Ask HN: What does the Twitter/Datasift deal mean for developers?

My understanding is the primary difference is that data from Datasift is not for display (analysis only), which, if accurate, would only work for a small set of companies currently accessing the data.

check your facts by reaching out to Twitter directly.

I'm Jud Valeski, CEO of Gnip (jud@gnip.com). So we're all running on factual data, apparently a problem these days,...

Twitter's value added resellers (e.g. Gnip and DataSift) must... - sell filtered data at no less than $0.10/1k Tweets consumed. Gnip makes this price explicit, whereas DS, apparently (I can't fully tell so check w/ them directly) rolls that number into their costs, making it opaque.

- sell only to firms who will not display the Tweets in "public".

- sell only to firms who will not programmatically re-syndicate the raw Tweets further downstream.

Oh, and I'm Mike. My email is mike@readwriteweb.com if you don't want to just comment here. If you are willing to be quoted for a story, I'll need to know your full name and position/job title/company, what have you. :)

Mike -- Your statement is factually false. Both DataSift and Gnip have two components of the cost they charge consumers for their search-based products. The first is a data license cost (10 cents per thousand tweets sent to the consumer) and a processing cost. In the case of Gnip, the processing cost is essentially the cost of the machine you license, while for DataSift it is the AWS-style compute cost. How they show these costs to the consumer may vary, but they are each compensate Twitter for the cost of the data license.

To simplify:

<total cost> = <data cost> + <processing cost>

<total cost> = <$0.10 * #tweets % 1000> + <processing cost levied by Gnip or DataSift>

Thanks, Doug

BTW - Here are some stories from earlier this year for context:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twitter_puts_the_smack_... http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twitter_kills_the_api_w...