Well put, Albert[1], but the promise of opening up APIs was supposed to be to encourage an ecosystem, which locks users in because all their apps are there. Rat

Well put, Albert[1], but the promise of opening up APIs was supposed to be to encourage an ecosystem, which locks users in because all their apps are there. Rather than LinkedIn trying to hoover up every penny that might be generated by their data, the goal is supposed to be: - LinkedIn collects a ton of user data, and had some idea to monetize it - clever developer has a different idea about the same data, uses the API to achieve it - users love developer's app, and they stay on LinkedIn because they love all the ecosystem apps - maybe LinkedIn gets jealous and implements their own version. This is fine, if they don't break any laws, or cut off the original service for no real reason Partnership sounds like some Facebook-Zygna type relationship. That seems like a really high barrier to entry. If you look at a service like Wolfram|Alpha, they're doing it right by putting reasonable restrictions on API use, and saying up front "license this commercially, contact us". This is a win-win: WA makes money, you're a real customer with bargaining power. Throwing a half-assed api out there for anyone to use, whinging about not making any money, then revoking bits piecemeal is not good for anyone. 1. Your writing seems to lose a certain quality online, maybe stick to prose? L'etranger was very good.