Agreed, by mediocre I meant "ordinary." My original question being, if it's basically the same as other solutions, why would anyone use it now that we know what Twitter is doing with it.
If you consider Crashlytics to be a valuable service that is a step above others, I'm curious to know why you sold it as a data spy play to Twitter? Doesn't that kind of compromise the integrity of your vision? Or was it not clear to you what Twitter was going to do with it before the acquisition?
I don't understand why anyone would use this now. It was one thing when Google bought Urchin, which was already incredibly pervasive.
But Crashlytics is a relatively mediocre solution that doesn't already have market dominance. I guess that probably made them cheaper to acquire, but now that we know that Twitter wants them to spy on everyone's mobile apps, why would anyone use them?
There are other crash reporting solutions, and we're not already locked in. It seems like a bad tactical move for Twitter to have telegraphed why they wanted Crashlytics so clearly.