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

141–150 of 223 posts

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#141

Post by icebraining »

radlad wrote: post #75
AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we need is a common interchange protocol, not a specific service.

This is kind of an idea a coworker and I have been toying with. At it's core, all you really need is a pub-sub server, with daemons publishing and consuming some JSON blobs. Redis is a pub-sub server out of the box, write some simple Python wrappers that poll web pages, RSS feeds, etc. and publish, and on subscribes perform actions (i.e. hit the API!) I would like to convert a script I have which polls from my Gmail…

We have such a system already, it's called PubSubHubbub. It's an open protocol, and there are already multiple servers (paid and free) and support by software, both by publishing systems like Wordpress and by news readers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubSubHubbub

https://github.com/pubsubhubbub

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#142

Post by rtpg »

danpalmer wrote: post #136
rtpg wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other side of the spectrum, do you expect Slack to maintain the Slack integration you write for your webapp? Do you expect Microsoft to maintain Excel plugins? Of course they might do so for a couple vital ones to help jumpstart the integration system, but it's not black and white. IFTTT is a bit different because this is their value-add. But is it so different that you can make a claim that in a context-free…

The thing is, integration is what IFTTT does. Their entire product is connecting different shaped pipes together. It's their core-competency. Sure, they got bitten by platform changes, but reacting to that was under their control. Now when the services change, they're going to have to wait for the engineering teams at the service providers to prioritise getting that integration working again. Excel isn't its plugins,…

Integrations are a pretty big part of Slack.

I agree that IFTTT is only its integrations, and them maintaining certain channels is definitely in its interests. But on the flip-side, IFTTT is an integration multiplier for any pipe.

So you can make the pitch that your startup should write an IFTTT integration, because that really gets you 100 integrations (the truth is a bit more delicate of course).

Another advantage is someone asks you "why isn't X inside IFTTT?" You can now actually fix the problem.

I definitely understand repositioning to "IFTTT provides pipes, but you provide the data." It's much more scalable (helping to ensure that it'll be around for a while) and offers advantages on both side of the fence. 100 companies maintaining 1 integration is more straightforward than 1 company maintaining 100 integrations. And that means IFTTT can concentrate on making the pipes (the real value-add, because "consume this webhook" isn't interesting in isolation).

Why they didn't do this and work for a way for their legacy (if unmaintained) channels to keep on working is a mystery to me though....

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#143

Post by SEMW »

snowwrestler wrote: post #113

> 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.

> Fun fact: legal language is not protected by copyright

With respect: are you a lawyer?

I'm not, but all the sources I can find written by actual lawyers put this claim somewhere between 'wildly oversimplified' and 'false', depending on jurisdiction and the kind of legal language (contracts vs legislation, etc.).

Eg for US law, [0] quotes Nimmer on Copyrights § 2.18[E] as stating that ‘There appear to be no valid grounds why legal forms such as contracts, insurance policies, pleadings and other legal documents should not be protected under the law of copyright.’

[0] http://www.adamsdrafting.com/downloads/Copyright-NYLJ-8.23.0...

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#144

Post by hkmurakami »

klenwell wrote: post #23

If you've never heard of it, If-This-Then-That is a service that lets you connect websites together, so that things that happen in one place automatically trigger some regrettable action someplace else. For example, you might write an IFTTT ‘recipe’ that tweets anything you post on Facebook, because you are a monster. I'd heard of it (I may have even signed up with it at some point), but this has to be the best expla…

Maciej is a fabulous writer with a deft mix of wry, self-deprecating wit and precise expressions.

If you aren't familiar with his writing, you'd likely enjoy "Dabblers and Blowhards" http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#145

Post by michaelmcmillan »

nitrogen wrote: post #132
michaelmcmillan wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not seem like a very serious CEO.

Being a "very serious CEO" isn't necessarily a good thing.

I'd say it is the only right way to act when you have been called out on sending scary legal contracts and bullying services into working for you for free.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#146

Post by Spidler »

lindentibbets wrote: post #120
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 :)

"We apply a scorched maybe tactic.".

First we strong arm current implementations, forcing them into a Private API that we 'intend' to make public. Sort of how we intend to go to the gym, intend to drink less and intend to think about how our actions affect others in order to be better people this year.

Wait. Why would we believe this statement? Why would the people who willingly implement your private API care about it going public?

This "intend" is as much worth as the intent to build a comprehensive test suite and intent to document the code later.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#147

Post by toyg »

sam_goody wrote: post #140
icebraining wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A downvote says "this content shouldn't be on HN" Ehh, I'm not sure that's generally accepted. A few years back pg himself did say downvotes could be used for showing simple disagreement, and many people seem to agree even today.

If people use downvotes to show disagreement, than HN is sunk. No-one likes downvotes, and it will create a community where people only post those comments that they think everyone will agree with. Instead, downvotes should only be sed to highlight comments that should never have been made.

Dude, that ship sailed some time ago. And I say this as someone who agrees with the HN "mob" on most things. The hardcore libertarian-randist opinions you'd see relatively often around here have all but disappeared.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#148

Post by dwaxe »

ersii wrote: post #121
lindentibbets wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our apologies! We are smaller than you think :) Send me an email at my first name at ifttt.com

Could you clarify if you actually have someone that is responsible for reading and responding on the official contact channel ( http://ifttt.com/platform ) for "Partnership" Inquiries?

I've found that if you ever want to contact a company, find the appropriate person and email them. Collectively owned company emails are terrible because they often don't have a single point of responsibility.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#149

Post by danpalmer »

rtpg wrote: post #142
danpalmer wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, integration is what IFTTT does. Their entire product is connecting different shaped pipes together. It's their core-competency. Sure, they got bitten by platform changes, but reacting to that was under their control. Now when the services change, they're going to have to wait for the engineering teams at the service providers to prioritise getting that integration working again. Excel isn't its plugins,…

Integrations are a pretty big part of Slack. I agree that IFTTT is only its integrations, and them maintaining certain channels is definitely in its interests. But on the flip-side, IFTTT is an integration multiplier for any pipe. So you can make the pitch that your startup should write an IFTTT integration, because that really gets you 100 integrations (the truth is a bit more delicate of course). Another advantage…

> Integrations are a pretty big part of Slack.

I think I disagree. Integrations are a big part of Slack for tech companies, but Slack is doing well not because lots of small tech companies are using it, but because lots of bigger less-technical companies are. With them, I think it's transformational to have good instant messaging, not integrations.

> I definitely understand repositioning to "IFTTT provides pipes, but you provide the data." It's much more scalable (helping to ensure that it'll be around for a while) and offers advantages on both side of the fence. 100 companies maintaining 1 integration is more straightforward than 1 company maintaining 100 integrations. And that means IFTTT can concentrate on making the pipes (the real value-add, because "consume this webhook" isn't interesting in isolation).

But this is exactly my point, there isn't anything in those pipes, it's just an integration at each end. Sure there might be some tricky technical stuff to scale it (I don't know), but that's not the product.

And I think 1 company having a core-competency of "plugging webhooks together" is simpler than 100 companies a) knowing another 3rd party API, and b) having to prioritise maintaining that integration highly enough that it matches the release cycle of IFTTT.

Re: My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

#150

Post by eru »

hkmurakami wrote: post #144
klenwell wrote: post #23

If you've never heard of it, If-This-Then-That is a service that lets you connect websites together, so that things that happen in one place automatically trigger some regrettable action someplace else. For example, you might write an IFTTT ‘recipe’ that tweets anything you post on Facebook, because you are a monster. I'd heard of it (I may have even signed up with it at some point), but this has to be the best expla…

Maciej is a fabulous writer with a deft mix of wry, self-deprecating wit and precise expressions. If you aren't familiar with his writing, you'd likely enjoy "Dabblers and Blowhards" http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm

Or my favourite: http://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda_weehawken_burrito_t...
Post reply on HN