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

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

#41

Post by encoderer » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:47 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.

It's not "their" data. It's their user's data. As a user and a homeowner I post my rental listing to Craigslist because that's where the most prospective renters are.

In the past, do you think anybody ever looked at the classifieds page in a newspaper and thought "this data is owned by the Times"?

In the PadMapper case, who are the losers? Renters benefit from a radically different UI and de-cluttering of daily reposts. Owners benefit from the increased traffic to their listing. Craigslist benefits because it's more of a 1-stop-shop for owners: post to craigslist (and pay them), and get some level of syndication to different services and apps. They also aren't losing out from reduced mindshare of renters: when you use PadMapper you know you're using Craigslist. It's always obvious and all links point there.

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

#42

Post by mcantor » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:47 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.

> they have not incentive to make their data freely available

How about the convenience and enjoyment of their users?

I kid, I kid.

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

#43

Post by bmelton » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:47 PM UTC

mwd_ wrote: post #30

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…

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.

That's actually an interesting enough theory that I'd love to test.

My guess is that the site is generally mediocre enough that it would be hard to get more people to open their wallets except for select listing types.

If they charged to view the listings for example, I'd wager that very few people would bother and they'd lose their network effect.

My guess is that they're getting about as much money as they can without offending too many people as preservation of their user network is highest priority, as it is what allows them to keep charging money for the few things they charge for currently.

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

#44

Post by aiscott » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:48 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #26

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…

The network effects at craigslist are an intrinsic part craigslist's value.

You can't truthfully claim you have a better product if you are missing the key feature of your competitor's product (users).

Getting users is a piece of the puzzle of building a craigslist competitor. It's not some separate thing.

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

#45

Post by asanwal » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:49 PM UTC

monkeymace wrote: post #13

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 co…

This is a slippery slope. Who defines these universal data types? And if they only are "defined" when someone gets big and powerful, doesn't that reduce the incentive to innovate and build big businesses?

The idea of mandating any such rule is not the solution. It's antithetical to how markets should work.

There's been no company that's managed to dominate forever. LinkedIn, CL, Netflix will be no different. Someone or ones will attack them (perhaps orthogonally) and ultimately they will lose their dominance. That's what happens to incumbents. The market takes care of them. Note: this disruption may or may not be quick.

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

#46

Post by jarcoal » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:50 PM UTC

heliodor wrote: post #34

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…

Actually, Craigslist values us, the users, more than most companies. You know how? By leaving so much money on the table that you can't help but love them! Craigslist is a breath of fresh air in a world where everything is optimized as much as possible to part us from our money!

If CL decided to take that money on the table, they might have rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and went out of business years ago.

Maybe they realized the path to greatest profitability was to act like they don't care about profits.

Just a thought.

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

#47

Post by asanwal » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:51 PM UTC

monkeymace wrote: post #13

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 co…

This is a slippery slope. Who defines these universal data types? And if they only are "defined" when someone gets big and powerful, doesn't that reduce the incentive to innovate and build big businesses?

The idea of mandating any such rule is not the solution. It's antithetical to how markets should work.

There's been no company that's managed to dominate forever. LinkedIn, CL, Netflix will be no different. Someone or ones will attack them (perhaps orthogonally) and ultimately they will lose their dominance. That's what happens to incumbents. The market takes care of them. Note: this disruption may or may not be quick.

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

#48

Post by latch » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:52 PM UTC

encoderer wrote: post #41

xelipe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not "their" data. It's their user's data. As a user and a homeowner I post my rental listing to Craigslist because that's where the most prospective renters are. In the past, do you think anybody ever looked at the classifieds page in a newspaper and thought "this data is owned by the Times"? In the PadMapper case, who are the losers? Renters benefit from a radically different UI and de-cluttering of daily repos…

It might be your data, but that doesn't somehow make it Craigslist responsibility to share it with other applications. If you want your data listed in as many places as possible, register with each and every system, and enter it.

In the past, do you think when you submitted a classified to 1 newspaper, they called up all the other local and regional papers to submit your information too?

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

#49

Post by mufumbo » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:54 PM UTC

I believe it's really CL problem. They won't ever find a better mobile engineer or someone who will even spend 10% of the time I've spent hacking something cool.

If you got a C&D as well and isn't happy about it, you should go ahead and make a better product. Otherwise you can go to work for one of their competitors. That's the beauty of being a hacker.

Just make it sure that online classifieds is your passion.

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

#50

Post by prostoalex » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:56 PM UTC

heliodor wrote: post #34

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…

Actually, Craigslist values us, the users, more than most companies. You know how? By leaving so much money on the table that you can't help but love them! Craigslist is a breath of fresh air in a world where everything is optimized as much as possible to part us from our money!

That is not strictly true. A better search would save the users time, compared to clicking through CL pages, which for popular categories could be overwhelming.