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

81–90 of 176 posts

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

#81

Post by jacoblyles »

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 is the IE6 of classified ads. They are a monopoly that keeps the product shitty and prevents innovation.

Padmapper is the Mozilla.

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

#82

Post by ori_b »

legutierr wrote: post #35
ori_b wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're a company, you'll do what makes you money, regardless of how you feel about regulations that affect you. Legal hassles are totally worth dealing with if the cost of managing them doesn't exceed your profit. If you're the right company, legal red tape can be a very effective barrier to entry.

It's very unlikely that any free API is going to make you enough money to deal with any legal hassles. Some companies will charge API clients through the nose. Others will cut off access. Either way, it's not going to lead to a more free ecosystem.

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

#83

Post by tptacek »

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…

I don't understand this argument at all.

I've posted a couple things to Craigslist. Maybe it's different for rental listings, but for what I've posted, Craigslist did not demand exclusivity. If I wanted to post my listing to some other service, I was free to do that.

Similarly, regardless of what Craigslist's policies are with regards to third party access: it's still your data, right? You are free to post it to an open classifieds service?

That being the case, from where do you derive this idea that Craiglist has somehow taken custody of your data, and thus owes the rest of the industry some measure of access to it? Why is that Craigslist's job? If you want there to be multiple competing listing services, push your data to multiple services.

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

#84

Post by superuser2 »

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…

No. Craigslist is an objectively better product because it has a better network.

Consumers do not get to choose alternative railways. They can chose alternative classefeids services; those services are just inferior (maybe they have a better UI but they aren't as good at selling things)

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

#85

Post by cookiecaper »

cookiecaper wrote: post #72
asanwal wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>No company dominates forever esp in technology. I'm not so sure (for reasonable values of "forever"). From what I see, once some software hits a critical mass, it's nearly inextricable. Look at Microsoft. Before they became a major player, the dominant OS and computer system would seem to shift every couple of years; Amiga, Commodore, Apple, etc., but once Microsoft became a major player they never really lost their…

I'll also add that the day I saw the Facebook logo on my Wal-Mart receipts I knew we were in deep trouble. Some companies use their Facebook page as their only website. This isn't something that just goes away.

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

#86

Post by kenjackson »

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…

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

This implies that part of the quality of a product is NOT the ability to gather data. This would be like me walking into a Walmart, setting up a cash register next to theirs and start ringing up customers and arguing that Walmart can't compare with my customer service. Ignoring that customer service is just one small part of the business. Walmart had to find the property, buy the property, do the legal work to get the product on the shevles, the negotiation, the supply chain management, etc... I can't just focus on the last mile and then argue that I'm entitled to everything else they did.

Craigslist built its name, it's reputation, it's backend, it's API, vetted a business model for its services, scouted out regions to focus on etc...

Furthermore, people are arguing the data is the users, not CLs. True, but the user gave it to CL, not to you. When I loan books to a neighbor I assume they aren't going to create a library of my loaned books (unless they specifically told me so).

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

#87

Post by sirclueless »

asanwal wrote: post #45
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…

> That's what happens to incumbents. The market takes care of them.

I'm not so sure. Communication tools are fundamentally different than most other products, because their primary value is the number of other people reachable through the service. This isn't true of most other industries, where you can drive a Toyota and I can drive a Ford and everyone is happy.

When your a whole market is based on the ability to interact with other people in some way, and a single company can flip interoperability on and off like a light switch, it has the potential to be a dangerous monopoly. The government stepped in and broke up Ma Bell because of this.

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

#88

Post by waxjar »

I think it's helpful to make the assumed premises from both sides explicit.

One is "a website like website x does anything it does to generate profit". That would be the side the OP takes. The other is "a website like website x does anything it does to make the world / the internet a better place", something like that. I think an open source enthusiast would take this position.

Obviously people value these ideals differently (otherwise this discussion wouldn't be there) and therefore voice different opinions. With that in mind, I think it's easier to evaluate the opinions of others on this matter.

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

#89

Post by dotjinks »

Ah, Craigslist sucks. 1. Their interface sucks. 2. They won't fix it. 3. They won't let anyone else solve it for them. If third parties are not supposed to scrap data for their users from Craigslist CL's Legal team should be all over sending a C&D to Google! Sure that's not going to happen because it would be stupid, but so is killing off Padmapper. A great interface that keeps Craigslist in mind when someone moves into a new place and wants a TV or Couch, or even a date. They will look back and wonder why they didn't try harder to grow with these third parties instead of killing them.

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

#90

Post by rsanchez1 »

jacoblyles wrote: post #80
heliodor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I don't see how Craigslist refusing to better themselves justifies the millions of hours wasted by their customers using their shitty UI. What a strange sense of justice. If you value users, don't hurt yourself to show it. Rather, don't shut off sites that save them hours of their limited and precious lifetime.

I know I can't use the Craigslist website, and can only use mobile apps which provide a much better interface.

I hope that Craigslist changes their mind and decides to allow websites to license their API. If they don't, however, then Padmapper should just adapt and become mobile-exclusive, or try to generate their own apartment listings instead of depending on Craigslist.

Post reply on HN