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

How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#51

Post by janardanyri »

legutierr wrote: post #37
objclxt wrote: post #9

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…

But what about all of those software businesses that have built on top of the iOS API + App Store? Would you say that they are also taking a massive risk? Apple can cut off any app that it wants at any time, almost for any reason, and yet thousands of independent developers are building profitable businesses on top of their platform. The issue is not a dependency on an API or platform. The issue is the nature and cha…

> But what about all of those software businesses that have built on top of the iOS API + App Store? Would you say that they are also taking a massive risk?

Yes. Very yes. Any iOS developer with any sense is brutally aware that we serve at the pleasure of the king, as Jeff Atwood put it. Apple nurtures its developer community because a robust app store is a selling point for Apple hardware. If Apple decides your app runs contrary to Apple's goals, it's gone, and you better have a backup plan. There've been plenty of panicked anecdotes floating around the Internet on that topic. The grandparent's analysis is sound.

(Also: thousands of independent developers are building profitable businesses on iOS, but tens of thousands aren't.)

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#52

Post by anthonyb »

geoka9 wrote: post #45
leptons wrote: post #24

"pealk" is a stupid name. I'm not even interested in learning about your product if you named it something stupid. What is it with web start-ups and stupid names?

Do you think "Microsoft" is stupid? I do. Or "Apple", for that matter.

Not to mention "leptons"

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#53

Post by lovskogen »

objclxt wrote: post #9

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…

Like Padmapper.

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#54

Post by djt »

objclxt wrote: post #9

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…

With all the hype about Lean Startup and Agile etc I think it would be worthwhile going over a simple SWOT analysis for a lot of these built-on-API companies. If you're going to use an API then you need to create a business that will survive when you get big enough for the company to realise you're a threat and buy you or bankrupt you.

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#55

Post by CookWithMe »

If a company is both a key partner and a competitor at the same time, your business model is faulty.

That said, the LinkedIn API could open certain features only if you act on behalf of a paying LinkedIn user. That way, both LinkedIn and the startups could happily co-exist, even though the startup recreates some of LinkedIns functionality.

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#56

Post by ExpiredLink »

objclxt wrote: post #9

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…

Tim Bray: Are You a Sharecropper?

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#57

Post by rtcoms »

LinkedIn API terms of use says :

Sell, lease, share, transfer, sublicense any Content obtained through the APIs, directly or indirectly, to any third party, including any data broker, ad network, ad exchange, or other advertising or monetization-related party..

Charge, directly or indirectly, any incremental fees (including any unique, specific, or premium charges) for access to LinkedIn's Content or your integration of the APIs in your Application;

Does it mean that one cannot monetize applications created using linkedin api ??

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#58

Post by klbarry »

robomartin wrote: post #42

Business is war. Anyone who doesn't think so hasn't got the enough scars to understand this yet. As a small entity, any time you tangle with large well-funded companies you have to be very aware of the fact that they could shaft you in a dozen different ways whenever the please. That's the hard and cold reality of it. Contracts and agreements only serve to possibly give you the option to sue, and nothing more. They d…

Would it be possible to email me the name of the company (or write it here?) My email is in my profile.

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#59

Post by a5seo »

gergles wrote: post #10

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.

Where were all these comments on the Craigslist/pad mapper situation? Is it any different?
Post reply on HN