Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

monkeymace.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 176 posts

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

#61

Post by jbigelow76 »

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…

> Lots of people have created objectively better sites than Craigslist, but they fail because of network lock-in.

There is no lock in. A buyer or seller is free to move place their listing or make their purchase from any number of alternatives regardless and Craigslist can't stop them.

> Sites like Craigslist and LinkedIn have become the new natural monopolies.

Mark Zuckerburg would probably disagree with that statement. In 2005 MySpace would have been the equivalent of Craigslist, massive network, shitty design and no data portability. If the value provided by alternatives to CL were as superior as most HN readers believe them to be then END USERS would see that as well and migrate just like MySpace users migrated to FB. But they don't so CL retains its dominance, the failure of alternatives is not indication that CL is cheating or doing anything even remotely monopolistic.

> 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.

The data is open, just not in a format you think you are entitled to it in. It's open in that the same poster that put their listing on CL can post the same listing on alternatives, they just choose not to. Convince the seller or buyer of the value you bring to the table and they will open their data to you as well.

Many HN readers have reached the conclusion that convenience and competition are the same thing. They aren't.

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

#62

Post by jroseattle »

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…

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Craigslist doesn't owe "us" a thing. They offer a service, and for those who pay for it, the exchange is made.

Whether or not we think PodMapper is a better service for "us", it's not our choice to make on behalf of Craigslist.

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

#63

Post by davesims »

Saying that a company has every right to execute whatever policy they deem necessary to defend their bottom-line interests is not the same as saying that the community they do business in cannot call them out when those same policies are executed in an underhanded or deceptive way.

Sure, they don't owe third-parties anything, and personally I think it's folly to base all or even a significant portion of your business on data or functionality that you don't control.

But that doesn't mean that the community corporations do business in must always just shut up about it when, for instance, one company pretends to support a third-party's efforts for two months, just long enough to get a good hard look at their user experience, financial standing and business model, and then summarily shut them down without recourse.

"It's just business" is fine, but it's not a get-out-of-shame-free card. Just as third-parties can't complain when an API is yanked out from under them like Lucy with a football, so corporations shouldn't get butt-hurt when the community they work with looks at them and says, "the way you did that really stinks."

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

#64

Post by kika »

latch wrote: post #53
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_ sens…

I didn't do a qualified research (I would have told that otherwise) so I can tell for myself. I personally don't use CL exactly because of that - I look at the website and understand that nobody gives a fuck about me here. Not because it doesn't use CSS3, but because it's barely usable. I seriously used CL twice - once I've rented a condo through it (using early PadMapper) and bought a pair of speakers from some local fella. I tried to sell some home furniture and run away in awe. The amount of scam was unsurmountable.

So for me personally PadMapper provided 50% of the total CL positive experience.

I've used ebay over 100 times. Ebay is ripe for disruption, imho, but it's still okay.

You sound very nervous.

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

#65

Post by stfu »

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 might be also one of the basis for the long time success of Craigslist. Absolute simplicity combined with a rigorous un-intrusive experience for the regular user - no ads, no sign up, no follow us on Twitter.

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

#66

Post by geoffhill »

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…

This attitude is extremely anticompetitive. Big guys like Craigslist need to give away their customer base just because they're big? That doesn't make sense to me.

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

#67

Post by tikhonj »

BobPalmer wrote: post #25
nestlequ1k wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sustai…

And if they're not a constructive part of the community, the community has every right (I think it's practically an obligation) to berate them for it.

Just having a business plan and making money should not protect you from criticism or absolve behavior detrimental to the general community! Yes, legally Craigslist has no obligations; that's why nobody's litigating. I argue that morally (at least from a utilitarian standpoint), Craigslist does have an obligation to play nice. And so I welcome critical blog posts and bad publicity.

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

#68

Post by vacri »

encoderer wrote: post #51
latch wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why on earth would another newspaper print an ad or a classified that they're not being paid for?

Also, do you have any examples of this hypothetical happening and newspaper A not having a problem with it? Outside of tabloid culture, ye olde newspapers had much more in the way of principles, and using another's content without permission was reprehensible.

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

#69

Post by paulhodge »

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…

You talk as if there is perfect market choice - that if a majority of customers want something, it will happen. In the real world, there is not perfect market choice. There are many factors which make it impossible to have perfect market choice. We are probably stuck with Craigslist and LinkedIn for a while, and for the most part, we are stuck with the decisions that their executives make.

It's true that if they do something highly awful, then that might create enough demand for a competitor to take over. But it would have to be a high degree of awfulness to overcome their existing momentum. There are many shades of not-quite-awful, where those companies can make decisions with market impunity.

So considering that we're kinda stuck with those guys, I think the question becomes, why shouldn't we complain if they are doing something that we don't like? Doesn't matter who owes who what. It's our world, we should try to improve it.

Post reply on HN