5 ms·

A company builds an API and encourages lots of developers to use it across a wide variety of projects, and they do. After achieving almost unprecedented success

A company builds an API and encourages lots of developers to use it across a wide variety of projects, and they do. After achieving almost unprecedented success in user adoption, the company decides to unilaterally change their terms to say, "From this day on, not only do we want you to use our API only in ways that drive value to us, we're not really down with you getting any value in return beyond whatever value being able to say 'you can post to Twitter from our app!' brings you." And they are really down with screwing over existing developers to bring them in line with the New Reality. I'm pretty sure that I would, at that point, not be keen on developing anything that used that API, even if it complied with the new rules, because the company has at that point demonstrated that they will knife me in the back if they think it's going to further their own business goals. How is that reaction ridiculous and immature on my part?

javajosh 14y ago
I don't know, I think it's stupid to allow any private company to control the worlds data, as Twitter, Facebook, and to some extent Google are attempting to do. To expect these for-profit companies to act in any way other than "unilaterally" is naive. If you think that they violated the terms of service, then you should sue them for fraud - or if that's too expensive, make it clear that you think they are engaging in fraud. Actually my message is this: build for the open web, and only the open web! There is a lot of room in that space. Personally, I think that Twitter will go bye bye and Facebook is going to get eroded by it. But that's my personal belief.
- pteredactyl 14y ago
  I blame Wall Street. Endless growth ($), forever. I like the open web you allude to. However, bills gotta get paid.
  - javajosh 14y ago
    Well, Wall Street is a totally different problem - one that is essentially an expression of systemic moral hazards that are present in our legal and banking systems. Wealth = responsibility and yet people are content to just put their money anywhere the return is highest. The result is Wall Street. The open web is not at all anathema to making money! You say, "I like the open web you allude to. However, bills gotta get paid" but would you have also said, about interstate highways, "I like the highway system you allude to, but bills gotta be paid"? No, of course not. Highways enable gobs and gobs of business to be done. Twitter and facebook have built slightly more usable highways alongside the public ones, called them free, and people have gone there in droves. But once the true cost becomes realized, I think people will go back to the public highways - especially when this means that can go anywhere they want, however they want. Twitter is limiting clients, FB is limiting reach. Both companies are merely very expensive usability innovators on how users like to interact with the public web, in my opinion.
    - pteredactyl 14y ago
      I like your words. It's not a different problem. Doubly said "expression of systemic moral hazards" leak into these successful platforms. They get fat and then formally hire 1000x more inhouse devs, biz, and design folks when they could ad hoc pay the people who were there from the beginning. Or new people who spring up and bring the platform forward. It's creativity in contracts the status quo is lacking. I am curious - where are the "public highway" equivalents of Twitter or Facebook? Who owns the infrastructure all this data is passed through? It's definitely not publicly owned. In my opinion, your analogy is mismatched.
      - javajosh 14y ago
        TCP/IP, DNS, HTTP is the major part of the internet's virtual infrastructure (although you might say that there are others, such as router configuration protocols). The physical infrastructure is rather complicated, and owned by large ISPs which connect to each other and smaller ISPs that connect to one or more large ISPs. The 'last mile' provider collects money for access to this infrastructure. Free physical access is provided in the US by public libraries. De facto free access is provided by a wide range of retail businesses, such as coffee shops. With your own device connected to the internet you will have a NAT'd IP address from which you can request anything you want. Unfortunately, until IPv6 becomes commonplace, one has to jump through hoops to expose the device - the most common being some form of dynamic DNS. At the coffee shop the packets that your computer sends are travelling around the world on de facto public infrastructure. It's true that a bad actor can shut down routes, but the internet is rather cleverly designed to treat a shutdown or reduction as "damage" and simply use a different route.

javajosh 14y ago

I don't know, I think it's stupid to allow any private company to control the worlds data, as Twitter, Facebook, and to some extent Google are attempting to do. To expect these for-profit companies to act in any way other than "unilaterally" is naive. If you think that they violated the terms of service, then you should sue them for fraud - or if that's too expensive, make it clear that you think they are engaging in fraud. Actually my message is this: build for the open web, and only the open web! There is a lot of room in that space. Personally, I think that Twitter will go bye bye and Facebook is going to get eroded by it. But that's my personal belief.

pteredactyl 14y ago
I blame Wall Street. Endless growth ($), forever. I like the open web you allude to. However, bills gotta get paid.
- javajosh 14y ago
  Well, Wall Street is a totally different problem - one that is essentially an expression of systemic moral hazards that are present in our legal and banking systems. Wealth = responsibility and yet people are content to just put their money anywhere the return is highest. The result is Wall Street. The open web is not at all anathema to making money! You say, "I like the open web you allude to. However, bills gotta get paid" but would you have also said, about interstate highways, "I like the highway system you allude to, but bills gotta be paid"? No, of course not. Highways enable gobs and gobs of business to be done. Twitter and facebook have built slightly more usable highways alongside the public ones, called them free, and people have gone there in droves. But once the true cost becomes realized, I think people will go back to the public highways - especially when this means that can go anywhere they want, however they want. Twitter is limiting clients, FB is limiting reach. Both companies are merely very expensive usability innovators on how users like to interact with the public web, in my opinion.
  - pteredactyl 14y ago
    I like your words. It's not a different problem. Doubly said "expression of systemic moral hazards" leak into these successful platforms. They get fat and then formally hire 1000x more inhouse devs, biz, and design folks when they could ad hoc pay the people who were there from the beginning. Or new people who spring up and bring the platform forward. It's creativity in contracts the status quo is lacking. I am curious - where are the "public highway" equivalents of Twitter or Facebook? Who owns the infrastructure all this data is passed through? It's definitely not publicly owned. In my opinion, your analogy is mismatched.
    - javajosh 14y ago
      TCP/IP, DNS, HTTP is the major part of the internet's virtual infrastructure (although you might say that there are others, such as router configuration protocols). The physical infrastructure is rather complicated, and owned by large ISPs which connect to each other and smaller ISPs that connect to one or more large ISPs. The 'last mile' provider collects money for access to this infrastructure. Free physical access is provided in the US by public libraries. De facto free access is provided by a wide range of retail businesses, such as coffee shops. With your own device connected to the internet you will have a NAT'd IP address from which you can request anything you want. Unfortunately, until IPv6 becomes commonplace, one has to jump through hoops to expose the device - the most common being some form of dynamic DNS. At the coffee shop the packets that your computer sends are travelling around the world on de facto public infrastructure. It's true that a bad actor can shut down routes, but the internet is rather cleverly designed to treat a shutdown or reduction as "damage" and simply use a different route.