<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for strangedesign</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/strangedesign/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/strangedesign/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:40:28 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Private: Twitter Apps Can Only Grow so Far</title><link>http://blog.socialtoo.com/2009/01/21/twitter-apps-can-only-grow-so-far/#comment-5439150</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Absolutely is does. They are treating a symptom and not a cause but it is still probably what is driving the decision IMHO. A lot cheaper and quicker to limit the API, slow growth, and piss of what is a relatively small number of users than add unlimited capacity. Bad for business yes. Will it hurt them in the long run, who knows.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">strangedesign</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:40:28 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Private: Twitter Apps Can Only Grow so Far</title><link>http://blog.socialtoo.com/2009/01/21/twitter-apps-can-only-grow-so-far/#comment-5438350</link><description>&lt;p&gt;But what if that limit is what get's them through Inauguration and MacWorlds, etc? I would think keeping Jesse and his 10K users being able to auto-follow/unfollow/DM running is not their concern. Keeping their system running is what matters. At this point the only thing you can really be firm about is the communication and timing of this change is BS. Whether it is justified, the right thing to do, etc can't be answered without more information.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">strangedesign</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:08:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Private: Twitter Apps Can Only Grow so Far</title><link>http://blog.socialtoo.com/2009/01/21/twitter-apps-can-only-grow-so-far/#comment-5437627</link><description>&lt;p&gt;See where I differ slightly from your thinking is while yes they are a single app they are not using their own API account. They use MY API calls which limit me the individual user. If I choose to have a lot of groups in the client that is my choice. I have to decide how to use my 100/hr and I decide to give them to tweetdeck that is my choice. Where as Socialtoo (disclosure I am a user of SocialToo and LOVE IT) is is using a DEV account. Not saying it is right, but the spirit of the change from twitter IMHO is not about limiting applications, it is about resource preservation pure and simple.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now I have worked on large implementations (talking millions of concurrent users) and Yes they need to fix their API but also they need to protect themselves from scriptkiddies and hacks who don't know how to code and therefore use up too many API calls. just my $0.02.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">strangedesign</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:38:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Private: Twitter Apps Can Only Grow so Far</title><link>http://blog.socialtoo.com/2009/01/21/twitter-apps-can-only-grow-so-far/#comment-5437217</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Agreed the API limits are just a band-aid on poor API development. But can you expand on who TweetDeck violates this because technically they don't. They aren't being punished because they don't tax the system (as bad as it is) anymore than a normal user can do on their own. Lucky, maybe, but violators I don't think so.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">strangedesign</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:21:31 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>