3 ms·
Surprisingly, I think it means exactly what it says: accessing WU through the API was flaky and unreliable, with lots of downtime. It sucks to maintain as-is, a
by Bartweiss 8y ago
Surprisingly, I think it means exactly what it says: accessing WU through the API was flaky and unreliable, with lots of downtime. It sucks to maintain as-is, and they can't be bothered fixing it, so they're killing it off.
(Of course, it was a unique data source, and still better than actually using their actual site, so this is a nasty bit of corporate indifference.)
- Nullabillity 8y agoIn what world is 100% broken better than 95% broken?
- Bartweiss 8y agoFor users, none at all. I'm sort of assuming the thing wasn't stable enough to stay up without ongoing effort, given that they seem to have stopped maintaining/supporting it a bit ago and only now killed it off. But for everyone except IBM, this is clearly negative.
- rtkwe 8y agoFor the users of that data none. For them the one where 95% broken was a pain to maintain and wasn't bringing in much money. "We realized we needed ... for our API users" is meaningless pretty much every decision gets some justification where it's somehow better for the users but it's just a thin enamel over whatever real business justification there is 95% of the time.
- pwg 8y agoAnother possibility is: "accessing WU through the API provides no ad revenue opportunity, so we are killing the API off".