| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Twitter adds restrictions, limitations to API |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-08-16 23:47:45 |
| Twitter is changing its API guidelines. Lots of new restrictions and limitations for third party clients. I'm within 140 characters. |
|
| About time... |
| By Morgan on 2012-08-17 01:31:57 |
|
The twitter spam, fake accounts and other assorted junk is what keeps me from liking the service. I use it for my severe weather alert project, but I don't like it. Off topic: The last sentence got a laugh out of me, I love silliness like that. :) |
 - Score: 4 |
| RE: About time... |
| By Johann Chua on 2012-08-17 05:17:44 |
| I really hate that the Philippine government actually recommends that people get on Twitter for emergency alerts and the like. Wouldn't official SMS messages on all networks be more accessible? It's not like mobile internet is dirt cheap here. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[2]: About time... |
| By Morgan on 2012-08-17 05:27:11 |
|
Actually I have the opposite problem, in a manner of speaking. I wasted a lot of time and effort trying to integrate SMS alerts triggered by weather warning posts to my site, yet most of the site followers asked for Twitter alerts instead. It turned out Twitter alerts were much easier to manage, so I went that route. You would think that, given how pretty much every American citizen over 15 years old has at least a basic cellphone, they would prefer SMS. It seems that people here are foregoing the older, more reliable (and these days, pretty much free) technology built into the phone, instead preferring a bug-ridden, spam infested web 2.0 service. I can't count the times I've been able to receive SMS messages reliably with one bar of 1XRTT service, yet when I finally move back into 3G/WiMAX areas I'm bombarded with dozens of pending internet-based alerts. There is something to be said for Twitter's ability to forward relevant tweets to your phone via SMS, but what happens when Twitter itself goes down for a while? |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: About time... |
| By zimbatm on 2012-08-17 08:48:29 |
|
> You would think that, given how pretty much every American citizen over 15 years old has at least a basic cellphone, they would prefer SMS. It seems that people here are foregoing the older, more reliable (and these days, pretty much free) technology built into the phone, instead preferring a bug-ridden, spam infested web 2.0 service. My guess is that they don't want to pay 10 cents every time to receive the SMS. That's really an absurdity of the US cell network. In Europe, only the sender pays to deliver the message |
| - Score: 4 |
| Walled gardens |
| By zimbatm on 2012-08-17 08:54:36 |
|
> In version 1.1, we will require every request to the API to be authenticated. Just lowering the rate-limit for public access would have been enough to force partners to identify with them. Will I have to login to see other people's tweets too ? |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[4]: About time... |
| By darknexus on 2012-08-17 13:21:46 |
|
> My guess is that they don't want to pay 10 cents every time to receive the SMS. That's really an absurdity of the US cell network. What are you talking about? Which network? We do have a few of them, you know. The only providers these days that do this are mostly small regional resellers of the major networks, i.e. they piggy-back on a major network (typically Sprint or Verizon) but provide alternative plans and charges. These piggy-backers are usually the ones that slap you with roaming charges as well. It's stupid really, as if you go with a major carrier directly you actually end up with more fair terms more often than not (how unusual is that in our corporate culture?), while the resellers make you pay more because they have to pay more in turn to use the network they're borrowing. It's not really a problem with the network though. I doubt the network cares one way or the other what the providers are charging. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[5]: About time... |
| By zimbatm on 2012-08-17 13:29:03 |
|
[removed dupe] Edited 2012-08-17 13:37 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[5]: About time... |
| By zimbatm on 2012-08-17 13:36:49 |
| My bad. A Canadian friend told me it was the same in the US, when I learned that he was charged 10 cent to receive SMS on Rogers. I should mention my sources. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: About time... |
| By fretinator on 2012-08-17 13:44:53 |
| I have AT&T in the U.S., which qualifies as a large provider. For SMS message I have 2 choices - pay $20/month or $0.02 per message. Both choices stink. For now, I use Google Voice, but I do have reliability issues for messages coming and going (most like due to data connection, just like with twitter). No one should have to pay that much just for text messages. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[5]: About time... |
| By edwdig on 2012-08-17 20:27:07 |
|
Verizon charges 20 cents per text. That's why I avoid text messaging whenever possible. Especially once I got a smartphone with unlimited data. I have more ways to contact me on my phone than I can keep track, all of which are free, so text messages are the option of last resort. Even voice calls are essentially free these days - unlimited nights, weekends, and in network calls means I rarely have any significant usage of my limited minutes. |
| - Score: 3 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |