31–40 of 65 posts
I agree, and Pealk definitely admitted as much, that for a startup, relying on an API is incredibly risky. I'd never be on board with a startup that did, no matter how cool the idea. But LinkedIn doesn't come off looking great either, and I think that was the thrust of the article. It's pretty concerning that they would spend eight weeks talking nice with Pealk, all the while sussing out Pealk's position, and then sh…
I 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…
I agree, and Pealk definitely admitted as much, that for a startup, relying on an API is incredibly risky. I'd never be on board with a startup that did, no matter how cool the idea. But LinkedIn doesn't come off looking great either, and I think that was the thrust of the article. It's pretty concerning that they would spend eight weeks talking nice with Pealk, all the while sussing out Pealk's position, and then sh…
I wouldn't even call it crappy. LinkedIn truly didn't owe them anything .
Hi, 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't even call it crappy. LinkedIn truly didn't owe them anything .
In this context, LinkedIn owes them respect and honesty. Bait and switching is crappy behaviour.
LinkedIn took the time to speak with them, evaluate the situation, and then make an informed decision about whether they wanted to support their appropriation of LinkedIn's data.
Why would anyone bother developing for their community via their API?
Linked In's site itself meanwhile is looking increasingly like Facebook to me and is increasingly irrelevant to professionals. They are under pressure to increase revenue dramatically to get close to justifying an over inflated share price, but losing your corporate values by screwing over people in your ecosystem is very short term thinking, perhaps reflecting a Wall St mindset.
I 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…
The issue is not a dependency on an API or platform. The issue is the nature and character of the company upon which you are depending. In spite of some well-publicized hiccups, Apple has made an effort to nurture its developer community.
The point of the article is not that dependency is bad (although it may very well be), but rather that LinkedIn is a bad partner, and it's not worth spending any effort to build a business on their platform.
What I'm curious about is what companies are similarly risky to build your business on.
Nobody 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.
I thought as much. If they allow it, then great, but you're asking for trouble.
The cross-platform messaging app Kik was pulled from Blackberry App World for similar reasons:
http://www.kik.com/blog/2010/11/rim-blackberry-kik/
Edit: Added 'App World' clarification.
I just don't get all the hand wringing. You are not entitled to unlimited use of another company's data. They can shut you off at any time for any reason. And if you build your company around someone else's API, an essential part of the business plan is preparing for the day when the API-providing company takes notice of what you're doing and evaluates your use of their service, with the expectation that they may shu…
I don't think so. The main issue is that people think that there are APIs because companies promote their interoperability to gain developers. Companies are not being sincere and nobody is taking notice. To not repeat this and other opinions I post one of my recent posts on the subject: "Reverse Engineering and The Cloud" http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/06/01/reverse-engineering-a...