Twipic has been hosting images on Twitter for years now. Even though competitors have cropped up and Twitter has introduced its own native picture storage option, the service remains a well-known means of hosting images for use on the social network. Its official Android app, which popped up several years after the service gained wide adoption, still managed to accumulate hundreds of thousands of downloads.

twitpic1 twitpic2 twitpic3

But alas, the party couldn't last forever. The service is set to shut down on September 25th. Twitpic's founder has explained in a blog post that Twitter contacted the company a few weeks ago demanding that it abandon its trademark application request. If it didn't, the service risked losing access to the social network's API, a blow that would effectively kill it.

Twitpic filed for the trademark in 2009, and it had finally reached the "published for opposition" phase of the process where other parties can reach out to voice their opinions. Twitter's is pretty obvious here: "Thanks, but we got this from here."

Without the resources to fight such a behemoth, there isn't much left for Twitpic to do. Sadly, it was only a matter of time anyway. With Twitter offering a means of storing pictures natively, outside services are simply less relevant.

Source: Twitpic blog

Bertel King, Jr.
Born and raised in the rural South, Bertel knows what it's like to live without 4G LTE - or 3G, for that matter. The only things he likes sweeter than his tea are his gadgets, and while few objects burn more than a metal phone on a summer day, he prefers them that way anyway.

  • Android Crook

    Boohoo, so what are guys guys actually complaining about?

    • jonathan3579

      You've got too much time on your hands.

  • Fiinger

    Twitter is ran by a bunch of a**holes. They always do things like this. "You cant do this, you cant do that, blablabla"

    • brkshr

      Yet everyone continues to support/use them. Just like Facebook.

      But hey! An upvote for a comment against Twitter really shows them! Right?

    • av

      Well said. Don't forget to tweet it.

  • http://robert.aitchison.org raitchison

    Twitter's dickishness is one of the reasons I've all but stopped using the service.

  • fdsaf

    twitpic made milliosn off of the back of twitter for years. Twitter owes them nothing

  • sivkai

    Twitter aside, WHERE THE HELL IS THE MOTO 360?!?!

  • http://kennected.blogspot.com/ KENNECTED

    thank goodness for google+

    • woj_tek

      yeah! becase G+ i sooo open and have publicly available API... oh wait...

      • Jakob

        With you on the openness.... BUT there are API's all over this page:

        You can't blame them for not having that. :-)

        • woj_tek

          this looks kinda one-way...

    • MistiXF

      Yup. If celebs wanted to prevent people from seeing their nude seflies, they should have post them on G+.

  • cabbieBot

    The hubris of undermining the 3rd parties that mask Twitter's incompetence is going to catch up with them. They can't help but step on their own dick and once again goes to show that Twitter's worst enemy is Twitter.

  • tokuiten

    Why don't they just change their name like anyone else?

  • DrakeTungsten

    It's a legit gripe of trademark infringement on Twitter's part. Twitpic is close enough to create brand confusion with Twitter.

  • DirkBelig

    While this is bad, wait until Twitter starts "curating" our news feeds a la FaceSpace. It's coming; their CFO said as much. For our benefit. Or something.

    Twitter was banning accounts sharing J.Law nudie pix; they're seeking to "manage" your news flow; what's next? Is there possibly a revolution going on that Twitter isn't allowing to be tweeted? A "news flow" which starts "curating" what people see is a defacto censorship. Time for a competitor to arise and succeed by simply offering what Twitter originally was before it got full of itself.

    • http://petercast.net Peterson Silva

      On the other hand, accounts sharing J. Law's "nudie pix" SHOULD be banned.

      • Jonathan Nguyen

        Explain. Not defending the leaks, just curious on your position.

        • http://petercast.net Peterson Silva

          To share someone's pictures (specially those with sensitive content) without their consent (with otherwise explicit denial of authorization) is a crime. It is taken more seriously, when it comes to the law and culture, in some places than others and while I'm not a specialist in U.S. law as far as I know the leak and willingful dissemination of said pictures is a crime. So I don't understand why anyone would be outraged or surprised over the fact that twitter is not allowing criminal practices under their domains, or why anyone would argue they should (unless, of course, you were to say that the law the crime is based on is unfair, unlegitimate, etc - which I don't particularly think is the issue here).

          • Xzigraz

            It is up to me to decide if I want to see these leaked photos or not, not Twitter deciding it to me. Nobody is saying the leak is not a crime, but we just want everything there and we make the decision on what to watch/read/hear.

          • andy_o

            Twitter is not going to your house and covering your computer screen so you can't see them. You freezepeach people are unbelievable.

          • Xzigraz

            Twitter is removing content from people's twit which is presenting people with partial content. I am against it and that's all I am saying.

          • http://batman-news.com Kettir

            The Twitter Terms of Service include: "We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation) to remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, to suspend or terminate users, and to reclaim usernames without liability to you." You had to agree to the TOS before you could use Twitter. Legally they have the right to remove ANYTHING they don't want presented on their service, which you would imagine, include something they might get sued over.

          • http://petercast.net Peterson Silva

            1 - Again, Twitter is not patronizing you. It is looking after its interests. It could be judged liable for hosting criminal content, so it won't allow it. It has nothing to do with them protecting you or anything.
            2 - Also, yes, master, everything in the world must be planned and everyone must act out in order to satisfy your everlasting hunger for liberty of CONSUMING anything you want with your EEEYYEEZZZ!!!!11!! It doesn't matter if it hurts anyone or is against someone's right, or if it is a crime, or... Fuck it, YOU JUST DESERVES TO SEE THE PICTCHEEERSS.
            Grow up and realize there are other people in the world, which, btw, doesn't (or shouldn't) revolve around you.

          • Xzigraz

            1. It is the people who made Twitter what it is today. So owe to their user to not sensor anything. Twitter is a platform, the content is contributed by the user. If content posted on the platform is illegal, the appropriate authority should be able to get an order from judge and ask Twitter to take it down. Twitter shouldn't do it.
            2. Celebrity choose to be exposed in public domain, so yes, they might be the receiving end of criminal activity, and we feel sorry for them, so people might choose to not see these pictures. (I've seen some pictures in the new articles, the less exposed ones.) I think for the betterment of society, people should make these right and wrong decisions, they shouldn't be decided for them.
            "Grow up and realize blah blah", I am not going to tell you to do anything, it is your life and you can do whatever you want, you must pick up after yourself. So when I made my comment, I wasn't being an asshole and telling people what they should be doing, I was just telling people what I think the right action should be.

          • http://petercast.net Peterson Silva

            1 - Companies would simply rather not deal with lawsuits if they don't have to / if they don't see there's a benefit to it. It's that simple.

            2 - Your defense of (moral) freedom is cute, but so, so weird. This "discourse" is set to look "neutral", but is in fact playing an important role in rendering invisible the victims - this is, of course, the power of not is not said but is ever present within your words:

            "It's the people's choice to see or not the pictures... ... Even though it isn't the people in the photo's choice to distribute them freely and be seen."

            So there's a situation of negation of such free will for some people, but you don't seem to care about that. Let bygones be bygones, right? The photos are "out there", they're as public as the bodies in them. We should not take any action to revert the situation, after all - except, of course, for preaching that it is wrong to see / distribute these pictures and hope people adhere to the recommendation.

            It is so silly because you keep talking about "betterment of society", but you know that this is a process. As in not everyone is "better", right now, to not look at the photos. So some people are going to look - contrary to the photographed people's choices, mind you. And for you that's ok! It's educational, right? It will make them better! It's only a side effect of that educational process that some people get hurt along the way.

            You know what's best for the betterment of society? Telling people it is not okay to hurt others and taking a defensive stance when someone is hurt.

          • Xzigraz

            1. So it's my right to not use that service if I don't like the way they do business.
            2. I really don't appreciate your condescending tone when you make your argument. I am not endorsing people to look at/distributing these photos. I feel sorry that these celebrities got hurt from this event and I don't wish this happen to anybody. However, information is information, it's out there before and then somebody altered it. This thing itself is wrong. That's the argument I am trying to make. It is not about how some people take advantage of these victims. Is it okay for a company to not tell you that your credit card info has been stolen from their server because they simple revert all suspicious charges on your credit card, give you some bonus point and just send you a new card?

            If this has already happened, the victim is already hurt, information should not be modified, but people can stop distributing it. It's true that there will be people keep distributing it, let the APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY deal with them. Not you, not me, not Twitter.

          • http://petercast.net Peterson Silva

            1 - Completely agree!
            2 - "I am not endorsing people to look at/distributing these photos."

            However, you have a problem with doing something to stop the leakage if something can be done :)

            "However, information is information, it's out there"

            *sigh* No, it is not a case of "harm already done let's jerk off to i-NO I MEAN let's have people choose what to do from now on". They have the right not to want these pictures out and about. You put such value, again and again, on "free will" or "freedom of tweet" disregarding the fact that there is a right being disrespected.

            " let the APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY deal with them. Not you, not me, not Twitter."

            I can agree with it partly. I mean, last week a guy was beating the shit out of somebody there in my backyard but I couldn't try to do anything to stop it because, you know, people have to learn how to do the right thing, etc. I just called the police and sat down to drink my tea and carry on.

          • Xzigraz

            I agree that we should try to do the right thing at all time. It's just like the new Doctor Who season premier was leaked online recently and the fans stopped it from wide spread through torrent. We can too do this for the photos. However, you are still making argument on whether or not we should do the right thing.

            My argument is simple: information shall not be censored by anybody. Let's not talk about the content of this information.

          • http://petercast.net Peterson Silva

            Let's agree to disagree on that one... I understand the urge to prevent censorship and the difficulties of setting boundaries for content - but on the other hand, this is post facto; I'm not defending the pre-approval of messages on behalf of not letting people do bad things...

      • DirkBelig

        Is your girlfriend/wife/houseplant there with you? Blink twice.

        Spare me the faux concern. J.Law isn't going to sleep with you because you chopped your balls off in solidarity.

        • andy_o

          You are quite the piece of work there little boy.

        • http://petercast.net Peterson Silva

          Keep your "balls" and your old concept of masculinity - you must need it to make you feel good about yourself ;)

          • DirkBelig

            You're such a white knight. Used to be you could sufficiently emasculate yourself by simply listening to John Mayer; now you have to literally go full eunuch to prove yourself the total SJW for the womyn. Sad.

          • http://petercast.net Peterson Silva
          • http://batman-news.com Ketter

            MRAs in attendance, get out the fedoras. Why is it that anyone who says anything nice about women, or disagrees with treating them badly, gets called a "white knight"?

          • DirkBelig

            So much stupid. Let's break it down...

            >"MRAs in attendance,"

            I presume MRA = "Men's Rights Advocate" - a term whose very existence indicates a sneering belief men shouldn't have rights and shouldn't dispute the categorical smearing of those with penises are inherently rapey patriarchal goons who need to check their privilege. Self-hate much? Struggling with your cisness?

            >"get out the fedoras."

            What does this even mean?

            >"Why is it that anyone who says anything nice about women, or disagrees with treating them badly, gets called a "white knight"?"

            The problem isn't about saying nice things or not treating women badly, it's the pitiful and laughable spectacle the White Knights make of publicly chopping their male parts off like a Game of Thrones character in order to proclaim their solidarity with the Oppressed Damsels they feel are needing their saving. (And that they hope the Damsel will reward Sir White Knight with sex goes without saying."

            Because today's "man" (i.e. doesn't have an actual vagina, but at least a spiritual one that's runnier than Alan Alda's) is so thoroughly emasculated by SJW bullying, they are incapable of being chivalrous without sounding ridiculous and pandering as they attempt to sound butch. "Come ON you guys! This is so totes not cool to hurt the sisters with our hetero male gaze! We need to totes check our privilege. Now who wants a mojito?" So manly.

            Out: The Expendables

            In: Brotherhood of the Traveling Pants

          • http://batman-news.com Kettir

            I do wonder if there are any guys reading the above response who are offended by the assertion that they only object to online abuse towards women, because they hope to get some fluff out of it. I know I'm offended if I defend someone, and I'm accused of only doing it for personal gain.

          • andy_o

            I think this idiot manchild just made me complete my MRA bingo card.

          • http://petercast.net Peterson Silva

            I grew out of being offended by idiots =)

          • MistiXF

            "Old concept of masculinity" - what's the new? Justin Bieber and pussyboys wearing make-up, yoga pants, little whiny bitches, you maybe? Fuck that. That's not masculinity, that's pussinity. Your ancestors fought mammoths with sticks, and you? Have you got an app for that?

          • http://petercast.net Peterson Silva

            Wow, you're even MORE hilarious than the other guy!! Oh dear, what a treat!

            I'm in a good mood, so I guess I could try to answer in all seriousness.

            The old concept of masculinity is based on the idea that men should dominate women within a mindset of a hierarchy of quality and substance. Men are naturally superior and their rights, their lives, their thoughts have precedence over women's - their monopoly over what is perceived as an 'active' attitude towards life, as opposed to a passive one, also means overvaluing violence, coercive power, and individualistic 'rationalism' (but also means negative consequences, such as the _need_ and expectation that one "be a man" when one doesn't want to condone to this particular attitude or has different cultural tastes - like you just did).

            Some of my 'ancestors' also saw raping women as something much less troubling than today, so your glorification of the past is naive at best, stupid and sterile at worst, and either way quite telling about yourself.

            On a side note, I do not think of Justin Bieber as a role model for many, many reasons. He's an idol from the market as much as ny other built from the ground up by cultural industry to make money. He thinks he's the best, hence above the law or everyone else's rights, and given the right to be a douchebag. I pity him in a way. _However_, isn't it funny that you are _so_ worried that men somehow would, one day, be like him? You explicitly mentioned "pussinity", and I don't think you meant cats - so being like a woman is somehow... Derogatory? Women and everything related to the female gender is somehow less important, less interesting, simply... Worse? That's the old concept of masculinity _right_ there.

  • mbcls

    what? i always thought Twitter is the parent company of Twitpic.

    • WhyWai

      dumbfound, always tot twitpic is part of twitter.

  • Galit na ibon

    Any twitter alternative out there?

  • Big Tony

    If only Twitter focused as much on getting their shitty app working for once...

  • http://www.LOVEanon.org/ Michael Oghia (Ogie)

    I just don't see why Twitter has to be a dick about it. With as much money as they have, they could have just at least bought the service and that's the end of it (or even incorporated some of Twitpic's services). And while I realize I am in a way comparing apples and oranges, when a copy (albeit a different one) spend 19 billion dollars to buy an application, it kind of just makes you suspicious of why any gigantic tech company NEEDS to be an asshole to others.

    • MistiXF

      But they want more money, that's business. The more money you have, the more money you want. Especially when your last name is Zuckerberg or the likes.

      • http://www.LOVEanon.org/ Michael Oghia (Ogie)

        True story