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

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

#21

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

Let's play around a bit with this mentality:

Google: man up and build your own database of everything. Stop indexing our data when we already offer our own search mechanism.

I get that everybody wants to build ajax web apps and ios apps and android apps and so on, but what's the point of the internet except for being the default client-server protocol if we can't create mashups? The whole point of the internet is that data is public and linkable and interconnected. If companies don't want to allow scraping and they don't provide an API for their non-user-specific data then they're defeating the whole point of the internet.

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

#22

Post by davidw » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:26 PM UTC

xelipe wrote: post #17

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.

What Craigslist has is what economists call "positive network externalities" or network effects. Which just means that it's a really valuable service because tons of other people use it. Buyers go there because lots of people are selling, and lots of people selling go there because they know lots of buyers visit the site.

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

#23

Post by perlpimp » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:27 PM UTC

nestlequ1k wrote: post #16

MultiRRomero wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lets get to basics, If product was providing value and doesn't anymore there will be attrition to userbase and that is the gist of it. It is also the foundation of wealth building and whatnot. Ancillary benefits, as APIs are, help shallow out the curve of obsolescence or even grow the product sometimes if cards are played right, but that is that...

my 2c

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

#24

Post by jasonlotito » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:29 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.

> Hell yeah they owe us.

And for that data, they provide you with services. That doesn't mean they should be required to hand that data out to any service that requests it?

I mean, are you really asking that companies like LinkedIn allow free access to it's api's and user data to any 3rd party that requests it?

> Monopolies are illegal for a reason.

Well, no. Monopolies just require additional oversight. Microsoft, for example, didn't get in trouble for being a monopoly, it got in trouble for unfair business practices as a monopoly. More importantly, a monopoly doesn't exist with any of the companies presented in this article.

Really though, your comment fits with the picture at the top of the article.

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

#25

Post by BobPalmer » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:29 PM UTC

nestlequ1k wrote: post #16

MultiRRomero wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A company does not need to provide a constructive part of the community to achieve their goal of profitability... they just have to provide something that some segment of the population is willing to pay for, or build in a degree of lock-in that guarantees continued profits.

For example, It's probably fair to say that Monsanto is not a constructive part of the marketplace and community, but they sure do have a sustainable profit generating engine.

Edit - if you're going to downvote, how about some discussion as to how this comment does not add to the conversation... since I'm sure there was some other reason for the downvote other than not agreeing with me :)

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

#26

Post by crazygringo » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:29 PM UTC

No.

I might be inclined to agree, if it weren't for network effects.

Once a company reaches a certain size and market share, like Craigslist, would-be competitors are at a competitive disadvantage. Lots of people have created objectively better sites than Craigslist, but they fail because of network lock-in. Normal capitalistic competition is failing.

This is the same thing that happened with railways, utilities, and other natural monopolies. In these cases, it is necessary and proper for the government to step in and regulate access and interoperability.

Sites like Craigslist and LinkedIn have become the new natural monopolies. And demanding that they open up their data is the natural, and right, action to bring back natural market competition that benefits consumers and the world at large.

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

#27

Post by waterlesscloud » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:30 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.

Netflix included, actually. Their recommendation engine has been a selling point for them since the start, and it's built on data provided to them by the users.

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

#28

Post by jasonlotito » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:31 PM UTC

wandernotlost wrote: post #6

All the mentioned companies form at least part of their business on data collected from their users. Not products or sevices formed of raw material. Even Netflix depends on its users' data heavily in order to run its recommendation system. So to expect that they allow the public, in the form of other companies providing other services based on said data, is not so unreasonable at all. As a provider of data from which…

You make the mistake of assuming that you gave them your data and got nothing in return. You did.

What you're upset about is that you've already given them your data, and now you want more for it. You've upped your price after handing over the product, and them having delivered the product.

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

#29

Post by waterlesscloud » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:32 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…

These companies owe the consumers who are paying them. That's it.

The consumers absolutely have a right to express that they are dissatisfied with the exchange being made.

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

#30

Post by mwd_ » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:34 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…

Craigslist is a privately-owned company and was actually a non-profit at one point. In the past Craig Newmark has talked about Craigslist as a tool for community organization and so on. If Craigslist were 100% profit-driven I think it could have made a lot more money off of its huge user base.