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

111–120 of 223 posts

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#111

Post by jwise0 »

HN meta: I'm sort of disappointed that this has been getting downvoted.

Obviously, what Linden is saying in this case is probably not helping his business case. It's clear to me that he either does not understand why Maciej doesn't want to implement a private API, or does not wish to understand it.

On the other hand, neither of those things are grounds for a downvote, I think. A downvote says "this content shouldn't be on HN" -- that there's something about a comment that detracts from how the community operates. Linden has been completely respectful in what he says and how he says it. Maybe that's not the case in what he's asking his users to do, but we may as well let him ask.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#112

Post by disposeofnick9 »

A startup becomes uncool when it starts driving code churn as a value reducer ostensibly as "new value," but instead alienates their vendors and customers alike. IFTTT reminds me of the audicity of Hillary Clinton assuming she's already the next president while avoiding releasing those damaging Goldman Sachs transcripts (where her boilerplate contracts require a stenographer, and an attendee describes the tone of one speeches as that of her acting like a managing director cheerleading the troops). Or maybe the Drumpf's endless list of bankrupt companies and bringing meat from the grocery store to prove nothing. Oops. Edit: Anyhow, I'll move my weather warning texts over to a service that doesn't molest its developer partners without their consent. Thanks IFTTT, here's your mixtapes back.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#113

Post by snowwrestler »

> The developer terms of service don't seem to be available by a public URL, so I will quote the bits that stung me. I invite IFTTT lawyers to send me a takedown notice, because that will be the funniest part of this fracas so far.

Fun fact: legal language is not protected by copyright and can be copied, modified, republished, or reused.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#114

Post by biot »

lindentibbets wrote: post #80
ReadingInBed wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having spent countless hours working with third party apis that are poorly documented and business critical I can understand how unexpected changes can be frustrating. But asking people to do things your way with no incentive is even more frustrating for everyone. It comes off as you not respecting their time or the product and apis they have already built.

We very much respect Pinboard's time and are willing to give them just about as much of it as they need. Am willing to spend our time as well! We are looking to improve all of these integrations over time, beyond what their API can support and the best way for Pinboard to do this is to own that integration completely.

I respect your time as well. Please, take as much of it as you need. I'm generous that way.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#115

Post by disposeofnick9 »

lindentibbets wrote: post #73

I am the CEO over at IFTTT. I apologize for any misunderstanding our communications today have caused. I built the Pinboard Channel on IFTTT and have maintained it for years. I am also a paying customer of Pinboard! I’ve built for hundreds of platforms and any changes to those platforms by default suck. At IFTTT, we've been on the receiving end of platform changes too many times to count. I want to make sure we do it…

Maybe don't throw away the current integrations that work for magical new platform, but instead work collaboratively so that both parties plan and work together on channels to manage change from a position of trust? devops for vendor relationships. Instead, seeming to take an adversarial tone isn't going to benefit either service. I would consider rolling back the developer TOS to something equitable and sign mutual NDAs to share support / source for channel integration code and make publishing stable APIs in both directions a priority. Otherwise, channels will disengage as we're seeing right now and it hurts the platform because it gives the appearance of shifting externalities to everyone else, even if that is not the intention. It comes across as bullsh!t.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#116

Post by buro9 »

lindentibbets wrote: post #73

I am the CEO over at IFTTT. I apologize for any misunderstanding our communications today have caused. I built the Pinboard Channel on IFTTT and have maintained it for years. I am also a paying customer of Pinboard! I’ve built for hundreds of platforms and any changes to those platforms by default suck. At IFTTT, we've been on the receiving end of platform changes too many times to count. I want to make sure we do it…

I'm a pinboard user, and an IFTTT user. I've also made a few recipes on IFTTT including the pinboard > Google Calendar one.

The sum of your comments on here mean that I'll be looking to reimplement all of the IFTTT recipes I use on Botize.

You've stood by your legal team and defended the ToC, in addition to how this has been communicated and handled, and what it is you're trying to do.

Are you really trying to assert ownership of content as it passes through the APIs on your site? If not... why is that even in there? If you are, then there is no way I can keeping being a user of IFTTT.

It seems to me, that when these HN episodes happen that it would be a good time to pause and wonder if the internal bubble at IFTTT in which this was thought a good idea, actually produced an externally viable good idea. I think in this case, it did not.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#117

Post by lindentibbets »

swanson wrote: post #101
lindentibbets wrote: post #73

I am the CEO over at IFTTT. I apologize for any misunderstanding our communications today have caused. I built the Pinboard Channel on IFTTT and have maintained it for years. I am also a paying customer of Pinboard! I’ve built for hundreds of platforms and any changes to those platforms by default suck. At IFTTT, we've been on the receiving end of platform changes too many times to count. I want to make sure we do it…

My hobby: role-playing how I would respond as the CEO if my company was getting skewered on HN. Here is my version! --- I am [not] the CEO over at IFTTT. We messed up. Big time. Pinboard -- and other services developers love -- played an important role in our success thus far and we dropped the ball with the roll-out of our new platform. We have a shared incentive: to make channels work reliably for our end-users. To…

Damn, that is good! I have reached out to Maciej as well.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#118

Post by jonny_eh »

fenomas wrote: post #94
hyperhopper wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised that a majority must have signed already, for them to actually make the switch. Hopefully this costs them a lot of buisiness and they have to revert.

The author noted in the comments that nobody signs it, it's a passive "By using our developer site you agree.." agreement.

Are those even enforceable?

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#119

Post by disposeofnick9 »

jwise0 wrote: post #111

HN meta: I'm sort of disappointed that this has been getting downvoted. Obviously, what Linden is saying in this case is probably not helping his business case. It's clear to me that he either does not understand why Maciej doesn't want to implement a private API, or does not wish to understand it. On the other hand, neither of those things are grounds for a downvote, I think. A downvote says "this content shouldn't…

It's the signals destroying trust that create the animosity, and will tend to make it harder to have decent, respectful, working relationships with integration partners. It reads as lopsided and occurring unilaterally, without any degree of trust or respect for said partners.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#120

Post by lindentibbets »

erichocean wrote: post #33

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.

We fully intend to make the APIs public, but are working with existing partners to implement. We are trying to be flexible and understanding, also are not throwing legal threats :)
Post reply on HN