4 ms·

Watch Spotify revoke their public API key or reduce access to the public API because of this

bayindirh 3y ago
This is something between the app developer and Spotify. I'm neither. BTW, If you need an API key for public API access, you may need to enroll yourself to use that API. I don't ship public API keys with my apps.
smashah 3y ago
Let's stop developer (victim) blaming for soulless billion dollar companies restricting API access.
- eptcyka 3y ago
  Billion dollar company that still isn’t profitable.
  - dventimihasura 3y ago
    It seems to me like there are people who have profited from it. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/arsenal-home-daniel-ek-spotify-23997084 https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/arsenal-home-dani...
  - notyourwork 3y ago
    Spotify is profitable as of recent quarters.
    - sitzkrieg 3y ago
      now the focus shifts to unrelenting growth at any cost, yay
  - smashah 3y ago
    That's not the fault, nor responsibility, of developers and API access. API access (interop) is a digital human right. If companies can't be profitable without restricting that then that's a deficiency upon them and their gormless VCs
    - StableAlkyne 3y ago
      > API access (interop) is a digital human right I'm with it on this idea, but comparing it to a "human right" will not lead to the desired response in non-tech people, who will write off the idea as taking the Internet too seriously if phrased that way. A human right carries a much heavier, more fundamental connotation than just a right on its own Even if you consider it a human right, might be better to brand it differently to get wider traction
      - smashah 3y ago
        Respectfully, I'm not trying to win people over or proselytize. This is what I believe strongly and I'm not trying to make it digestible. It is what it is.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    The entire VC model in this area of tech is to be unprofitable to undercut traditional mediums so that other companies can't compete with them, and then to raise prices once better systems have been driven out because with investor funding Spotify can last for a longer time than its competitors within an unprofitable market. And during that process, Spotify wants to be treated as if they are profitable. They don't want consumers to be looking at them like they're a fly-by-night business whose entire existence depends on raising prices in the future once consumers have no alternatives to switch to. They don't want podcasting partners to be looking at every business deal as a temporary arrangement that will only last until Spotify feels comfortable trying to pull the rug out beneath them. If we're going to start acting like businesses are charity cases when indie developers do anything they dislike, then we should stop acting like these "charities" are sustainable businesses at all. Spotify doesn't run ads saying, "hey, we can't make money and we're hoping that goodwill and investor greed is enough to keep this engine running for one more year until its safe to start charging you what we actually need to survive." It's reasonable for developers and consumers to treat businesses with substantial market control as if they are businesses and not charities. That treatment is consistent with how Spotify advertises and portrays itself and with the decisions that the company makes about the market. It's not an accident that Spotify is in this position, it's a conscious choice in service of pursuing a long-term strategy of market domination. It's also not a healthy choice for the market overall, so Spotify choosing to put itself into this position is not a moral obligation for consumers or developers to treat them with some kind of special consideration. If anything, we should be more harsh to companies who try to decrease competition by creating an artificially unstainable market and starving out sustainable businesses and funding models. For all intents and purposes Spotify is a billion dollar company making moves to lock down open ecosystems like podcasting that are consistent with a billion dollar company. If it's also a poorly managed billion dollar company that's lying to consumers about the actual cost of delivering music, then that's their problem -- it's not something we need to feel guilty about.
    - StableAlkyne 3y ago
      > The entire VC model in this area of tech is to be unprofitable to undercut traditional mediums so that other companies can't compete with them, and then to raise prices once better systems have been driven out Sometimes but not always. The best example is Uber/Lyft: taxis sucked before ride shares, they continued to suck after being "disrupted" by ride shares. Both in terms of price and quality of the service. Briefly, Uber and Lyft were less expensive than traditional cabs, but now I'm back to spending the same $40 to go to the airport that I did a decade ago. The difference being that the cabbie can't have their machine magically "stop accepting cards" once you arrive. Though to be fair, the taxi industry had been terrible for decades, and are the exception
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- danShumway 3y ago
  Agreed. "We'd have APIs if y'all didn't use them" is a really bad take. Part of the reason why API access is desirable is because it forms an effective safeguard against some forms of company abuse. To argue that we can only have API access if nobody uses it for adversarial interoperability or to build 3rd-party clients or to bypass systems -- we might as well argue against API access entirely if that's going to be our position. The point of API access is to be able to use it.

This is something between the app developer and Spotify. I'm neither. BTW, If you need an API key for public API access, you may need to enroll yourself to use that API. I don't ship public API keys with my apps.

smashah 3y ago

Let's stop developer (victim) blaming for soulless billion dollar companies restricting API access.

eptcyka 3y ago
Billion dollar company that still isn’t profitable.
- dventimihasura 3y ago
  It seems to me like there are people who have profited from it. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/arsenal-home-daniel-ek-spotify-23997084 https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/arsenal-home-dani...
- notyourwork 3y ago
  Spotify is profitable as of recent quarters.
  - sitzkrieg 3y ago
    now the focus shifts to unrelenting growth at any cost, yay
- smashah 3y ago
  That's not the fault, nor responsibility, of developers and API access. API access (interop) is a digital human right. If companies can't be profitable without restricting that then that's a deficiency upon them and their gormless VCs
  - StableAlkyne 3y ago
    > API access (interop) is a digital human right I'm with it on this idea, but comparing it to a "human right" will not lead to the desired response in non-tech people, who will write off the idea as taking the Internet too seriously if phrased that way. A human right carries a much heavier, more fundamental connotation than just a right on its own Even if you consider it a human right, might be better to brand it differently to get wider traction
    - smashah 3y ago
      Respectfully, I'm not trying to win people over or proselytize. This is what I believe strongly and I'm not trying to make it digestible. It is what it is.
- danShumway 3y ago
  The entire VC model in this area of tech is to be unprofitable to undercut traditional mediums so that other companies can't compete with them, and then to raise prices once better systems have been driven out because with investor funding Spotify can last for a longer time than its competitors within an unprofitable market. And during that process, Spotify wants to be treated as if they are profitable. They don't want consumers to be looking at them like they're a fly-by-night business whose entire existence depends on raising prices in the future once consumers have no alternatives to switch to. They don't want podcasting partners to be looking at every business deal as a temporary arrangement that will only last until Spotify feels comfortable trying to pull the rug out beneath them. If we're going to start acting like businesses are charity cases when indie developers do anything they dislike, then we should stop acting like these "charities" are sustainable businesses at all. Spotify doesn't run ads saying, "hey, we can't make money and we're hoping that goodwill and investor greed is enough to keep this engine running for one more year until its safe to start charging you what we actually need to survive." It's reasonable for developers and consumers to treat businesses with substantial market control as if they are businesses and not charities. That treatment is consistent with how Spotify advertises and portrays itself and with the decisions that the company makes about the market. It's not an accident that Spotify is in this position, it's a conscious choice in service of pursuing a long-term strategy of market domination. It's also not a healthy choice for the market overall, so Spotify choosing to put itself into this position is not a moral obligation for consumers or developers to treat them with some kind of special consideration. If anything, we should be more harsh to companies who try to decrease competition by creating an artificially unstainable market and starving out sustainable businesses and funding models. For all intents and purposes Spotify is a billion dollar company making moves to lock down open ecosystems like podcasting that are consistent with a billion dollar company. If it's also a poorly managed billion dollar company that's lying to consumers about the actual cost of delivering music, then that's their problem -- it's not something we need to feel guilty about.
  - StableAlkyne 3y ago
    > The entire VC model in this area of tech is to be unprofitable to undercut traditional mediums so that other companies can't compete with them, and then to raise prices once better systems have been driven out Sometimes but not always. The best example is Uber/Lyft: taxis sucked before ride shares, they continued to suck after being "disrupted" by ride shares. Both in terms of price and quality of the service. Briefly, Uber and Lyft were less expensive than traditional cabs, but now I'm back to spending the same $40 to go to the airport that I did a decade ago. The difference being that the cabbie can't have their machine magically "stop accepting cards" once you arrive. Though to be fair, the taxi industry had been terrible for decades, and are the exception
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
danShumway 3y ago
Agreed. "We'd have APIs if y'all didn't use them" is a really bad take. Part of the reason why API access is desirable is because it forms an effective safeguard against some forms of company abuse. To argue that we can only have API access if nobody uses it for adversarial interoperability or to build 3rd-party clients or to bypass systems -- we might as well argue against API access entirely if that's going to be our position. The point of API access is to be able to use it.