4 ms·

Total bankers: Twitter and LinkedIn's cynical API play

31 points by tankenmate 14y ago

etherealG 14y ago
what a good idea, a similar license for apis that forces access to the data in the same way gpl forces access to the source code
- Vivtek 14y ago
  Yeah, but who would enforce it? A class-action suit, maybe?
  - etherealG 14y ago
    anyone that can. e.g. a smallish company basing their business on top of an api from a bigger one like twitter or google could feel safe knowing that they couldn't legally remove access later. and if they did that small company could recoup their potential earnings through litigation. it works just the same way as gpl does to code.
andrewaylett 14y ago
If you're interested in pushing the open-API idea, you might be interested in the Franklin Street Statement: http://autonomo.us/2008/07/14/franklin-street-statement/ http://autonomo.us/2008/07/14/franklin-street-statement/ I'm aware that these ideas wouldn't appeal to either Twitter or LinkedIn, as both derive much of their value from locking in users.
alttab 14y ago
Twitter made a mistake by proliferating its information and then trying to build an advertising business off of it. Great engineering with an unimaginative monetization strategy. It's almost as if Twitter is trying to be two different and mutually exclusive things at the same time. Totally agree with the platform argument. I wrote a blog post the other day about hedging platform strategy: http://www.connersc.com/blog/?p=154 http://www.connersc.com/blog/?p=154 </shamlessplug>
mcherm 14y ago
I intend to publish an API. What can I do to reassure developers that I won't behave like this if they build on my platform? Charge money?
- 4clicknet 14y ago
  There's no way to guarantee you won't behave like that (I don't specifically mean you, but anyone in a similar position). People have the best intentions, but things change as time goes on. In fact, charging money might make it all the more insulting if/when a company later does something to piss off its developer community. Platform integration is a risk, but I think it's better to take that risk than not pursue an idea because some day the platform will cut you off from the API.
  - mcherm 14y ago
    > There's no way to guarantee you won't behave like that True, but I'm not just speculating here, I really DO want to release an API from a big company and have it taken seriously and trusted by the development community. Let me try answering my own question. One thing I could do would be to publish a statement guaranteeing access to the API for the next 5 years. Perhaps people would find that reassuring. I suspect that our legal department would have a problem with it -- it would prevent us from making changes if we needed to... perhaps even from fixing a vital security flaw. Maybe something weaker, like publishing a policy detailing the process for deprecating APIs? The process could say that deprecated APIs will continue to be supported for at least a year. It could also specify an exception for security issues. Would this reassure developers?
mcherm 14y ago
I intend to publish an API. What can I do to reassure developers that I won't behave like this if they build on my platform? Charge money?
raintrees 14y ago
I guess I don't understand. How does one go about writing an open API for someone else's platform? Won't that require support by that someone else who created the platform? Otherwise, aren't we stuck with having to recreate Facebook, Twitter, etc. in order to write an open API for it? And therefore stuck requiring the adoption for the new platform that someone else's platform already has? Therefore "rolling your own" entirely in the first place?

31 points by tankenmate 14y ago

what a good idea, a similar license for apis that forces access to the data in the same way gpl forces access to the source code

Vivtek 14y ago
Yeah, but who would enforce it? A class-action suit, maybe?
- etherealG 14y ago
  anyone that can. e.g. a smallish company basing their business on top of an api from a bigger one like twitter or google could feel safe knowing that they couldn't legally remove access later. and if they did that small company could recoup their potential earnings through litigation. it works just the same way as gpl does to code.

andrewaylett 14y ago

If you're interested in pushing the open-API idea, you might be interested in the Franklin Street Statement: http://autonomo.us/2008/07/14/franklin-street-statement/ http://autonomo.us/2008/07/14/franklin-street-statement/ I'm aware that these ideas wouldn't appeal to either Twitter or LinkedIn, as both derive much of their value from locking in users.

alttab 14y ago

Twitter made a mistake by proliferating its information and then trying to build an advertising business off of it. Great engineering with an unimaginative monetization strategy. It's almost as if Twitter is trying to be two different and mutually exclusive things at the same time. Totally agree with the platform argument. I wrote a blog post the other day about hedging platform strategy: http://www.connersc.com/blog/?p=154 http://www.connersc.com/blog/?p=154 </shamlessplug>

mcherm 14y ago

I intend to publish an API. What can I do to reassure developers that I won't behave like this if they build on my platform? Charge money?

4clicknet 14y ago
There's no way to guarantee you won't behave like that (I don't specifically mean you, but anyone in a similar position). People have the best intentions, but things change as time goes on. In fact, charging money might make it all the more insulting if/when a company later does something to piss off its developer community. Platform integration is a risk, but I think it's better to take that risk than not pursue an idea because some day the platform will cut you off from the API.
- mcherm 14y ago
  > There's no way to guarantee you won't behave like that True, but I'm not just speculating here, I really DO want to release an API from a big company and have it taken seriously and trusted by the development community. Let me try answering my own question. One thing I could do would be to publish a statement guaranteeing access to the API for the next 5 years. Perhaps people would find that reassuring. I suspect that our legal department would have a problem with it -- it would prevent us from making changes if we needed to... perhaps even from fixing a vital security flaw. Maybe something weaker, like publishing a policy detailing the process for deprecating APIs? The process could say that deprecated APIs will continue to be supported for at least a year. It could also specify an exception for security issues. Would this reassure developers?

mcherm 14y ago

I intend to publish an API. What can I do to reassure developers that I won't behave like this if they build on my platform? Charge money?

raintrees 14y ago

I guess I don't understand. How does one go about writing an open API for someone else's platform? Won't that require support by that someone else who created the platform? Otherwise, aren't we stuck with having to recreate Facebook, Twitter, etc. in order to write an open API for it? And therefore stuck requiring the adoption for the new platform that someone else's platform already has? Therefore "rolling your own" entirely in the first place?