7 ms·

From [1]: "On April 8, 2011, the US Department of Justice approved the buyout (of ITA by Google). As part of the agreement, Google must license ITA software to

From [1]: "On April 8, 2011, the US Department of Justice approved the buyout (of ITA by Google). As part of the agreement, Google must license ITA software to other websites for five years." Now that five years are up, Google would want to deny competitors access to that data. Seems like a good startup opportunity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITA_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITA_Software

compsciphd 9y ago
seems a little bit more than 5 years...
- jdavis703 9y ago
  I wonder if this was five years from the deal closing? Usually the deal doesn't close until after regulators have agreed to not to file a lawsuit (which is what happened on the April 8th 2011 date).
  - vxNsr 9y ago
    That still implies it took them 2 years to close the deal (2018-5=2013) which seems a bit much.
throwaway613834 9y ago
> Now that five years are up 2018 - 2011 = 7?
- Johnny555 9y ago
  7 > 5, so the 5 years are up.
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    They've been up for 2 years, so how is it "Now that five years are up, Google would want to deny competitors access to that data"? If that was their reasoning they would've done it 2 years ago. It's 2 years of extra advantage they didn't need to give their competitors, right?
    - SiVal 9y ago
      If that was their reasoning, they could do it whenever they were ready and willing after five years. So this explains why they had to do it for five years and might explain why they won't be doing it much longer than that. It might also indicate that cutting off the API was intended but not urgent.
      - throwaway613834 9y ago
        Why would it be so close to the anniversary though? It seems to suggest something else might be going on at the 7-year mark.
        bringtheaction 9y ago
        Perhaps some people thought you were only nitpicking but I agree and I think it was useful that you asked about this so that we got the discussion leading to a better answer.
    - tehwebguy 9y ago
      Now that the five years are up and Google Flights just started facilitating actual airfare purchases (a recent development)
      - throwaway613834 9y ago
        Okay, that second part finally explains it, thanks for that. I had a hunch the five years having been up 2 years ago didn't tell nearly the whole story (though apparently people think I'm crazy for thinking that).
  - dandr01d 9y ago
    Well, the question is why did Google wait the 2 non-required years before shutting it down? Seems like something they wouldn’t just forget about.
madeofpalk 9y ago
> Seems like a good startup opportunity. Last time this was brought up (2011 HN article IIRC), it was discussed how terribly organised the travel industry is and just how much Smart Work ITA did and how invaluable it was.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  Relevant threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2424592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2424592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2992660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2992660 (Algolia's HN search is invaluable: https://hn.algolia.com/ https://hn.algolia.com/ )
- notahacker 9y ago
  TLDR: Not a startup opportunity. - Huge collection of proprietary data which is constantly updated, only intended to be polled in a certain way and has all kinds of poorly structured exceptions and routing problems. - The booking engines provide good access to their pricing data free of charge under license to affiliates that book flights through their engine - Low value of an API for prices alone and slim chance of acquisition by Google or the big online travel agents ITA built exceptional technology rather than an exceptional business. This API that Google killed presumably because it wasn't making enough revenue to be worth maintaining was the part of ITA's public facing service they originally claimed to be "very excited" about at the acquisition stage
rdslw 9y ago
Reminds me a few google employers posts on HN responding to the usual 'google closes products often': we dont, and we never closed a business products, only unimportant consumer ones. Yeah, sure. Google is heading Microsoft 199x way - fastly becoming public enemy no 1.
- bovermyer 9y ago
  Cute language. So just to be clear, you're putting Google ahead of North Korea, ISIS, et al on the list of threats to humanity?
  - pc86 9y ago
    I think it's odd to even include ISIS on any list of "threats to humanity." How many orders of magnitude could more damage could Google do by accident compared to ISIS?
    - djsumdog 9y ago
      Not even mentioning ISIS was created by the CIA. The US is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, but private internet megacorps are the biggest threat to freedom of speech. They're both pretty bad threats, just in very different ways.
    - bovermyer 9y ago
      In this context, I intended "threat to humanity" to mean "a clear and present danger to the safety and security of human beings." ISIS very intentionally kills people opposed to its goals. Google, by comparison, does not. Whether Google is the origin story of a 1984-like dystopia is another question entirely.
  - aplummer 9y ago
    Clearly the OP meant in the context of anticompetitive action the tech industry, not including foreign (at war) countries that have concentration camps. This kind of snark really takes away from the discussion.
  - 9y ago

compsciphd 9y ago

seems a little bit more than 5 years...

jdavis703 9y ago
I wonder if this was five years from the deal closing? Usually the deal doesn't close until after regulators have agreed to not to file a lawsuit (which is what happened on the April 8th 2011 date).
- vxNsr 9y ago
  That still implies it took them 2 years to close the deal (2018-5=2013) which seems a bit much.

throwaway613834 9y ago

> Now that five years are up 2018 - 2011 = 7?

Johnny555 9y ago
7 > 5, so the 5 years are up.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  They've been up for 2 years, so how is it "Now that five years are up, Google would want to deny competitors access to that data"? If that was their reasoning they would've done it 2 years ago. It's 2 years of extra advantage they didn't need to give their competitors, right?
  - SiVal 9y ago
    If that was their reasoning, they could do it whenever they were ready and willing after five years. So this explains why they had to do it for five years and might explain why they won't be doing it much longer than that. It might also indicate that cutting off the API was intended but not urgent.
    - throwaway613834 9y ago
      Why would it be so close to the anniversary though? It seems to suggest something else might be going on at the 7-year mark.
      - bringtheaction 9y ago
        Perhaps some people thought you were only nitpicking but I agree and I think it was useful that you asked about this so that we got the discussion leading to a better answer.
  - tehwebguy 9y ago
    Now that the five years are up and Google Flights just started facilitating actual airfare purchases (a recent development)
    - throwaway613834 9y ago
      Okay, that second part finally explains it, thanks for that. I had a hunch the five years having been up 2 years ago didn't tell nearly the whole story (though apparently people think I'm crazy for thinking that).
- dandr01d 9y ago
  Well, the question is why did Google wait the 2 non-required years before shutting it down? Seems like something they wouldn’t just forget about.

madeofpalk 9y ago

> Seems like a good startup opportunity. Last time this was brought up (2011 HN article IIRC), it was discussed how terribly organised the travel industry is and just how much Smart Work ITA did and how invaluable it was.

jessriedel 9y ago
Relevant threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2424592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2424592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2992660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2992660 (Algolia's HN search is invaluable: https://hn.algolia.com/ https://hn.algolia.com/ )
notahacker 9y ago
TLDR: Not a startup opportunity. - Huge collection of proprietary data which is constantly updated, only intended to be polled in a certain way and has all kinds of poorly structured exceptions and routing problems. - The booking engines provide good access to their pricing data free of charge under license to affiliates that book flights through their engine - Low value of an API for prices alone and slim chance of acquisition by Google or the big online travel agents ITA built exceptional technology rather than an exceptional business. This API that Google killed presumably because it wasn't making enough revenue to be worth maintaining was the part of ITA's public facing service they originally claimed to be "very excited" about at the acquisition stage

rdslw 9y ago

Reminds me a few google employers posts on HN responding to the usual 'google closes products often': we dont, and we never closed a business products, only unimportant consumer ones. Yeah, sure. Google is heading Microsoft 199x way - fastly becoming public enemy no 1.

bovermyer 9y ago
Cute language. So just to be clear, you're putting Google ahead of North Korea, ISIS, et al on the list of threats to humanity?
- pc86 9y ago
  I think it's odd to even include ISIS on any list of "threats to humanity." How many orders of magnitude could more damage could Google do by accident compared to ISIS?
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    Not even mentioning ISIS was created by the CIA. The US is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, but private internet megacorps are the biggest threat to freedom of speech. They're both pretty bad threats, just in very different ways.
  - bovermyer 9y ago
    In this context, I intended "threat to humanity" to mean "a clear and present danger to the safety and security of human beings." ISIS very intentionally kills people opposed to its goals. Google, by comparison, does not. Whether Google is the origin story of a 1984-like dystopia is another question entirely.
- aplummer 9y ago
  Clearly the OP meant in the context of anticompetitive action the tech industry, not including foreign (at war) countries that have concentration camps. This kind of snark really takes away from the discussion.
- 9y ago