5 ms·

> The second step is to make everyone else realize there is a problem with the current one (by making a big stink out of it). If that's true, then the conversa

> The second step is to make everyone else realize there is a problem with the current one (by making a big stink out of it). If that's true, then the conversation would be about the product, not about how Craiglist's disinterest in bootstrapping other people's businesses just isn't fair.

ktizo 14y ago
That's the difference between a product that is built as a castle and building an product that supports an ecosystem. These are design and business choices for the product. The interoperability of a device is not a separate consideration from it's design and construction, and in the same way, the accessibility methods available for a web service is not just a pure business decision, but is also a fundamental element of the products design. There is also no rule to say that ideas of fairness cannot be included as part of a product specification.
- flatline3 14y ago
  What's your point? Fairness to whom? Why is Craigslist under any obligation to be "fair"? They're especially under no obligation to define "fair" entirely according to the whims of those who would like to grab a piece of craigslist's pie.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    I'm not saying they are under an obligation to be fair, just pointing out that considerations of fairness are part of a conversation about the product. There is no special dividing wall here that excludes interoperability policy from everything else, when it comes to making a criticism of a service.
    - flatline3 14y ago
      While there's obviously a bit more nuance in your general idea, in this particular case, you may as well criticize McDonalds for not giving away their hamburgers.
      - ktizo 14y ago
        Not much point in doing that given that they already do give away hamburgers - http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/Restaurants/Student-offer.html http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/Restaurants/Student-offer.... I could fairly criticize them for tempting students to eat awful food though, I suppose. Something like, "How dare McDonalds give away their hamburgers!" ;)
        res0nat0r 14y ago
        I think you are purposefully missing the point. He means they might as well give away every hamburger they make for free.
        ktizo 14y ago
        Well, that would make no sense in comparison as having a certain level of open API access is not the same thing as giving away your entire business. In fact, if you do it well, surely it drives costumers to you as it widens their available exposure.
        res0nat0r 14y ago
        CL has determined that displaying their listings on sites other than their own hurts rather than helps their brand which is why they don't offer an API.
        ktizo 14y ago
        Which loops back to what I was saying to start with, which is that is a business and design decision that it is completely fair to criticise if people want to. Craigslist have decided on a strategy, and it might go well for them, or it might not. Given the amount of apparent annoyance they have stirred up, it might well backfire. No, they don't owe anyone anything and if they decided to shut down the entire service tomorrow so they could spend more time bowling, that would be completely within their rights. But people are free to critisise them for their actions if they wish and so I was taking issue with flatline's original assertion that discussing issues of fairness on API access was effectively outside the remit of fair criticism of the product itself.

ktizo 14y ago

That's the difference between a product that is built as a castle and building an product that supports an ecosystem. These are design and business choices for the product. The interoperability of a device is not a separate consideration from it's design and construction, and in the same way, the accessibility methods available for a web service is not just a pure business decision, but is also a fundamental element of the products design. There is also no rule to say that ideas of fairness cannot be included as part of a product specification.

flatline3 14y ago
What's your point? Fairness to whom? Why is Craigslist under any obligation to be "fair"? They're especially under no obligation to define "fair" entirely according to the whims of those who would like to grab a piece of craigslist's pie.
- ktizo 14y ago
  I'm not saying they are under an obligation to be fair, just pointing out that considerations of fairness are part of a conversation about the product. There is no special dividing wall here that excludes interoperability policy from everything else, when it comes to making a criticism of a service.
  - flatline3 14y ago
    While there's obviously a bit more nuance in your general idea, in this particular case, you may as well criticize McDonalds for not giving away their hamburgers.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      Not much point in doing that given that they already do give away hamburgers - http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/Restaurants/Student-offer.html http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/Restaurants/Student-offer.... I could fairly criticize them for tempting students to eat awful food though, I suppose. Something like, "How dare McDonalds give away their hamburgers!" ;)
      - res0nat0r 14y ago
        I think you are purposefully missing the point. He means they might as well give away every hamburger they make for free.
        ktizo 14y ago
        Well, that would make no sense in comparison as having a certain level of open API access is not the same thing as giving away your entire business. In fact, if you do it well, surely it drives costumers to you as it widens their available exposure.
        res0nat0r 14y ago
        CL has determined that displaying their listings on sites other than their own hurts rather than helps their brand which is why they don't offer an API.
        ktizo 14y ago
        Which loops back to what I was saying to start with, which is that is a business and design decision that it is completely fair to criticise if people want to. Craigslist have decided on a strategy, and it might go well for them, or it might not. Given the amount of apparent annoyance they have stirred up, it might well backfire. No, they don't owe anyone anything and if they decided to shut down the entire service tomorrow so they could spend more time bowling, that would be completely within their rights. But people are free to critisise them for their actions if they wish and so I was taking issue with flatline's original assertion that discussing issues of fairness on API access was effectively outside the remit of fair criticism of the product itself.