under the name TweetUp – a term commonly used by Twitter users and a trademark violation. We continue to be in contact with UberMedia and hope that they will bring the suspended applications into compliance with our policies soon."
I agree with you entirely Mark that they can handle something like this better, but I think that a company like Twitter that is still figuring out the best way to monetize has a right to enforce their trademarks to reel in other people trying to make money off of their product.
Then again, at a $4-10bn valuation, they probably can afford to not cut off things that make their users happy.
You're totally right that Twitter "has a right to enforce their trademarks to reel in other people trying to make money off of their product."
That isn't in question.
My argument: - today they affected millions of users - they should have first issued a public statement to major media outlets that service would be cut unless UberMedia fixed problems in 72 hours. Users would then have a chance to migrate if they wanted - I also think it's bad policy to cut off 3rd-party developers. Even mildly competitive ones. My view: let the ecosystem innovate on their dime. Then you either buy them or tax them.
My reaction today was as a user of UberTwitter who felt caught in the crossfire. And as such it felt like Goliath attacking David.
That all makes sense to me, and like I said, it seems really an issue of how they're handling it. If they were to tax them, what would it look like? Facebook and Apple both seem to be implementing ways to take a cut of the money going through 3rd-party apps... I don't know enough about Twitter myself. Is it possible for them?