Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

blog.pinboard.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 223 posts

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#31

Post by tptacek »

dave2000 wrote: post #26
msbarnett wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site doesn't provide recipes, it provides endpoints (API calls) that users can write recipes to use. How it worked until now: 1) IFTTT wrote glue code to interface with a site's published API, and IFTTT could then write recipes to use the site. IFTTT thus stitched together other sites published APIs as a service. How IFTTT has decided it will work from now on: 1) IFTTT comes to you and orders you to write private…

Wouldn't you be performing this work because you believe it will facilitate the transfer of traffic to your site? Aren't you comitting to make changes as and when ifttt change their API so that you can continue to receive their calls? Sites/services can just walk away if they don't want the traffic. No one's obliged to pay or do anything they don't want to.

I think the subtlety that's not evident from these comments is that Maciej didn't solicit IFTTT integration to begin with. In fact, as I recall it, IFTTT did a hacky integration that misused Pinboard's authentication, and Maciej had to help them correct that.

Later, after putting a bizarre legal agreement in front of him to sign, IFTTT announced that Pinboard would stop working on their service in a manner that made it sound an awful lot like Maciej had just decided to stop supporting IFTTT. In reality, all the agency in this relationship belonged to IFTTT.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#33

Post by erichocean »

It would be easier to support IFTTT on this if the proposed APIs to be implemented were public. But making the APIs private and then being a dick about it with all the legal threats isn't something that I can reasonably support.

I doubt I'm alone in thinking this way.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#36

Post by ajarmst »

msbarnett wrote: post #9

> 11. Compatibility. Each Licensee Channel must maintain 100% compatibility with the Developer Tool and the Service including changes provided to you by IFTTT, which shall be implemented in each Channel promptly thereafter. > 17.This Agreement is personal to Licensee and may not be assigned or transferred for any reason [...]. IFTTT expressly reserves the right to assign this Agreement and to delegate any of its obli…

Yep. This is bad enough that the simple fact that a site integrates with IFTTT will be sufficient to trigger my brand-new 'Wow. You guys signed that? I am NOT trusting you with data I care about' reflex.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#38

Post by hbosch »

dave2000 wrote: post #26
msbarnett wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site doesn't provide recipes, it provides endpoints (API calls) that users can write recipes to use. How it worked until now: 1) IFTTT wrote glue code to interface with a site's published API, and IFTTT could then write recipes to use the site. IFTTT thus stitched together other sites published APIs as a service. How IFTTT has decided it will work from now on: 1) IFTTT comes to you and orders you to write private…

Wouldn't you be performing this work because you believe it will facilitate the transfer of traffic to your site? Aren't you comitting to make changes as and when ifttt change their API so that you can continue to receive their calls? Sites/services can just walk away if they don't want the traffic. No one's obliged to pay or do anything they don't want to.

> Wouldn't you be performing this work because you believe it will facilitate the transfer of traffic to your site?

That is surely how IFTTT will pitch it to 3rd parties... but, really, probably not. Being accessible in the Recipe list isn't great advertising, anyone not using your site already probably isn't going to sign up due to seeing your name on IFTTT.

Framed another way, there is a famous saying in the design industry: "I can't pay you, but it would be great for your portfolio". Classic exploitation tactic; manipulative and predatory.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#39

Post by pbarnes_1 »

yuhong wrote: post #10
idlewords wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some other people are saying they've seen Chrome complain, but I can't reproduce it. Please send email (support@pinboard.in) if you can figure out what's up.

Incorrect certificate chain. When you moved to SHA2 certs, you failed to change the intermediates to the "Gandi Standard SSL CA 2" ones.

1 s:/C=FR/ST=Paris/L=Paris/O=Gandi/CN=Gandi Standard SSL CA 2 i:/C=US/ST=New Jersey/L=Jersey City/O=The USERTRUST Network/CN=USERTrust RSA Certification Authority

Nope...?

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#40

Post by idlewords »

tptacek wrote: post #31
dave2000 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you be performing this work because you believe it will facilitate the transfer of traffic to your site? Aren't you comitting to make changes as and when ifttt change their API so that you can continue to receive their calls? Sites/services can just walk away if they don't want the traffic. No one's obliged to pay or do anything they don't want to.

I think the subtlety that's not evident from these comments is that Maciej didn't solicit IFTTT integration to begin with. In fact, as I recall it, IFTTT did a hacky integration that misused Pinboard's authentication, and Maciej had to help them correct that. Later, after putting a bizarre legal agreement in front of him to sign, IFTTT announced that Pinboard would stop working on their service in a manner that made…

I should clarify that the terms of service I quoted are a thing you agree to by using their developer site, and that I was not given a document to sign.
Post reply on HN