Live data from Hacker News

IFTTT introduces IFTTT Pro, free accounts now limited to 3 applets

ifttt.com

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: IFTTT introduces IFTTT Pro, free accounts now limited to 3 applets

#31
post #16

meh IFTTT has rarely worked properly for me with synchronizations running terribly behind or not at all. why would I pay for that, with a challenging interface and just single step actions? Zapier does just as much if not more for $15 a month.

>why would I pay for that

polling rate is an hour normally, now with pro you can get it at 5 minutes

Re: IFTTT introduces IFTTT Pro, free accounts now limited to 3 applets

#32
post #18

Bye bye IFTTT, this "subscription life" really needs to end.

And what do you suggest replaces it? Developers don’t offer subscriptions because they are greedy. They offer them because it’s the best way to have a sustainable software business.

Re: IFTTT introduces IFTTT Pro, free accounts now limited to 3 applets

#33

I really, truly don’t mind paying for software, but all of these subscription services cost obscene amounts of money. $10 per month is $120 per year. $120! I might pay that much for boxed software, but it would need to do a heck of a lot more than IFTTT, and I’d expect to get much more than one year of life out of it. Affinity Photo, for instance, cost $60, and VMware Fusion cost $80, to name two products I purchased…

You should compare recurring cost with other recurring costs. Otherwise, it will always seem expensive, because you can multiply an arbitrary period of time to the price.

After inspecting my own personal finance, I’ve found that my spent on software subscription is less than 1% of my yearly spent. So, I’ve stopped worrying about it quietly accumulate. Not yet worth optimizing.

Re: IFTTT introduces IFTTT Pro, free accounts now limited to 3 applets

#34

An aside... I've never really got why technical folks would use IFTTT vs self-hosted. For non-techies I get it... but there are so many great and free tools available e.g. python, tasker/automagic/B4A, node-red, etc, etc. I'm guessing this move to PRO will drive capable folks away.

Because I created applets/whatever’s on ifttt like 5 years ago and I haven’t touched them since, and they keep working.

God forbid I have to maintain a server, upgrade for new libraries, handle moving a server, etc etc. Write the code in the first place, debug problems, update my API keys...

Re: IFTTT introduces IFTTT Pro, free accounts now limited to 3 applets

#35
Interesting move. It seems to me that IFTTT caters for a non-technicial hobby audience, because technical people and commercial outfits can replicate everything it does (and more) with a web server and some python scripts. And ten bucks a month is a lot for a hobby.

Re: IFTTT introduces IFTTT Pro, free accounts now limited to 3 applets

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main use for IFTTT is that they accept incoming webhooks to send push notifications to my phone via their app. Incredibly useful and convenient.

If that's your only use case - wouldn't Pushbullet (or something similar) be a more complete solution? Genuinely curious.

Short answer is that yes, there are other options. But they're always vastly more complex and would require actual work to use. Why bother with all that when I can just issue a GET or POST to a simple HTTP endpoint (no auth/headers required) and have IFTTT fill in the title, message, link (if the notification is tapped), and image with the values in the uploaded JSON object? The IFTTT API is truly a joy to use as a someone trying to quickly hack something together using cURL.

Re Pushbullet specifically: it no longer supports iOS but either way, it's also much more complex [0] to use.

[0]: https://docs.pushbullet.com/#create-push

Re: IFTTT introduces IFTTT Pro, free accounts now limited to 3 applets

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main use for IFTTT is that they accept incoming webhooks to send push notifications to my phone via their app. Incredibly useful and convenient.

If you can run a docker container and you have an Android phone, Gotify is a nice alternative for this use case.

I have an iPhone so it's not really an option. That's a really interesting project that I'd definitely look into if I still had an Android phone.

Re: IFTTT introduces IFTTT Pro, free accounts now limited to 3 applets

#39
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main use for IFTTT is that they accept incoming webhooks to send push notifications to my phone via their app. Incredibly useful and convenient.

Any examples of how you use the webhooks?

It's literally just:

1. Here's a URL (custom to each user/applet). You can either GET or POST to it. No auth/headers required (the URL includes a token).

2. You can optionally submit a JSON in the format of {"value1": ..., "value2": ..., "value3": ...} and set up the applet to set those values as the notification title, body, link, or image.

Rather unfortunately, you can only specify three values in the JSON so you can only ever have three of those four properties filled in for a single notification. But you can set up multiple receiving URLs/applets such that you can send the first notification containing three of those properties and then a second notification containing the last property.

Re: IFTTT introduces IFTTT Pro, free accounts now limited to 3 applets

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upstream APIs change constantly. How will you pay for the development costs, after your $120 boxed copy 1 year license is up?

They... really don't. Any service with any level of client integration will a) version their APIs, and b) keep things sufficiently stable so that clients aren't constantly breaking.

My experience has been different.

I currently maintain about 280 different API integrations. I have a team that does constant maintenance. Usually 1-2 API breaking changes per day is what we see after you get past the stable big ones. Even versioned APIs kick you off the old version pretty regularly. In the upcoming months we have 3 scheduled version bumps that are mandatory as they will discontinue the old version completely. Not "use the new version for more features", like completely 100% "we are not supporting v2 any longer. You won't get responses in 60 days. Good luck."

It's easy to say, "they're doing versioning wrong" but it's the reality.

Everyone does oauth wrong. Everyone does versioning wrong. Everyone adds or removes fields that were once critical to someone's workflows. Maybe 25% of our integrations are a joy to work with. Once you get to the smaller players, things start to get weird.

Post reply on HN