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

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

#51

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

latch wrote: post #48

encoderer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Of course not. But if another paper copies the listing that you paid them to run -- and runs it for free -- the newspaper doesn't send a C&D.

Nobody is expecting craigslist to push data to 3rd parties. They expose programmatic ways to access listings, and PadMapper used them.

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

#52

Post by asanwal » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:57 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…

Are you suggesting legislation that "levels the playing field"? I'd much rather have this settled by entrepreneurs fighting on the basis of their ideas than some legislator without a clue. No company dominates forever esp in technology.

Craigslist disrupted a huge classified industry without any legislator saying that papers had to "open" up their data. Markets work over time.

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

#53

Post by latch » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:57 PM UTC

kika wrote: post #8

Correct. But, IMHO, they (Craigslists of the world) owe us, consumers. We're their eyeballs, customers, users, we bring them food, directly or indirectly. Well, at least for myself this is always the case, to greater or lesser extent: when I do something for a user, and user pays me, I feel somewhat obliged. If he pays me $5/mo, it doesn't mean that our contract is renewed from scratch every month. I feel obliged to…

You say that as if Craigslist doesn't provide any value to consumers as-is. How much do they owe you? Maybe they should pay you to use their website? Maybe they should buy the item you are interested in for you?

You seriously think Craigslist doesn't give a shit about users? Think about what you are saying. Think about the world before Craigslist. It's a free service that even my mother uses. This is the _exact_ sense of entitlement that the OP is talking about.

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

#54

Post by mwd_ » Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:58 PM UTC

jarcoal wrote: post #39

mwd_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you see how the appearance of not being profit driven can increase your profits?

It's possible, but if I were a cash-obsessed Craigslist founder I think I would have sold the company a while ago and moved on to something else.

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

#55

Post by monkeymace » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 12:01 AM UTC

romanows wrote: post #40

monkeymace wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You included Craigslist to get pageviews. Your own linked articles about that topic are a user only complaining about the legal takedown of a useful tool [1] and another complaint about UX with an included blurb asking startups and users to put their time and data into something better [2]. Nothing about API changes or right to a company's proprietary data. [1] http://blog.garrytan.com/save-padmapper-craigslist-is-wr…

I am not shy to admit that I enjoy having pageviews (although I don't run ads). I could have done some better research and provided a deeper explication of my thoughts. I just saw a connection between three major 'API' controversies lately on HN, and wanted to share my initial thoughts to prompt healthy discussion.

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

#56

Post by egallardo » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 12:02 AM UTC

I see both sides to the argument. Craigslist is acting in their own self interest as PadMapper was by using CL's data to add value to their service.

While unfortunate, the move by Craiglist isn't surprising. They have done this repeatedly. The situation PadMapper is in is inevitable for any entity that isn't self-sustaining..

PadMapper should be working as quickly as possible to capitalize on the added attention this has caused and start letting users input their listings directly..

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

#57

Post by stfu » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 12:04 AM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #43

mwd_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 with…

If they charged to view the listings for example

Just by putting un-offsensive elements such as a single Adsense box on each site they should be able to generate serious additional revenue without experiencing that much of critique. With that kind of traffic and legitimate profile, the un-intrusive revenue options are endless. Just additional fees for highlighted listings, dynamic pricing for a slower decay of a posting, etc. But the beauty of Craigslist is its absolute no-frills approach and consistency over years and years. Reminds me a bit on the success of Drudge. Similarly weathering all storms by concentrating on content and simplicity to the extreme.

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

#58

Post by true_religion » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 12:08 AM 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.

That's in theory.

In reality, private companies are personality driven.

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

#59

Post by bmelton » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 12:09 AM UTC

stfu wrote: post #57

bmelton wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 with…

If they charged to view the listings for example Just by putting un-offsensive elements such as a single Adsense box on each site they should be able to generate serious additional revenue without experiencing that much of critique. With that kind of traffic and legitimate profile, the un-intrusive revenue options are endless. Just additional fees for highlighted listings, dynamic pricing for a slower decay of a post…

Y'know what? I think you're absolutely right.

I was naively thinking of charging users more money to increase revenue, and while you've pointed out a few very viable ways that they could easily get more wallets open, the real gold mine is likely ad revenue that nobody would bat an eye at.

The targeting/CPM would likely be fairly low, but by sheer volume alone, they'd rake it in I suspect.

Thanks for the insight.

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

#60

Post by jasonlotito » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 12:09 AM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #33

jasonlotito wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, f…

"That doesn't mean they should be required to hand that data out to any service that requests it?" It does, however, mean that it's up for negotiation, if the consumers want it to be.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that if the members want their data free, they can "negotiate" for allowing 3rd parties to access it? That goes without saying.

So, either you are saying something else, or just stating the status quo.