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

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

#101

Post by einhverfr » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 1:39 AM UTC

Geez, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand who can argue with the idea that businesses need to have a general autonomy regarding their business deals?

On the other, I think that when you have a businesses creating industries around themselves, that a significant amount of that autonomy has to be abridged.

Take for example Ebay and how they strongly encourage Paypal. If you run into a problem with Paypal, and your business has a significant presence on Ebay, that's a pretty heavy cost, and I don't think Ebay should be able to say "so long, tough luck."

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

#102

Post by sliverstorm » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 1:41 AM UTC

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…

People don't use Windows because it has more compelling features than OS X

Ahem. I may not use it because it has more compelling features than OS X, but I did not rule out OS X because of lock-in.

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

#103

Post by bigiain » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 1:42 AM UTC

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.

It's pretty easy to assert that Craigslist is somehow disrespecting their users - perhaps by having poor UI - but it's harder to prove that assertion by setting up a competing service with your idea of a "better UI" for the users.

It seems abundantly clear to me that the assertion that "A competitor to Craigslist who got $x right would easily get all Craigslist's users", for any of the usually mentioned values of $x [web design, UI, UX, customer service, search, API, other services using their API, …] - is nothing more than a head-in-the-sand misapprehension on the part of startup/web design/UI people. Craigslist _users_ have not "jumped ship" en-mass to any technically or graphically "better" alternative - and it's hardly from lack of trying by people who're _sure_ they will.

I think sometimes we need to get out of the HN/startup/bay-area echo chamber - I'm pretty sure Newmarket and his crew have a much different view of what their user base wants than any assumptions made by the HN zeitgeist…

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

#104

Post by ericingram » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 1:43 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #99

davidw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, what are we supposed to do? Seems like the only options are: A) destroy the network effect with legislation. (How is this good?) B) select another company The Board feels has a better platform, crush CL with legislation, and establish the new company with legislation. (How is this good!?!)

No legislation! We aren't supposed to do anything other than decide which services to freely use and not. Our collective actions make the market dynamic, and if some company is winning and you don't like it, don't resort to violence (legislation).

We need legislation to stop people from abusing legislation. Err.

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

#105

Post by einhverfr » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 1:44 AM UTC

monkeymace wrote: post #19

wissler wrote: post #12

People have a right to complain if they don't agree with a given company's decision. The fact that the company has a legal right to do something, or the (alleged) fact that they are basing their decision on "the bottom line", does not make that decision the right one. And if indeed it is the businesses's prerogative to do this or that, certainly consumers have at least the right to voice their disapproval. I really w…

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.

How far do you take this?

If Microsoft decides tomorrow to say "if you want to write Free/Open Source Software, you can't use our API's" do they have a right to do so? What if it is competing with Microsoft software, i.e, "no use of our API's to build competing web browsers and office software" or the like?

I am genuinely asking because I think it's as clear a line as one might think.

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

#106

Post by josh33 » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 1:45 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #99

davidw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, what are we supposed to do? Seems like the only options are: A) destroy the network effect with legislation. (How is this good?) B) select another company The Board feels has a better platform, crush CL with legislation, and establish the new company with legislation. (How is this good!?!)

Why the references to legislation? The free market can fix this IF the Craigslist experience really is bad. You might not be able to grow organically like Craigslist did but it is totally possible. Pay listers to post on your site. Offer something unique to the listers Craigslist can't.

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

#107

Post by theorique » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 1:45 AM 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…

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 could help level the playing field.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" - music to every Internet entrepreneur's ears.

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

#108

Post by monkeymace » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 1:48 AM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #31

ryanisinallofus wrote: post #3

Choosing Pealk as the example in this very short rant is a classic Straw man argument. What about Padmapper?

PadMapper, a company that was working to directly compete with Craigslist? What about Padmapper?

thanks for that. PadMapper probably would have been fine if they remained craigslist only.

I was watching Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai last night. In it there are a number of Samurai codes that are highlighted in title cards. One of them was this:

"If one were to say in a word what the condition of being a samurai is, its basis lies first in seriously devoting one's body and soul to his master. Not to forget one's master is the most fundamental obligation for a retainer."

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

#109

Post by vacri » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 1:49 AM UTC

emmapersky wrote: post #78

vacri wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, this is really interesting. If a free newspaper did start repulishing ads and the primary paper cut them off, the ad posters would be up in arms because their audience is now reduced. Its a loose loose scenario, much better to allow the reproductuon for everyone.

Don't forget that screen-scraping doesn't work in print journalism - transferring the ads is labour-intensive.

But even if the labour was free and paper B was willing to print ads/classifieds for no money, it's still a drain on paper A's resources - running a classifieds department required staff taking calls for placed ads, plus editorial work and similar. If paper B takes those ads and sells them at a lower price, then paper A will lose out on revenue for value created by their staff.

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

#110

Post by halter73 » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 1:49 AM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #59

stfu wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe that the CPM for ads on Craigslist would be higher than it is for Reddit or Facebook. The key is that people browsing Craigslist are usually there to buy something rather than seeking free entertainment. Advertisers really value audiences who are ready to buy a product in their market.