Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet IT

Twitter and the Rise of Data Platforms 33

Posted by Soulskill
from the pre-mined-for-your-convenience dept.
snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister sees Twitter's latest move — to develop 'analytical products' based on Twitter data and to encourage third-party developers to do the same — as part of a growing trend toward a new kind of software platform. 'In the past, tool vendors have offered developers languages and code libraries that gave them access to computing functions in simple, standardized ways. In this new paradigm, however, a platform consists of more than just frameworks and APIs. It also comes prepackaged with a complete, rich data set, and often that data is the platform's most valuable aspect. These new "data platforms" are creating exciting new opportunities for developers, though they are not without their challenges.' Chief among these issues are privacy and security, as evidenced by a recent letter to Google from government regulators and activist tools such as PleaseRobMe. But for developers, the challenges also include livelihood. 'Even more than mobile platforms such as Apple's iPhone, a data platform like Twitter's is a walled garden. If Twitter cuts off a developer's access to its data sources for any reason, that developer's business is sunk.' Even those who develop 'cloud middleware' around such data platforms stand to gain little from their efforts, as doing so pits them in competition with their data platform vendors, which are in a far better position to reach potential customers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter and the Rise of Data Platforms

Comments Filter:
  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Saturday April 24, 2010 @02:07PM (#31968294) Homepage Journal

    These new "data platforms" are creating exciting new opportunities for developers

    There is nothing "exciting" or "new" about advertising. It's just a mechanism for siphoning wealth from the middle and working classes and giving it to the top 1%.

    The speed with which people welcome the tools of their own demise is stunning.

  • by fotbr (855184) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @02:46PM (#31968476) Journal

    If I don't buy anything they advertise -- in fact, I block the advertisements themselves -- exactly how is it hurting me to use services supported by advertising?

    I see nothing wrong with parting a fool from their money. If people as a whole aren't smart enough to move past the mental abilities of a ferret (ooh, shiney, must have it), well, then they're bringing it on themselves, and I don't feel sorry for them at all.

    Go ahead, call me cold hearted, but I learned from my mistakes. It took me the better part of 10 years to learn and recover from those mistakes, but I did it without going begging for help. People need to suck it up, reduce their expenses to the bare essentials, work multiple menial jobs if that's what it takes, sell possessions if they have to. It takes work, and a willingness to do without, but it can be done without needing handouts.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Saturday April 24, 2010 @09:25PM (#31970802) Homepage Journal

    If I don't buy anything they advertise -- in fact, I block the advertisements themselves -- exactly how is it hurting me to use services supported by advertising?

    Advertising is stronger than you are. You may believe that you have superpowers that make you impervious to marketing, but some very thorough research done since the 1920's has shown that sooner or later, advertising sinks in. Maybe you can block an ad in a website, but the whole idea of ubiquitous messaging is that if the right don't get ya, the left will.

    I know people who say they have completely shut out all marketing, and then you count the brand names they know and buy. Or even better, the brand names they know even though they don't buy them. See if you can sing the first few bars of a jingle and if they can finish it. And it's not just about getting you to buy particular products, but to be slightly dissatisfied with your life so that you can only find fulfillment in consumer goods. And there's not 5 out of 100 in the US who have managed to avoid that.

    The story of the 20th century is that corporations got into our heads so completely that most of us aren't even aware of the amount of our gray matter that has been completely co-opted.

  • by fotbr (855184) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @09:48PM (#31970890) Journal

    All of which is predicated on the theory that I buy excess stuff. I pretty much buy necessities only, and if I'm buying a name brand of any of them it's because a)it was cheaper / unit when I was at the store, or b) past personal experience with it has proven it to be of sufficient quality that it is worth seeking out again. Hell, half the time I'm in the store, I don't know if something is a "name brand" or if it's the "store brand". Mostly because I avoid advertising, and partly because I simply don't go shopping very often.

    You'd be surprised how little you need to live a satisfying life. Maybe more people should refuse to be mindless consumers and give a simple life a try.

(1) Never draw what you can copy. (2) Never copy what you can trace. (3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.

Working...