Comments on: A Little Bird Told Me How to Make Some Money http://www.chrisleydon.com/blog/2009/a-little-bird-told-me-how-to-make-some-money/ Exploits of a Creative Digital Media Artist Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:16:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Chris Leydon http://www.chrisleydon.com/blog/2009/a-little-bird-told-me-how-to-make-some-money/comment-page-1/#comment-120 Chris Leydon Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:58:11 +0000 http://www.chrisleydon.com/blog/?p=135#comment-120 I just don't think that within this market a Spotify advertising solution could work for Twitter. Advertisers are pulling out of the web, for a little while, until the economy heals itself. Huge podcasts, Spotify, radio and Facebook are struggling to get advertisers, what would make Twitter any different? Ads on sites don't really work as much as ads within content. There must be some sort of scheme that Twitter could adopt to encourage developers, both large and small. They could charge for certain amount of API accesses per hour, day or week. Twitter could even ask for a certain percentage of profits/revenue made on tools that use their API. The exact same problems exist with other platforms. How are the small developers are supposed to develop for the PlayStation, or build an iPod accessory, without the necessary funds? It's a fine balance. I just don’t think that within this market a Spotify advertising solution could work for Twitter. Advertisers are pulling out of the web, for a little while, until the economy heals itself. Huge podcasts, Spotify, radio and Facebook are struggling to get advertisers, what would make Twitter any different? Ads on sites don’t really work as much as ads within content.

There must be some sort of scheme that Twitter could adopt to encourage developers, both large and small. They could charge for certain amount of API accesses per hour, day or week. Twitter could even ask for a certain percentage of profits/revenue made on tools that use their API.

The exact same problems exist with other platforms. How are the small developers are supposed to develop for the PlayStation, or build an iPod accessory, without the necessary funds? It’s a fine balance.

]]> By: Sam http://www.chrisleydon.com/blog/2009/a-little-bird-told-me-how-to-make-some-money/comment-page-1/#comment-119 Sam Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:47:05 +0000 http://www.chrisleydon.com/blog/?p=135#comment-119 I see where you're coming from, but let me see if I can make my point a bit clearer. Let's take a subsection of applications that use the Twitter API -- iPhone clients. Imagine companies X and Y both make Twitter clients. Company X is a large company, which turns over a comfortable profit and does more than just an iPhone Twitter application. Company Y is a one man operation, which is just a hobby. Twitter then introduces the API charging scheme (let's assume it's a monthly one) which X can easily afford, but Y can not. Y must either stop completely, or raise it's price, which will inevitably lead to a drop in sales. For users, the choice of client is then a matter of cost, rather than usability or feature sets. Doesn't this also introduce the prospect of API keys being banded about like serial numbers? What do you see as the problem with a Spotify-style approach? I see where you’re coming from, but let me see if I can make my point a bit clearer. Let’s take a subsection of applications that use the Twitter API — iPhone clients. Imagine companies X and Y both make Twitter clients. Company X is a large company, which turns over a comfortable profit and does more than just an iPhone Twitter application. Company Y is a one man operation, which is just a hobby.

Twitter then introduces the API charging scheme (let’s assume it’s a monthly one) which X can easily afford, but Y can not. Y must either stop completely, or raise it’s price, which will inevitably lead to a drop in sales. For users, the choice of client is then a matter of cost, rather than usability or feature sets.

Doesn’t this also introduce the prospect of API keys being banded about like serial numbers? What do you see as the problem with a Spotify-style approach?

]]> By: Chris Leydon http://www.chrisleydon.com/blog/2009/a-little-bird-told-me-how-to-make-some-money/comment-page-1/#comment-118 Chris Leydon Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:56:48 +0000 http://www.chrisleydon.com/blog/?p=135#comment-118 A company with commercial intent, such as IconFactory with Twitterrific, are already making a profit off of Twitter's back for what could be argued as free. If Twitter were to charge commercial app developers a fee to use the API the user wouldn't notice a thing. Charging for use of an API is no different then Apple charging to become iPod Dock Connector certified; no different then a games console manufacturer, such as Sony, charging for the game to be certified for said console. Charging commercial companies and developers for access to Twitter's developer tools seems to make perfect sense both for Twitter and their users. A company with commercial intent, such as IconFactory with Twitterrific, are already making a profit off of Twitter’s back for what could be argued as free. If Twitter were to charge commercial app developers a fee to use the API the user wouldn’t notice a thing.

Charging for use of an API is no different then Apple charging to become iPod Dock Connector certified; no different then a games console manufacturer, such as Sony, charging for the game to be certified for said console.

Charging commercial companies and developers for access to Twitter’s developer tools seems to make perfect sense both for Twitter and their users.

]]> By: Sam http://www.chrisleydon.com/blog/2009/a-little-bird-told-me-how-to-make-some-money/comment-page-1/#comment-117 Sam Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:50:03 +0000 http://www.chrisleydon.com/blog/?p=135#comment-117 Shouldn't we use "monetise" rather than the Americanised version of the word? The concept has technically existed for centuries -- you can monetise anything if you try hard enough. I'm not entirely sure that charging for API access is the right way to go about things, perhaps because the article leaves a few questions. Who is charged for the access, developers, or users? If the former, then what's stopping a big developer from purchasing the API access and passing this on (for free) to users. However, if it is the user being charged then there may be some confusion. Firstly, with trying to explain to people what an API actually is, as it is a transparent process with which the user doesn't really need to be involved. Secondly, is the model on which you build the charges. Is it a monthly charge, a one-off charge, or a per-API-call 'microcharge'? I personally think that the right route to go down is a Spotify-style model, where there is a free-with-adverts version, and a paid-without. Shouldn’t we use “monetise” rather than the Americanised version of the word? The concept has technically existed for centuries — you can monetise anything if you try hard enough. I’m not entirely sure that charging for API access is the right way to go about things, perhaps because the article leaves a few questions. Who is charged for the access, developers, or users? If the former, then what’s stopping a big developer from purchasing the API access and passing this on (for free) to users.

However, if it is the user being charged then there may be some confusion. Firstly, with trying to explain to people what an API actually is, as it is a transparent process with which the user doesn’t really need to be involved. Secondly, is the model on which you build the charges. Is it a monthly charge, a one-off charge, or a per-API-call ‘microcharge’? I personally think that the right route to go down is a Spotify-style model, where there is a free-with-adverts version, and a paid-without.

]]>