Twitter's unfair token system gives it far too much control over rival apps

In recent days you probably heard about the demise, and subsequent resurrection, of the Twitter client Fenix. Earlier this week, the app became a victim of its own success, succumbing to what it described as "the infamous Twitter tokens limitation". It's now back in the Google Play Store having carved out some sort of deal with Twitter, but the debacle highlights an important issue.

If you want to create a Twitter client -- and why wouldn’t you? -- you'll need access to the Twitter API. This is not something Twitter wants, or permits, to just be a free-for-all, and it limits developers' use of the API through a token system. Simply put, one token equals one user, and Twitter decides how many tokens each developer has, in turn dictating the maximum number of users any rival Twitter client may have. Anyone spot a problem?

The problem -- if you view it as such -- is that Twitter is afforded far too much control over competing software. Of course the company wants you to use its own official client, and it should also be free to have a say in how other tools access the wealth of data Twitter users publish each day. But the balance of power is tipped very much in Twitter's favor. In just about any other field, the way Twitter restricts developers would be seen as anticompetitive, and it has led to the demise of many a title.

As a rule of thumb, Twitter assigns a maximum of 100,000 tokens to any client. This means that it can never have more than 100,000 users. But that's not quite the full story. Everyone working on the app uses up a token, as does anyone who downloads the app, uses it for a while and then moves on to something else. It is possible to free up tokens that are no longer being actively used, but Twitter's system effectively means that no app can have more than a set number of users. When you consider the number of Twitter users there are out there, it's perhaps little wonder that there are so many Twitter clients in the App Store and Google Play.

In the case of Fenix, there appear to have been some behind the scenes talks that we are not privy to. App developer Matteo Villa said on Twitter:

@ArtemR having now spoken with the Twitter team I'm pretty confident any new potential issue can be resolved

— Matteo Villa (@mttvll) April 28, 2016

This implies -- although clearly we don't know for sure -- that Fenix is being treated slightly differently to other clients. Matteo isn't able to reveal details, but two potential scenarios suggest themselves. The first is simply that Twitter is starting to be a little more generous with handing out tokens; it's possible that the upper limit has simply been increased (but will every developer have to go to Twitter, begging bowl in hand to ask for more?). The second is that Twitter is considering buying Fenix and is therefore singling it out for special treatment.

Considering Fenix has already proved itself to be immensely popular, it's far from inconceivable that Twitter would be interested in buying it. Over the years, Twitter has swallowed up a number of third party clients including Tweetie and TweetDeck, as well as services such as Vine, Posterous and Twitpic. But whatever is happening, the whole situation still demonstrates the power that Twitter wields over developers.

Twitter is not only able to prevent any app from getting 'too big' -- thereby eating into Twitter's own share of the market and stealing ad revenue -- by limiting the number of tokens available, it is also able to revoke API access if it decides it doesn't like a feature added to a third party app.

The situation with Fenix is not a new one; a few years ago Falcon Pro hit its token limit. Rather than withdraw the app from stores -- as this would have prevented existing users from being able to obtain updates -- the developers instead ramped up the price to discourage people from downloading an app that would not work. That developers should have to go to such lengths is bonkers. To actively discourage people from downloading your creation is insane. It places Twitter in control of how much money other companies are able to make. Of course there is the argument that Twitter is wholly justified in limiting who has access to its platform and in what way, but it is still hard to get away from the idea that it places Twitter firmly in the driving seat.

All well and good, you might say, but as well as stifling competition, it also diminishes the user experience by failing to encourage developers to create interesting apps. What's the point in creating an all-singing, all-dancing Twitter client if the rug could be swept from under your feet at any moment? You already know what the best you can achieve is before you even start out. Meanwhile Twitter sits back, surveying those developers who are happy to stick it out, and borrows features and ideas it likes the look of for its own app.

I'm not suggesting that it should just a be free-for-all, but the way Twitter acts is concerning, and it does its millions of users a disservice. Hit Google Play or the App Store and you'll find an endless selection of Twitter clients to choose from. Now choice is a good thing, but it can also be confusing and fragmenting. By imposing a limit on the number of people who can use any given app, Twitter has created this fragmentation, and essentially forced the vast majority of people to use its own app.

Google is currently at the center of an antitrust lawsuit for the way it abuses the dominance of Android to push its own apps and services. This is really no different to what Twitter is doing. Twitter may be well within its rights to place restrictions on apps and developers, but ultimately it means that everyone but Twitter loses: users, developers, advertisers. The company really needs to think long and hard about what it's doing and consider what is in the best interests of the people who matter most -- Twitter users.

Photo credit: Photology1971 / Shutterstock