How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup • Hacker News Board

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#61

Post by arturadib » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 1:25 PM UTC

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…

And, this case is singular in that not only do they depend on the API, they are also in direct competition with the provider of the API. It's risk^2.

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#62

Post by tubbo » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 2:51 PM UTC

You may want to sell that LNKD stock you're holding. It's all downhill from here.

The kids (college kids and those who just graduated) are adding me on BranchOut, not LinkedIn. I'm the one who usually has to issue the connection request on LinkedIn, because nobody is fucking using it except people looking for a job and recruiters. It's mostly recruiters. But recruiters are gonna go where they perceive the people to be, so once the facade has fallen LinkedIn is FUCKED. That stock price is gonna start tanking once companies like BranchOut (built into the existing Facebook platform we all know and love) start gaining more ground.

Running your company with the intent of destroying all competition is like running your country with the intent of destroying all people who don't look like you.

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#63

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 3:39 PM UTC

klbarry wrote: post #58

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.

I don't think there's any point in posting it publicly. Particularly several years past the event. Tell me why you want the name. If it makes sense I'll certainly provide it privately along with further details if necessary.

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#64

Post by bconway » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 5:29 PM UTC

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, without question. Business doing so should at the very least diversify across platforms and technologies.

Re: How LinkedIn betrayed a 5-man startup

#65

Post by antidoh » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 6:59 PM UTC

flatline3 wrote: post #35

Jare wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context, LinkedIn owes them respect and honesty. Bait and switching is crappy behaviour.

Why? They were abusing LinkedIn's service by competing with them. 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.

"They were abusing LinkedIn's service by competing with them."

What else would be a worthwhile use of an API?