Live data from Hacker News

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

monkeymace.com

141–150 of 176 posts

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

#141
In the marketplace consumer expectations can get higher, a sense of entitlement develops, and that entitlement can be the valid effect of genuine progress. Not because the providers have to satisfy our sense of entitlement, but because they do, because that's what it takes to compete until at some point that's what's expected just to play the game. Food providers at some point stopped competing on food safety because everyone demanded everything be safe. We started expecting cars to be very reliable, and if someone makes an unreliable car then fuck caveat emptor, it's not going to become a matter of whether some consumers are willing to make that compromise and some are not – instead your brand becomes shit and you have to beg people to come back, if you can at all. Right now we don't have that expectation about APIs; but some people want us to, we are moving that direction, and maybe we will get there. Or maybe we'll get somewhere else; progress however ensures that we will get somewhere, that consumers will find something new about which to feel entitled.

And yeah, these companies don't "owe" us anything, but consumers (even the subset of developer-consumers) can still get pissed off at them and say shit and that's the fucking market. And maybe it won't mean anything, maybe it'll all fade away... and maybe it won't. That's the risk those brands are taking. It's our market-based prerogative to bitch about whatever the hell we want to bitch about, using whatever hyperbole we want, with any sense of entitlement that we've acquired.

If someone starts sending mail bombs to these companies because they aren't tending their APIs as we'd like, then that's coercion. But there's no coercion here, this is just people offering their opinions. So quit yer whining about our whining, the internet has entitled us to whine as much as we fucking want to, and has offered market-based ways to lift or bury that whining.

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

#142
post #77

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…

You're taking anti-monopolistic sentiments to an extreme. 1. The goal of almost every rational business is to achieve a monopoly in a certain space. If the public or the government had the power to systematically break up every company who comes close to success, there would be little incentive to start a business. Perfectly-competitive industries are awful for business owners. You have to draw a line in the sand, be…

I don't think you understood any of my points.

1. No, the goal of most businesses is not generally to achieve a monopoly, the goal of most businesses is market share or just profit. A company can have 100% market share and not be a monopoly, if the barriers to entry for new market participants are comparable to the original barriers to entry for the current winner (so there aren't network effects, or prohibitive capital investment relative to divided market size).

2. I never talked about anti-trust laws or anti-competitive practives. I talked about natural monopolies [1], which have nothing whatsoever to do with those. You're thinking of artificial monopolies, something totally different.

3. I said "normal capitalistic competition" in the sense of competition outside of special cases (like monopolies). And "natural monopoly" is an economics term [1]. I used neither in a normative sense.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

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

#143
We don't owe them anything either, and yet computer crimes laws make it illegal to circumvent any technical measures they put in place to stop competitors from getting information they make public on the site.

I think less people would be concerned about the issue if it was just Craigslist putting up technical measures (e.g. blocking API access) to competitors, but competitors were free to rent VPSes or pay people for use of their IP address to access the data for scraping. If there was no law against scraping information from websites that is available to arbitrary members of the public (provided that you comply with copyright laws post-scraping), then there would be no issue.

So the real issue is not that Craigslist owes anyone anything, but rather, that the government is enforcing laws on their behalf to entrench the network effects of existing businesses against new entrants to the market.

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

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you understand the concept of "monopoly power"? It sounds like you do not. I, personally, save several hours every time I look for an apartment by using padmapper over Craigslist. Aggregated, that's human lifetimes of time saved every year by padmapper. UI isn't about round corners and fancy color schemes. It's about using computers to automate repetitive behaviors. Newmark's defenders tell me what I really want i…

Question: what "monopoly power" do you believe Craigslist has? What product or service can you _only_ buy from Craigslist? Are they the only way to find an apartment to rent? Are they the only way to advertise an apartment to rent? (Note, your answers there may be very_ different from my perceptions of the answers to those questions - for me locally here in Sydney Australia, Craigslist _exists_, but isn't even close to a bit-player in real-estate/aparement-rental, never mind a major player - and it'd be _laughable_ to accuse them of "monopoly")

"Fuck Craigslist. Seriously."

Because they "cost" you "several hours" everytime you choose to use them to look for an apartment? Which is what - twice a year maybe? And this cost to you is somehow greater then the newspaper classifieds market they disrupted? Without some more backstory - I can't help but think you're _seriously_ over-reacting…

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

#145

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…

"the general consensus among HN users is that the best product wins and that's all that matters"

That's human nature. Users in marketing communities conclude that it's the best marketing that wins. If you're an executive you think the best management team is all that matters. Designers think it's design. PR folks think it's press. Financiers think it's money.

I have bad news for everyone. The world does not work in the way our echo-chambers would seem to model it. It's almost impossible for the human mind to process such a fact. Yet, it's true.

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

#146
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is possible. But I get the feeling they naively stumbled into that outcome by genuinely trying to be decent.

I agree. I've always felt they've had good intentions, and I think that they do in this case as well. They are looking out for the posters who are entrusting them with their data.

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

#147
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It's kind of funny, isn't it? On the one hand we have the newspapers, who are being slowly killed off by the internet, and on the other hand we have internet startups like Padmapper who are doing things that are absolutely and plainly stupid when you imagine them being done by newspapers rather than web startups.

Here we have one company that allows free classified ads for almost everything, everywhere (Craigslist) on the one hand, and another company that scrapes free classified ads for rental housing and accepts no payment from anyone (Padmapper). Very strange.

FWIW, to me, Padmapper drives traffic to Craigslist rather than competing with it. Whether that traffic is valuable to Craigslist or not I can't say.

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

#148

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.

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.

Yes, they have the right to do so. It might be a bad idea for them to do it, but being their APIs they most certainly have the right to do that. Microsoft has no obligation to provide services to their competition free of charge just because someone out there feels it is the right thing to do. Of course, various court systems may disagree with me considering it is Microsoft.

The line is clear, the source of the service has the right to do whatever they want with it. Unless you want to claim that a company's property belongs to the people.

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

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you understand the concept of "monopoly power"? It sounds like you do not. I, personally, save several hours every time I look for an apartment by using padmapper over Craigslist. Aggregated, that's human lifetimes of time saved every year by padmapper. UI isn't about round corners and fancy color schemes. It's about using computers to automate repetitive behaviors. Newmark's defenders tell me what I really want i…

"UI isn't about round corners and fancy color schemes. It's about using computers to automate repetitive behaviors."

I think my point still stands - if there's a better way to do it that's so obvious, why hasn't somebody _done_ it and grabbed all the users? Google did it to Alta Vista. Facebook did it to MySpace (who did it to Friendster who did it to Tribe…)

It seems to me as though Newmark has balanced the often conflicting requirements of "people wanting to advertise stuff" and "people wanting search through advertisements" better than anyone else. Craigslist wouldn't have any data worth publishing in an API if they didn't address the needs of the advertisers. Padmapper doesn't have any data at all - why should Craigslist give them their apartment rental data just so Padmapper can compete with Craigslist without having the constraint of having to satisfy the advertiser well enough for them to provide the data in the first place?

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

#150
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Paper B is not selling ads, nor are they making money from them, they provide them as an alternative means of access to the ads from Paper A. Advertisers are still paying paper A, so there is no loss of revenue.

If the punters start getting paper B instead of paper A, there is most definitely a loss of revenue.
Post reply on HN