How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
thenextweb.com
How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
#2Hi, author here, don't usually [ever] comment on my own work here - but am interested to hear if other devs have had similar or contrasting experiences working with LinkedIn.
Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
#3Hi, author here, don't usually [ever] comment on my own work here - but am interested to hear if other devs have had similar or contrasting experiences working with LinkedIn.
What does "iterates" mean in context?
"Pealk has been in contact with lawyers in the event that LinkedIn iterates its own version of the app"
I can't tell if it's misused or I'm missing something.
Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
#4Hi, author here, don't usually [ever] comment on my own work here - but am interested to hear if other devs have had similar or contrasting experiences working with LinkedIn.
In your post, you say "After news of the API cut off, LinkedIn got in touch to suggest a possible trip to its San Francisco HQ" - IIRC, LinkedIn's HQ is in Mountain View, not San Francisco.
Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
#5Hi, author here, don't usually [ever] comment on my own work here - but am interested to hear if other devs have had similar or contrasting experiences working with LinkedIn.
In your post, you say "After news of the API cut off, LinkedIn got in touch to suggest a possible trip to its San Francisco HQ" - IIRC, LinkedIn's HQ is in Mountain View, not San Francisco.
From France, there's not so huge a difference, is there? You're still probably flying into SFO.
Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your post, you say "After news of the API cut off, LinkedIn got in touch to suggest a possible trip to its San Francisco HQ" - IIRC, LinkedIn's HQ is in Mountain View, not San Francisco.
From France, there's not so huge a difference, is there? You're still probably flying into SFO.
A factual error is a factual error. Definitely lowers the credibility of the article for me.
Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
#7Hi, author here, don't usually [ever] comment on my own work here - but am interested to hear if other devs have had similar or contrasting experiences working with LinkedIn.
"betrated" should be "betrayed"
Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
#8Hi, author here, don't usually [ever] comment on my own work here - but am interested to hear if other devs have had similar or contrasting experiences working with LinkedIn.
What does "iterates" mean in context? "Pealk has been in contact with lawyers in the event that LinkedIn iterates its own version of the app" I can't tell if it's misused or I'm missing something.
In this context it can basically mean "improves".
It comes from a recent trend in software development called Agile where new features are added in short cycles e.g. week called an iteration.
Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
#9I think one of the messages here is that if you're a start-up and your product requires a third-party API that you have no control over to function then you're taking a massive risk.
This isn't specific to Linked.In: API access isn't a right. If your product requires a third-party data source and you don't have any contractual agreement with that third-party you have to accept that the rug could be yanked from under your feet at any moment.
And maybe that risk is acceptable to you and your investors - but to not have a backup plan is foolish.
Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup
#10Nobody can possibly think it is a good idea to use someone's API to create a product that directly competes with the API providers' paid offering.
The sense of entitlement to be allowed to use someone's product against them frankly baffles me.