8 ms·

You mean, why should you build a for-profit product while relying on someone else's not-for-profit API? I'm guessing you shouldn't! I've seen a lot of neat pr

You mean, why should you build a for-profit product while relying on someone else's not-for-profit API? I'm guessing you shouldn't! I've seen a lot of neat projects come from Google APIs, but that's as far as I'd taking it. Relying on someone else's good will for the lifeblood of your company is insane. 1 exception, though: Getting started. I could see using Google to get off the ground and then switching to a more reliable API (read: paid for) afterwards.

tybris 15y ago
I don't see the point of this whole release a free API, shut it down nonsense. I wouldn't mind paying for any of Google's APIs.
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  If you pay for an API, and it doesn't work, you can show economic harm and that gives you a basis to sue. I know from experience that a number of Google's APIs are just some engineer's idea of how to hook into the data stored in the back end which Google puts out there for some easy (and free) goodwill but without any commitment ever to actually do the necessary foundational work to support it as a product (which they are really really bad at, in case you haven't noticed). So the point is they use the API internally, exposing it gives them additional testing and additional feedback on how to make it better. Once the cost incurred by offering it for free exceeeds the benefits of the testing they pull it back. Continuing to use the now 'well tested and well rounded' API internally. GOOG-411 was a great example of this. It was a great way to get voice samples from a lot of people by bartering a service. Once their voice training parameters weren't getting better they turn off the service, (cuts costs) but they still get the durable benefit of a well trained voice recognition library.
  - nasmorn 15y ago
    Never explain with stupidity what can be explained with economic self interest.
    - daniel_reetz 15y ago
      "Never explain with stupidity what can be explained with economic self interest." Nasmorn's Law
      - bgruber 15y ago
        <pedantry>Nasmorn's Razor</pedantry>
freshfunk 15y ago
As a counterpoint, many companies are built off of APIs that are out there. That's the nature of business and that's actually great for the API authors out there. But if developers knew that APIs could easily go away, then people wouldn't build businesses on top of those APIs. The risk would be too high. I don't know the history but it seems that Google could've implemented some simple solutions to prevent abuse of their APIs while catering to the business community such as simply charging for use. Any legit business would be willing to do this.
- lkozma 15y ago
  I'm just guessing here but in this case it could be that the abuse doesn't mean extra traffic but people using it to generate text to fill pages with, in effect tricking the search engine.
- tptacek 15y ago
  That's not really a counterpoint, is it? The comment you're replying to advised people not to build for-profit enterprises off Google's free APIs. It didn't weasel an excuse for maybe just using the APIs anyways because it probably would work out in the long run; it said, rightly, "don't". Guessing Google has bigger fish to fry than making the world nicer for people who want to build apps on translation APIs.
  - freshfunk 15y ago
    You're a surly one aren't you? The comment I replied to basically implied that only neat projects have come from Google's APIs and nothing more. This came after his comments about how one shouldn't build a business off a not-for-profit API. In my mind it's an incredibly ignorant remark to make. THAT was what I was making a counterpoint to. I could point out some very obvious examples like Tweetdeck or the numerous applications that use the Facebook API. I just thought it was incredibly obvious and not worth my time. Most of today's exciting APIs are "not-for-profit." That is, companies do not charge for the APIs themselves. By your advice, nobody should be trying to build for-profit, real companies based on them. The primary reason why these APIs are created are so that they can create their own economies that are dependent on their platforms. My comment was also generalized (much like the comment I replied to) to APIs beyond Google's Translate API. I guess you were too busy fixated on this one scenario.
yalogin 15y ago
I completely agree that you are shooting yourself in the foot if you are relying on someone else's API for you entire functionality. But there are a few things here - * Everything Google does is free. So it can be argued that the API is in fact for-profit. * In this case, translation is not something a small company can do by themselves. The API's whole value proposition is that it enables startups without the infrastructure like Google can create interesting applications using the API. Google wants people to do that and its very much a big part of its success so far. So the developer is not entirely at fault. I would not rely on that one API itself for my business but he/she chose to do it.
bad_user 15y ago
Google's App Engine is pretty much a for-profit API. And now they've announced a change in their pricing scheme, which if true, would change App Engine from pay-what-you-use to same-as-amazon-aws-but-pricier scheme, which makes it hugely expensive for a large portion of devs that have built on top of App Engine. And migrating away from App Engine is a total pain in the ass. I truly hope that the blog-post missed important details or that they'll keep providing the old option too (i.e. paying per cpu-hour instead of instance-hour). I know App Engine was beta, but people have built on it expecting instability in the implementation, not in its pricing scheme. I mean, come on!
- mcdaid 15y ago
  See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-appengine/ob-kMuDAAqc/discussion https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-appengine/ob-... Clarifies that you will be paying per instance hour, instead of cpu. Nothing is in concrete yet, if there is enough outrage amongst users maybe they will change their tune.
- nhoj 15y ago
  I never liked app engine. To me it seemed like you have to lock yourself into google as a vendor because your application has to be designed for app engine.
  - kkowalczyk 15y ago
    I never liked Linux. You have to lock yourself into Linux APIs because your application has to be designed for Linux. I never liked relational databases. You have to lock yourself into SQL because your application has to be designed for SQL. I never liked python. You have to lock yourself into python because your application has to be designed for python.
    - borism 15y ago
      I never liked IT anyway. Shit has to be designed and stuff. Why can't we all be friends and blossom like flowers in the fields?
alanh 15y ago
While you are pointing out a valid strategic risk in building on another’s platform, I’m disappointed to see the top post here is simply engaging in blame-the-victim.
- Kylekramer 15y ago
  This isn't rape, it is a business. What is happening is not illegal or even unethical. Victim blaming is not wrong when the supposed victim is completely to blame.
ellyagg 15y ago
Right. And this same argument means you should not rely on, for example, gmail, for your email. This is good advice for people in general, although perhaps not something google wants to hear, as they generally market themselves as someone you can trust. Obviously, google will let you down in exactly the same way that, say, apple or microsoft or facebook will. The pain for some people might be greater in this case, simply because the expectations were higher. I often wonder if they regret adopting that "don't be evil" motto.
- fragsworth 15y ago
  No, the argument was that you shouldn't build a for-profit business that relies entirely on a good-will free API. Even if you have a business with all of your employees on free gmail, you hardly rely on gmail, because you can probably switch to some other email system without going out of business. Additionally, gmail is not even really a "good-will free" API. Advertisements more than make up for the costs.
nikcub 15y ago
If Microsoft did this with the Windows API ten years ago people would be going absolutely batshit crazy in here and the government probably would have intervened
- digitallogic 15y ago
  They did a little shy of ten years ago with VB6. People did indeed go batshit, but the government did not get involved.
  - nikcub 15y ago
    you are right, I should have rephrased when Microsoft did this. I remember those Slashdot threads well.
  - kprobst 15y ago
    Except that they provided a replacement and a migration path.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      And you could keep on using VB6. I wouldn't be surprised if there still aren't thousands of business critical apps that still aren't using it. Web Services are different in that when they're no longer supported, you can't use them.
      - GFischer 15y ago
        Don't be surprised. I have seen a billion-dollar Brazilian megacorp using it for its core software, and several smaller (but still multimillion-dollar sized) companies relying on it as well (we have hundreds of VB6 apps at the insurance company I work for).
    - holri 15y ago
      That was not a replacement but a completely different product with superficial simalarities and the same name. The path was not a migration path but a runaway path.
fjabre 15y ago
Relying on someone else's good will for the lifeblood of your company is insane Tweetdeck anyone? And Zynga (FB is its lifeblood) Google shutting down an API that thousands of developers are relying on without much warning is insane. The web is an increasingly competitive space and there are lots of walled gardens to worry about. Google openly encourages developers to build on top of and use its APIs and it prides itself on its "Don't be evil" policy. Like it or not, companies like Google, FB, and Apple are platforms that developers are building on top of simply because these companies and their services are the "web" these days.
- jmathai 15y ago
  >> Tweetdeck anyone? And Zynga (FB is its lifeblood) Exceptions are not the rule.
  - bstrand 15y ago
    But huge, glaring exceptions can disprove a 'rule'. Risky? sure. Insane? These examples strongly indicate otherwise.
    - jmathai 15y ago
      All start ups are risky, no? I don't know that adding more risk to an already risky venture doesn't classify as insane? I probably agree with you though. Starting up is all about finding the right set of services to match the right set of needs...by any means possible.
- akkartik 15y ago
  Google shutting down an API that thousands of developers are relying on without much warning is insane. What constitutes 'much warning'? Translate API users have six months. Were you thinking of a different API? People using the APIs knew the policies for deprecation in the ToS, I presume?
andylei 15y ago
it's not so black and white. it's not like you should never use anyone else's api ever for your for profit stuff; it's simply a question of risk versus benefit. in the case of apis, the risk is that there is some probability that the api will go down. the benefit is that you don't have to write your own stuff, and in some cases, the benefit is the entire value proposition of your application. for example, should you use the google translate api? there is some probability that the api will go down. whatever you estimate this probability to be, that's how you have to weigh your benefit. you probably can't recreate google translate, so the benefit is whatever benefit your application provides, or the marginal benefit that google translate provides to your application. also, consider the fact that all apis will go down, but you can always create value in the interim. no api is going to be around forever, but will html even be around forever? how long is your application going to be useful? maybe the chance that the api will go down in the medium term is low, so that's an acceptable lifetime for your application.
pasbesoin 15y ago
One needs to keep in mind that a significant portion of Google's public facing deployment consists of "throwing stuff against the wall, and seeing what sticks". Remember the now legendary "beta" moniker. It applies, even where it's not explicitly designated. I'm not defending Google. Just saying.

tybris 15y ago

I don't see the point of this whole release a free API, shut it down nonsense. I wouldn't mind paying for any of Google's APIs.

ChuckMcM 15y ago
If you pay for an API, and it doesn't work, you can show economic harm and that gives you a basis to sue. I know from experience that a number of Google's APIs are just some engineer's idea of how to hook into the data stored in the back end which Google puts out there for some easy (and free) goodwill but without any commitment ever to actually do the necessary foundational work to support it as a product (which they are really really bad at, in case you haven't noticed). So the point is they use the API internally, exposing it gives them additional testing and additional feedback on how to make it better. Once the cost incurred by offering it for free exceeeds the benefits of the testing they pull it back. Continuing to use the now 'well tested and well rounded' API internally. GOOG-411 was a great example of this. It was a great way to get voice samples from a lot of people by bartering a service. Once their voice training parameters weren't getting better they turn off the service, (cuts costs) but they still get the durable benefit of a well trained voice recognition library.
- nasmorn 15y ago
  Never explain with stupidity what can be explained with economic self interest.
  - daniel_reetz 15y ago
    "Never explain with stupidity what can be explained with economic self interest." Nasmorn's Law
    - bgruber 15y ago
      <pedantry>Nasmorn's Razor</pedantry>

freshfunk 15y ago

As a counterpoint, many companies are built off of APIs that are out there. That's the nature of business and that's actually great for the API authors out there. But if developers knew that APIs could easily go away, then people wouldn't build businesses on top of those APIs. The risk would be too high. I don't know the history but it seems that Google could've implemented some simple solutions to prevent abuse of their APIs while catering to the business community such as simply charging for use. Any legit business would be willing to do this.

lkozma 15y ago
I'm just guessing here but in this case it could be that the abuse doesn't mean extra traffic but people using it to generate text to fill pages with, in effect tricking the search engine.
tptacek 15y ago
That's not really a counterpoint, is it? The comment you're replying to advised people not to build for-profit enterprises off Google's free APIs. It didn't weasel an excuse for maybe just using the APIs anyways because it probably would work out in the long run; it said, rightly, "don't". Guessing Google has bigger fish to fry than making the world nicer for people who want to build apps on translation APIs.
- freshfunk 15y ago
  You're a surly one aren't you? The comment I replied to basically implied that only neat projects have come from Google's APIs and nothing more. This came after his comments about how one shouldn't build a business off a not-for-profit API. In my mind it's an incredibly ignorant remark to make. THAT was what I was making a counterpoint to. I could point out some very obvious examples like Tweetdeck or the numerous applications that use the Facebook API. I just thought it was incredibly obvious and not worth my time. Most of today's exciting APIs are "not-for-profit." That is, companies do not charge for the APIs themselves. By your advice, nobody should be trying to build for-profit, real companies based on them. The primary reason why these APIs are created are so that they can create their own economies that are dependent on their platforms. My comment was also generalized (much like the comment I replied to) to APIs beyond Google's Translate API. I guess you were too busy fixated on this one scenario.

yalogin 15y ago

I completely agree that you are shooting yourself in the foot if you are relying on someone else's API for you entire functionality. But there are a few things here - * Everything Google does is free. So it can be argued that the API is in fact for-profit. * In this case, translation is not something a small company can do by themselves. The API's whole value proposition is that it enables startups without the infrastructure like Google can create interesting applications using the API. Google wants people to do that and its very much a big part of its success so far. So the developer is not entirely at fault. I would not rely on that one API itself for my business but he/she chose to do it.

bad_user 15y ago

Google's App Engine is pretty much a for-profit API. And now they've announced a change in their pricing scheme, which if true, would change App Engine from pay-what-you-use to same-as-amazon-aws-but-pricier scheme, which makes it hugely expensive for a large portion of devs that have built on top of App Engine. And migrating away from App Engine is a total pain in the ass. I truly hope that the blog-post missed important details or that they'll keep providing the old option too (i.e. paying per cpu-hour instead of instance-hour). I know App Engine was beta, but people have built on it expecting instability in the implementation, not in its pricing scheme. I mean, come on!

mcdaid 15y ago
See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-appengine/ob-kMuDAAqc/discussion https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-appengine/ob-... Clarifies that you will be paying per instance hour, instead of cpu. Nothing is in concrete yet, if there is enough outrage amongst users maybe they will change their tune.
nhoj 15y ago
I never liked app engine. To me it seemed like you have to lock yourself into google as a vendor because your application has to be designed for app engine.
- kkowalczyk 15y ago
  I never liked Linux. You have to lock yourself into Linux APIs because your application has to be designed for Linux. I never liked relational databases. You have to lock yourself into SQL because your application has to be designed for SQL. I never liked python. You have to lock yourself into python because your application has to be designed for python.
  - borism 15y ago
    I never liked IT anyway. Shit has to be designed and stuff. Why can't we all be friends and blossom like flowers in the fields?

alanh 15y ago

While you are pointing out a valid strategic risk in building on another’s platform, I’m disappointed to see the top post here is simply engaging in blame-the-victim.

Kylekramer 15y ago
This isn't rape, it is a business. What is happening is not illegal or even unethical. Victim blaming is not wrong when the supposed victim is completely to blame.

ellyagg 15y ago

Right. And this same argument means you should not rely on, for example, gmail, for your email. This is good advice for people in general, although perhaps not something google wants to hear, as they generally market themselves as someone you can trust. Obviously, google will let you down in exactly the same way that, say, apple or microsoft or facebook will. The pain for some people might be greater in this case, simply because the expectations were higher. I often wonder if they regret adopting that "don't be evil" motto.

fragsworth 15y ago
No, the argument was that you shouldn't build a for-profit business that relies entirely on a good-will free API. Even if you have a business with all of your employees on free gmail, you hardly rely on gmail, because you can probably switch to some other email system without going out of business. Additionally, gmail is not even really a "good-will free" API. Advertisements more than make up for the costs.

nikcub 15y ago

If Microsoft did this with the Windows API ten years ago people would be going absolutely batshit crazy in here and the government probably would have intervened

digitallogic 15y ago
They did a little shy of ten years ago with VB6. People did indeed go batshit, but the government did not get involved.
- nikcub 15y ago
  you are right, I should have rephrased when Microsoft did this. I remember those Slashdot threads well.
- kprobst 15y ago
  Except that they provided a replacement and a migration path.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    And you could keep on using VB6. I wouldn't be surprised if there still aren't thousands of business critical apps that still aren't using it. Web Services are different in that when they're no longer supported, you can't use them.
    - GFischer 15y ago
      Don't be surprised. I have seen a billion-dollar Brazilian megacorp using it for its core software, and several smaller (but still multimillion-dollar sized) companies relying on it as well (we have hundreds of VB6 apps at the insurance company I work for).
  - holri 15y ago
    That was not a replacement but a completely different product with superficial simalarities and the same name. The path was not a migration path but a runaway path.

fjabre 15y ago

Relying on someone else's good will for the lifeblood of your company is insane Tweetdeck anyone? And Zynga (FB is its lifeblood) Google shutting down an API that thousands of developers are relying on without much warning is insane. The web is an increasingly competitive space and there are lots of walled gardens to worry about. Google openly encourages developers to build on top of and use its APIs and it prides itself on its "Don't be evil" policy. Like it or not, companies like Google, FB, and Apple are platforms that developers are building on top of simply because these companies and their services are the "web" these days.

jmathai 15y ago
>> Tweetdeck anyone? And Zynga (FB is its lifeblood) Exceptions are not the rule.
- bstrand 15y ago
  But huge, glaring exceptions can disprove a 'rule'. Risky? sure. Insane? These examples strongly indicate otherwise.
  - jmathai 15y ago
    All start ups are risky, no? I don't know that adding more risk to an already risky venture doesn't classify as insane? I probably agree with you though. Starting up is all about finding the right set of services to match the right set of needs...by any means possible.
akkartik 15y ago
Google shutting down an API that thousands of developers are relying on without much warning is insane. What constitutes 'much warning'? Translate API users have six months. Were you thinking of a different API? People using the APIs knew the policies for deprecation in the ToS, I presume?

andylei 15y ago

it's not so black and white. it's not like you should never use anyone else's api ever for your for profit stuff; it's simply a question of risk versus benefit. in the case of apis, the risk is that there is some probability that the api will go down. the benefit is that you don't have to write your own stuff, and in some cases, the benefit is the entire value proposition of your application. for example, should you use the google translate api? there is some probability that the api will go down. whatever you estimate this probability to be, that's how you have to weigh your benefit. you probably can't recreate google translate, so the benefit is whatever benefit your application provides, or the marginal benefit that google translate provides to your application. also, consider the fact that all apis will go down, but you can always create value in the interim. no api is going to be around forever, but will html even be around forever? how long is your application going to be useful? maybe the chance that the api will go down in the medium term is low, so that's an acceptable lifetime for your application.

pasbesoin 15y ago

One needs to keep in mind that a significant portion of Google's public facing deployment consists of "throwing stuff against the wall, and seeing what sticks". Remember the now legendary "beta" moniker. It applies, even where it's not explicitly designated. I'm not defending Google. Just saying.