Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything. • Hacker News Board

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#11

Post by MultiRRomero » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:13 PM UTC

citricsquid wrote: post #2

I think the reason people here feel this way is because the general consensus among HN users is that the best product wins and that's all that matters. If a company has a monopoly on data and refuses to provide an API they're saying that they don't want to compete on the quality of their product (craigslist for example) they want to keep their position without the benefits to the users. Padmapper made craigslist apar…

Craigslist's one goal in the world is to make a profit. That's it. Everything else comes secondary. If they decide that providing users a service will help them accomplish this, then have them provide a good service (which they do). However, they don't owe anything to any businesses or even any users. If users don't like this, let them go to an alternative. Welcome to capitalism, where the users decide what product they want. (Now if you don't like what the majority of users are deciding, then that's another issue altogether.)

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#12

Post by wissler » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:15 PM UTC

People have a right to complain if they don't agree with a given company's decision. The fact that the company has a legal right to do something, or the (alleged) fact that they are basing their decision on "the bottom line", does not make that decision the right one. And if indeed it is the businesses's prerogative to do this or that, certainly consumers have at least the right to voice their disapproval.

I really would like to stop hearing the whine "but they have a right to do X" every time a business's practices are criticized here on HN.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#13

Post by monkeymace » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:16 PM UTC

It is frustrating that due to network effects, for-profit companies, gain a near monopoly on important data types. YouTube owns video, Craigslist owns classifieds, Netflix owns video viewing, etc.

It would be great if there was regulation over certain types of data that would require companies to post back to a central database if they take certain kinds of information. It would be great if there was a device that could help level the playing field.

The point of my post was to highlight that complaining, or being shocked by these companies behavoir is sort of missing the point.

How can we unify and provide access to what we feel to be 'universal' data types?

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#14

Post by nestlequ1k » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:18 PM UTC

Hell yeah they owe us. Their services would not exist without our user data (netflix excluded).

Internet is still relatively young, but I think eventually we're going to have to have laws that regulate how companies that collect user details allow access to 3rd parties.

Monopolies are illegal for a reason. Companies who build infrastructure have to manage it fairly.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#15

Post by romanows » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:19 PM UTC

zobzu wrote: post #5

But wouldn't it be nice? Wouldn't we all better off as a whole if technology wasn't solely based on profit only? I think that's the real question, and what started the whole "API" "open XXX", not "OMG I WANT IT /CRY/CRY" that the image suggests. Remember that most devs nowadays participate in open source projects and start to have different ethics than they used to have (which was, money > everything, and justifies a…

Honest question, what devs are you thinking of that put profit above everything else? Newcomers during the dot-com bubble?

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#16

Post by nestlequ1k » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:20 PM UTC

MultiRRomero wrote: post #11

citricsquid wrote: post #2

I think the reason people here feel this way is because the general consensus among HN users is that the best product wins and that's all that matters. If a company has a monopoly on data and refuses to provide an API they're saying that they don't want to compete on the quality of their product (craigslist for example) they want to keep their position without the benefits to the users. Padmapper made craigslist apar…

Craigslist's one goal in the world is to make a profit. That's it. Everything else comes secondary. If they decide that providing users a service will help them accomplish this, then have them provide a good service (which they do). However, they don't owe anything to any businesses or even any users. If users don't like this, let them go to an alternative. Welcome to capitalism, where the users decide what product t…

Save it for econ class. A company's goal is to build a sustainable profit generating engine. To allow this, it needs to play a constructive part in the marketplace and community.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#17

Post by xelipe » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:22 PM UTC

citricsquid wrote: post #2

I think the reason people here feel this way is because the general consensus among HN users is that the best product wins and that's all that matters. If a company has a monopoly on data and refuses to provide an API they're saying that they don't want to compete on the quality of their product (craigslist for example) they want to keep their position without the benefits to the users. Padmapper made craigslist apar…

I don't think Craiglist has a "monopoly on data", they have a monopoly on their data and they have not incentive to make their data freely available.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#18

Post by ori_b » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:23 PM UTC

nestlequ1k wrote: post #14

Hell yeah they owe us. Their services would not exist without our user data (netflix excluded). Internet is still relatively young, but I think eventually we're going to have to have laws that regulate how companies that collect user details allow access to 3rd parties. Monopolies are illegal for a reason. Companies who build infrastructure have to manage it fairly.

If there were laws regulating how data is provided, I think that as a company, I'd simply stop providing data entirely. It definitely wouldn't be free.

APIs are nice, but legal hassles aren't worth dealing with.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#19

Post by monkeymace » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:24 PM UTC

wissler wrote: post #12

People have a right to complain if they don't agree with a given company's decision. The fact that the company has a legal right to do something, or the (alleged) fact that they are basing their decision on "the bottom line", does not make that decision the right one. And if indeed it is the businesses's prerogative to do this or that, certainly consumers have at least the right to voice their disapproval. I really w…

You point is valid about the "but they have a right to do X". I think it does provide good discussion however.

My point wasn't so much that they have the right to do that, but more about when your playing with another company's API don't expect to disrupt them.

Choose a start-up that is already successfully and profitably using a company's API and make your service even better. AKA don't compete with the mothership.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#20

Post by niketdesai » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:24 PM UTC

There was definitely some entitlement among the community, but I don't think that should silence the call for better services (and API enforcement) from these providers (or, hopefully alternatives all together).

If there is API access it should be enforced with more care or not made available at all. Personally, I was skeptical that PadMapper would go anywhere (expecting CL to kill the scraping early on). Much to my surprise it stuck around and furthermore was really useful. I'm not mad that it is gone: I read the TOS from CL - it's totally their right to do that. It just hurts end users which is the problem.

And sure, I do believe it's dangerous (and can be misleading to users [like when your data access gets pulled]) to build a product entirely on a platform, but it's almost unavoidable. (That's why you are the platform). Companies like PadMapper are going to try to improve where you have left off. (They probably didn't even register on CL's logs until they queried a lot which might explain the delayed C&D).

Let our entitlement / disappointment be a message to these companies on how to improve their services (ideally they could improve in a way that makes them more money). Or hopefully fuel for others to build competing products.