4 ms·

I stopped reading a few paragraphs in. "Free service" does not mean without conditions/limitations. Signing up for multiple accounts when the T&C's say you only

I stopped reading a few paragraphs in. "Free service" does not mean without conditions/limitations. Signing up for multiple accounts when the T&C's say you only get one per person is fraudulent. Especially when they're trying to get around actually paying for the service you are using. Just like if you go to Costco and get free sample of a product, the staff won't let keep taking more and more and more free samples. That's exactly what free usage tiers are, free samples.

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
"Signing up for multiple accounts when the T&C's say you only get one per person." As it happens, this particular company does not have such a restriction in their terms. Maybe they should add one, e.g., an explicit prohibition against multiple free API keys assigned to the same user. Using the physical retail analogy, there is no sign stating something like, "One sample per person. Thank you for you cooperation." "Free usage tiers" are nothing like "free samples" in a retail setting. A potential retail customer does not _need_ to provide an IP address in order to take a sample. Costco does not track the behaviour of potential customers who take free samples. Nor is Costco providing "free" samples as bait in order to collect data on behalf of other entities. This particular "API SaaS" crypto/blockchain company collects aggregated data for other entities. Their "legal terms" also permit them to sell this data. According to the HN comment, it wants usage data from IP addresses issued by ISPs not auctions. The "free tier" problem being articulated here with respect to IP addresses is not that there are "too many" potential customers, i.e., too many IP addresses accessing the "free" API, thereby denying some potential customers from obtaining their "free samples". The problem is that the data collector cannot distinguish whether particular IP addresses represent distinct ISP subscribers, and whether such persons may be using automation to avoid mouse clicking, touchscreen tapping or other burdensome interaction. The complaint is that the "tech" company's efforts to _collect data about computer users_ are not working. "Tech" companies require people to "sign-up". The incorporated "tech" website gets something in return for the "free" service. API's can be rate-limited. Potential paying customers, or non-paying users, can easily be blocked from using the API. This can all be done remotely from a keyboard. The retailer offering free samples of physical goods without requiring any information cannot adjust the number of samples available to each potenital customer, and certainly not remotely from a keyboard. As such, the "limited supply" argument falls short. The complaint here is that a "tech" company wants to collect data about computer users and monetise it, and this is difficult because IP addresses do not necessary represent distinct computer users with certain charactersistics, not that a retailer is "running out of free samples".

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

"Signing up for multiple accounts when the T&C's say you only get one per person." As it happens, this particular company does not have such a restriction in their terms. Maybe they should add one, e.g., an explicit prohibition against multiple free API keys assigned to the same user. Using the physical retail analogy, there is no sign stating something like, "One sample per person. Thank you for you cooperation." "Free usage tiers" are nothing like "free samples" in a retail setting. A potential retail customer does not _need_ to provide an IP address in order to take a sample. Costco does not track the behaviour of potential customers who take free samples. Nor is Costco providing "free" samples as bait in order to collect data on behalf of other entities. This particular "API SaaS" crypto/blockchain company collects aggregated data for other entities. Their "legal terms" also permit them to sell this data. According to the HN comment, it wants usage data from IP addresses issued by ISPs not auctions. The "free tier" problem being articulated here with respect to IP addresses is not that there are "too many" potential customers, i.e., too many IP addresses accessing the "free" API, thereby denying some potential customers from obtaining their "free samples". The problem is that the data collector cannot distinguish whether particular IP addresses represent distinct ISP subscribers, and whether such persons may be using automation to avoid mouse clicking, touchscreen tapping or other burdensome interaction. The complaint is that the "tech" company's efforts to _collect data about computer users_ are not working. "Tech" companies require people to "sign-up". The incorporated "tech" website gets something in return for the "free" service. API's can be rate-limited. Potential paying customers, or non-paying users, can easily be blocked from using the API. This can all be done remotely from a keyboard. The retailer offering free samples of physical goods without requiring any information cannot adjust the number of samples available to each potenital customer, and certainly not remotely from a keyboard. As such, the "limited supply" argument falls short. The complaint here is that a "tech" company wants to collect data about computer users and monetise it, and this is difficult because IP addresses do not necessary represent distinct computer users with certain charactersistics, not that a retailer is "running out of free samples".