5 ms·

While I don't agree with many of Facebook's privacy decisions, this seems quite heavy handed on Google's side, to me. For google to say - if you use our API, t

While I don't agree with many of Facebook's privacy decisions, this seems quite heavy handed on Google's side, to me. For google to say - if you use our API, then these are the features you have to provide in your own API - I'm sorry but who is Google to dictate what other companies do with their own data? Who gets to decide what's "Substantially fast", or "Easy"? Google I guess. How is this going to affect us - the small startups and independed developers - what happens when our 'export contacts' function doesn't work fast enough (at Google's sole discretion) and they shut down our access? Sorry, but this sounds borderline evil (disguised as altruism) to me.

ori_b 16y ago
Google has every right to determine what the price to use their data is. You may not like it, but it's within their rights. To put it another way - What right do you have to dictate under what terms Google shares their data? And yes, this sort of thing is a risk you take when you start depending on a third party that has no contractual obligations to you. If you don't like it, don't depend on them - there are alternatives.
- dholowiski 16y ago
  Just because they have the right to do it doesn't mean it's right to do it. You don't see a problem with a gigantic company using their dominance to dictate how other companies do business? When Microsoft did this, it was called a Monopoly. Now when Google does this, it's 'liberation'?
  - eitland 16y ago
    Difference is, google gives the same rights to its users.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  Who's data is it? Is it Google's data, the user's data, Facebook's data? Because your argument still makes sense to me if we swap out Google with Facebook. Perhaps some legislated user's bill of rights is in order?
  - ori_b 16y ago
    It's Google's data - they collected it from the user, to be used as they see fit subject to the terms of service. Of course it's the same situation for Facebook. They can prevent others from using their data if they want - that just means that they don't get to use Google's data. Personally, I don't know if a user's bill of rights is going to be helpful - If you don't like the terms of service, don't give your data.
sp4rki 16y ago
You're looking at this completely the wrong way. For starters: who is Google to dictate what other companies do with their own data It's our data, not Facebooks, not Google's. Google is providing a benefit for Facebook and it's users and in return want's Facebook to provide the same. This is a good business decision for Google, a relatively very small nuisance for Facebook (since they do have a feature to export data), and a great BIG step in providing us, the USERS, with simple ways to use out data wherever/however we see fit. They are not dictating what other companies should do with their data, they're asking for the data stream to be importable/exportable by means of a two way sync in which the user is the one in control of their information. Also, "substantially fast" and "easy", means "in a non crippling way". They don't want to get screwed over by Facebook adding what Google requests but maiming to a point it's not useful to anyone, in which case both the users and Google suffer from it. How is this going to affect us - the small startups and independed developers How is it going to affect you? Easy, after you leverage Google's API for years to get a gazillion users and a 25 billion dollar valuation, Google is going to expect you to play nice and share your data with them, but only if your users want to so anyway. You know what sounds borderline evil to me? That you want to leverage the users data the resides in Google's servers and also take advantage of the API's Google make accessible, but don't want to have to go thru the trouble of giving them the same treatment. I find the company that doesn't comply with such a simple request more evil than the company that provides such a service and wants to build a relationship based on reciprocity, but is forced to close it's doors because someone doesn't want to play nice.

ori_b 16y ago

Google has every right to determine what the price to use their data is. You may not like it, but it's within their rights. To put it another way - What right do you have to dictate under what terms Google shares their data? And yes, this sort of thing is a risk you take when you start depending on a third party that has no contractual obligations to you. If you don't like it, don't depend on them - there are alternatives.

dholowiski 16y ago
Just because they have the right to do it doesn't mean it's right to do it. You don't see a problem with a gigantic company using their dominance to dictate how other companies do business? When Microsoft did this, it was called a Monopoly. Now when Google does this, it's 'liberation'?
- eitland 16y ago
  Difference is, google gives the same rights to its users.
chopsueyar 16y ago
Who's data is it? Is it Google's data, the user's data, Facebook's data? Because your argument still makes sense to me if we swap out Google with Facebook. Perhaps some legislated user's bill of rights is in order?
- ori_b 16y ago
  It's Google's data - they collected it from the user, to be used as they see fit subject to the terms of service. Of course it's the same situation for Facebook. They can prevent others from using their data if they want - that just means that they don't get to use Google's data. Personally, I don't know if a user's bill of rights is going to be helpful - If you don't like the terms of service, don't give your data.

sp4rki 16y ago

You're looking at this completely the wrong way. For starters: who is Google to dictate what other companies do with their own data It's our data, not Facebooks, not Google's. Google is providing a benefit for Facebook and it's users and in return want's Facebook to provide the same. This is a good business decision for Google, a relatively very small nuisance for Facebook (since they do have a feature to export data), and a great BIG step in providing us, the USERS, with simple ways to use out data wherever/however we see fit. They are not dictating what other companies should do with their data, they're asking for the data stream to be importable/exportable by means of a two way sync in which the user is the one in control of their information. Also, "substantially fast" and "easy", means "in a non crippling way". They don't want to get screwed over by Facebook adding what Google requests but maiming to a point it's not useful to anyone, in which case both the users and Google suffer from it. How is this going to affect us - the small startups and independed developers How is it going to affect you? Easy, after you leverage Google's API for years to get a gazillion users and a 25 billion dollar valuation, Google is going to expect you to play nice and share your data with them, but only if your users want to so anyway. You know what sounds borderline evil to me? That you want to leverage the users data the resides in Google's servers and also take advantage of the API's Google make accessible, but don't want to have to go thru the trouble of giving them the same treatment. I find the company that doesn't comply with such a simple request more evil than the company that provides such a service and wants to build a relationship based on reciprocity, but is forced to close it's doors because someone doesn't want to play nice.