6 ms·

I'm constantly amazed at the entitlement attitude so many have when it comes to APIs and other people's data. Netflix wishes to change the rules on their API so

by talmand 14y ago

I'm constantly amazed at the entitlement attitude so many have when it comes to APIs and other people's data. Netflix wishes to change the rules on their API so that it fits in with some broader strategy no one knows about, so what? They wish to restrict the flow of data that they collect for their own uses, so what? They no longer wish to allow third-parties to monetize data accessed from a public API, so what? Regardless of what the article states, it is their data and they can do with it as they please. A person's viewing history on Netflix is not that person's data, it is Netflix's data as they are the people who spent the money to collect it. No amount of whining or complaining will change that. I can understand people thinking this might be a bad idea for them and I agree that it's possibly a PR mistake. But there is a difference between complaining about access and demanding access to a company's data.

blantonl 14y ago
Spot on. When you build your house on someone else's foundation, your house is at the mercy of the foundation's owner's plans. Publically available APIs are great, but at times I am troubled by how many people develop entire products and applications around other's data, and then scream bloody murder when their business model goes up in smoke because the parent decided to evolve and innovate their own business.
- incongruity 14y ago
  Forget business models – I find it frustrating as a consumer to see the value proposition of a service I value being reduced. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be unhappy about a reduction in value to me, the end consumer. Do I understand it? Perhaps – I still view it as a poor sort of competitive behavior because it's built around increasing information asymmetry and reducing consumers' ability to compare offerings – rather than making their own offerings stronger.
ctdonath 14y ago
From article: It appears Netflix considers what films you’ve watched and what you thought of them as their data, not yours. What you've watched & thought of it is, of course, your data. However, Netflix is in no way obligated to act as your memory in when & whatever manner you demand.
- nmcfarl 14y ago
  They are not obligated. However, I'm fairly sure banks aren't obligated by law to send you statements* - they certainly aren't obligated to let you download them in, say, quicken format (who could be seen as a competitor). It's just such a big feature that no one would do business with a bank that didn't offer it. Similiarly Netflix's APIs add value for customers, and apps and outboard memory are/have been a big part of Netflix for me. Will loosing that make me leave? I don't know - but clearly this is a major downgrade in their service. -- * It looks like they pretty much are obligated by law - thanks benatkin.
  - benatkin 14y ago
    I've been under the impression that it's required by law that banks send statements, because I've been presented with the option to receive electronic statements but never with the option to not receive statements at all. I searched and found a U. S. government site where it says that statements are required for accounts that have EFTs (which seem to include debit cards). So my bank is obligated to send me statements. http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/get-answers/bank-accounts/general-account-questions/faq-bank-accounts-gen-account-01.html http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/get-answers/bank-accounts/gene... I get an email each month, that I don't think I can opt out of, that says "New (name of bank) eStatements Available" and links me to the bank's website, where I can view and download it. You're probably right that they aren't legally obligated to provide transaction data in a machine-readable format.
    - talmand 14y ago
      I agree, bank statements are not a good comparison simply because you have an agreement with the bank to store your money. In that type of agreement there would have to be some form of obligation to report your holdings in their bank.
    - gcb 14y ago
      everything is context. banks used to that to gain customers. Some time ago, every developer working at banks knew that customers were measured in cost per customer. You'd had the cost to please them, and then you'd make money investing their money. then, fast forward a measly decade, and banks are seen as obligatory. nobody things about NOT having their money in a bank. So banks drop all of the benefits, and we start to measure clients as profit per account. banks now are profiting from investing your money AND holding that money for you just because you never though about not paying the bank. So, that's the time when we started to have some regulations and minimal service the bank's supposed to provide.
gcb 14y ago
The fact that they had this api made me choose to be their consumer in the first place. And i was already looking for a reason to ditch them since the price changes and recent focusing 100% on series instead of any film.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Now, freshly empowered, will choose another streaming service. That service presumably distinguishes itself by offering such APIs. So the number of people who switch helps train the market. Perhaps there is a startup opportunity for an API driven unbranded movie streaming service where the product is the viewing API/data rather than the streaming.
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    > Perhaps there is a startup opportunity for an API driven unbranded movie streaming service where the product is the viewing API/data rather than the streaming. Maybe that's exactly what Netflix intends to offer -- a separate product that's just API/data. Developer account?
binaryorganic 14y ago
"it is Netflix's data as they are the people who spent the money to collect it." can easily be turned around to say "it is the customer's data as they are the people who spent the money to produce it." Legally, sure... all of you guys are spot on. But this article speaks to what people want, not what they legally deserve
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  Isn't that the point of this thread? That people are arguably wanting more than they deserve?
  - binaryorganic 14y ago
    The definition of "deserve" stops to matter so much when enough people get involved. I'm not saying this particular story has any sort of groundswell of protest behind it, but if it did legal definitions wouldn't matter much at all. An obvious example of something that has a movement behind it is piracy (illegal, but widespread and unstoppable) What I will say relating to the Netflix story is that they probably shouldn't put themselves in a position where they alienate power users (read: evangelists) of the site. They've had a rough couple of years (content loss, product stumbles). Hunkering down and putting up fences is exactly what old media has tried to do, and it hasn't exactly been going so well for them.
    - Domenic_S 14y ago
      > but if it did legal definitions wouldn't matter much at all. I was thinking in more of an ethical/common-sense kind of way. If I pay NF $8/month for their streaming services, is it reasonable for me to claim that I deserve a fully-featured and well-documented API, complete with access to my historical data? Legal questions aside, it seems unreasonable from a gut-check point of view to expect the services of all the engineers & tech writers responsible for making that happen (and keeping it updated) in addition to the streaming service. If my business depended on access to this Netflix data, you can be sure I'd be making calls and in-person visits if possible to try and form some kind of partnership with them. I think it would be reasonable to assume that kind of business model (NF's model WRT data access) is probably unsustainable and I'd have to do something to protect my business. I'm betting NF is in the process of creating developer accounts. For $xxx, you get an API key that you embed in your apps that turns these features/this access back on. I wonder if pricing is what's keeping dev accounts from showing up yet -- NF seems against utility billing for end users, but they must deal with it all the time on the back end. Hmm. To your point about the power users, some kind of freemium model would work fine for keeping them happy, I'm guessing... once usage is "Real Business" level, make them pay for it, Google Maps-style.
cwp 14y ago
What you say is true, but I don't think this article is demanding access to Netflix data. They've noted rather dispassionately that Netflix is making technical and legal changes, analyzed its impact on Netflix users and third party developers, and concluded that this will be a net loss for user, third party developers and probably Netflix its self. That sounds about right to me. I'm sure Netflix expects the net effect of this change to be beneficial to the company, and they may be right, but they are going to loose the benefits of the ecosystem that exists today. I certainly don't see any whining, complaining or demanding. It's more of a heads up to everyone involved in the Netflix ecosystem that this is an important change with significant consequences. AFAICT, goodfil.ms is informing and preparing it's community for changes they're going to have to make. Surely you don't expect them to protect Netflix from the negative PR that this move will generate?
- talmand 14y ago
  When someone states that the data Netflix has is not their data but that of the viewer and Netflix should not alter access to it, I take that to mean demand of access. I could be wrong but that's my take on it.
  - cwp 14y ago
    I must have missed that bit.
taylorbuley 14y ago
Worth noting, the API strategy is not exactly secret: http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/netflix-api-emphasis.jpg?w=604&h=472 http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/netflix-api-empha... ( via http://gigaom.com/video/netflix-42-billion-api-requests/ http://gigaom.com/video/netflix-42-billion-api-requests/)
talmand 14y ago
Original article has been updated to say that it appears the new terms are not as "sinister" as first thought. Sinister? Really?
modarts 14y ago
Exactly. You sharecrop their API's, you play by their rules. Full Stop.

by talmand 14y ago

blantonl 14y ago

Spot on. When you build your house on someone else's foundation, your house is at the mercy of the foundation's owner's plans. Publically available APIs are great, but at times I am troubled by how many people develop entire products and applications around other's data, and then scream bloody murder when their business model goes up in smoke because the parent decided to evolve and innovate their own business.

incongruity 14y ago
Forget business models – I find it frustrating as a consumer to see the value proposition of a service I value being reduced. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be unhappy about a reduction in value to me, the end consumer. Do I understand it? Perhaps – I still view it as a poor sort of competitive behavior because it's built around increasing information asymmetry and reducing consumers' ability to compare offerings – rather than making their own offerings stronger.

ctdonath 14y ago

From article: It appears Netflix considers what films you’ve watched and what you thought of them as their data, not yours. What you've watched & thought of it is, of course, your data. However, Netflix is in no way obligated to act as your memory in when & whatever manner you demand.

nmcfarl 14y ago
They are not obligated. However, I'm fairly sure banks aren't obligated by law to send you statements* - they certainly aren't obligated to let you download them in, say, quicken format (who could be seen as a competitor). It's just such a big feature that no one would do business with a bank that didn't offer it. Similiarly Netflix's APIs add value for customers, and apps and outboard memory are/have been a big part of Netflix for me. Will loosing that make me leave? I don't know - but clearly this is a major downgrade in their service. -- * It looks like they pretty much are obligated by law - thanks benatkin.
- benatkin 14y ago
  I've been under the impression that it's required by law that banks send statements, because I've been presented with the option to receive electronic statements but never with the option to not receive statements at all. I searched and found a U. S. government site where it says that statements are required for accounts that have EFTs (which seem to include debit cards). So my bank is obligated to send me statements. http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/get-answers/bank-accounts/general-account-questions/faq-bank-accounts-gen-account-01.html http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/get-answers/bank-accounts/gene... I get an email each month, that I don't think I can opt out of, that says "New (name of bank) eStatements Available" and links me to the bank's website, where I can view and download it. You're probably right that they aren't legally obligated to provide transaction data in a machine-readable format.
  - talmand 14y ago
    I agree, bank statements are not a good comparison simply because you have an agreement with the bank to store your money. In that type of agreement there would have to be some form of obligation to report your holdings in their bank.
  - gcb 14y ago
    everything is context. banks used to that to gain customers. Some time ago, every developer working at banks knew that customers were measured in cost per customer. You'd had the cost to please them, and then you'd make money investing their money. then, fast forward a measly decade, and banks are seen as obligatory. nobody things about NOT having their money in a bank. So banks drop all of the benefits, and we start to measure clients as profit per account. banks now are profiting from investing your money AND holding that money for you just because you never though about not paying the bank. So, that's the time when we started to have some regulations and minimal service the bank's supposed to provide.

gcb 14y ago

The fact that they had this api made me choose to be their consumer in the first place. And i was already looking for a reason to ditch them since the price changes and recent focusing 100% on series instead of any film.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Now, freshly empowered, will choose another streaming service. That service presumably distinguishes itself by offering such APIs. So the number of people who switch helps train the market. Perhaps there is a startup opportunity for an API driven unbranded movie streaming service where the product is the viewing API/data rather than the streaming.
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  > Perhaps there is a startup opportunity for an API driven unbranded movie streaming service where the product is the viewing API/data rather than the streaming. Maybe that's exactly what Netflix intends to offer -- a separate product that's just API/data. Developer account?

binaryorganic 14y ago

"it is Netflix's data as they are the people who spent the money to collect it." can easily be turned around to say "it is the customer's data as they are the people who spent the money to produce it." Legally, sure... all of you guys are spot on. But this article speaks to what people want, not what they legally deserve

Domenic_S 14y ago
Isn't that the point of this thread? That people are arguably wanting more than they deserve?
- binaryorganic 14y ago
  The definition of "deserve" stops to matter so much when enough people get involved. I'm not saying this particular story has any sort of groundswell of protest behind it, but if it did legal definitions wouldn't matter much at all. An obvious example of something that has a movement behind it is piracy (illegal, but widespread and unstoppable) What I will say relating to the Netflix story is that they probably shouldn't put themselves in a position where they alienate power users (read: evangelists) of the site. They've had a rough couple of years (content loss, product stumbles). Hunkering down and putting up fences is exactly what old media has tried to do, and it hasn't exactly been going so well for them.
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    > but if it did legal definitions wouldn't matter much at all. I was thinking in more of an ethical/common-sense kind of way. If I pay NF $8/month for their streaming services, is it reasonable for me to claim that I deserve a fully-featured and well-documented API, complete with access to my historical data? Legal questions aside, it seems unreasonable from a gut-check point of view to expect the services of all the engineers & tech writers responsible for making that happen (and keeping it updated) in addition to the streaming service. If my business depended on access to this Netflix data, you can be sure I'd be making calls and in-person visits if possible to try and form some kind of partnership with them. I think it would be reasonable to assume that kind of business model (NF's model WRT data access) is probably unsustainable and I'd have to do something to protect my business. I'm betting NF is in the process of creating developer accounts. For $xxx, you get an API key that you embed in your apps that turns these features/this access back on. I wonder if pricing is what's keeping dev accounts from showing up yet -- NF seems against utility billing for end users, but they must deal with it all the time on the back end. Hmm. To your point about the power users, some kind of freemium model would work fine for keeping them happy, I'm guessing... once usage is "Real Business" level, make them pay for it, Google Maps-style.

cwp 14y ago

What you say is true, but I don't think this article is demanding access to Netflix data. They've noted rather dispassionately that Netflix is making technical and legal changes, analyzed its impact on Netflix users and third party developers, and concluded that this will be a net loss for user, third party developers and probably Netflix its self. That sounds about right to me. I'm sure Netflix expects the net effect of this change to be beneficial to the company, and they may be right, but they are going to loose the benefits of the ecosystem that exists today. I certainly don't see any whining, complaining or demanding. It's more of a heads up to everyone involved in the Netflix ecosystem that this is an important change with significant consequences. AFAICT, goodfil.ms is informing and preparing it's community for changes they're going to have to make. Surely you don't expect them to protect Netflix from the negative PR that this move will generate?

talmand 14y ago
When someone states that the data Netflix has is not their data but that of the viewer and Netflix should not alter access to it, I take that to mean demand of access. I could be wrong but that's my take on it.
- cwp 14y ago
  I must have missed that bit.

taylorbuley 14y ago

Worth noting, the API strategy is not exactly secret: http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/netflix-api-emphasis.jpg?w=604&h=472 http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/netflix-api-empha... ( via http://gigaom.com/video/netflix-42-billion-api-requests/ http://gigaom.com/video/netflix-42-billion-api-requests/)

talmand 14y ago

Original article has been updated to say that it appears the new terms are not as "sinister" as first thought. Sinister? Really?

modarts 14y ago

Exactly. You sharecrop their API's, you play by their rules. Full Stop.