4 ms·

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 ther

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.

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.