4 ms·

Large companies don't hate you, they are simply (like "nature" or the universe) indifferent towards your well-being or continued existence... which is perfectly

Large companies don't hate you, they are simply (like "nature" or the universe) indifferent towards your well-being or continued existence... which is perfectly understandable, really. And, yes, this fact should really give pause to people who are thinking about basing an entire company around an API, portal or other service that is 100% controlled by a large company. Any such dependency should be seen as the huge risk factor that it is. And while innocent bystanders do get whacked from time-to-time, I find that more often than not when big companies change their TOS in ways that impact other companies, there's actually a pretty decent reason behind the changes. Facebook feeds got extremely spammy around the Zynga days, they are much better now (tolerable, at least, though still far from perfect). Not sure what your google story is, but I've heard lots of startup folks complain about changes google has made to their algorithms or TOS policies that hurt them only to visit their sites or look at their apps and see that they were actually pretty spammy and really deserved the deranking.

poker_face 12y ago
What I don't understand is how come this dude repeated the same mistake four times in a row? Maybe switch fields - that's a good way to break out of a destructive pattern.
- AznHisoka 12y ago
  On the contrary, I think this just goes to show how challenging it is to build a business that is 100% defensible, and doesn't rely on another platform/company. Building an app? OK, better hope it doesn't violate Apple's TOS. Building a consumer website? OK, better hope Google's next update doesn't affect you negatively. Building a Buffer competitor? OK, better hope Twitter doesn't ban you from their API
- jusben1369 12y ago
  I upvoted you because it is a legitimate question (at least the first sentence)
  - poker_face 12y ago
    I meant the second sentence too - I mean, if your startups are failing for the same reason one after another, you need to break the pattern somehow. He could get a job at Google for instance, regroup 2-3 years and then decide what to do next.
- tim333 12y ago
  Or plan for it and make hay while the sun shines and try to diversify who you depend on? I mean Zynaga may still be flailing around but it's also still valued at over $2bn.

poker_face 12y ago

What I don't understand is how come this dude repeated the same mistake four times in a row? Maybe switch fields - that's a good way to break out of a destructive pattern.

AznHisoka 12y ago
On the contrary, I think this just goes to show how challenging it is to build a business that is 100% defensible, and doesn't rely on another platform/company. Building an app? OK, better hope it doesn't violate Apple's TOS. Building a consumer website? OK, better hope Google's next update doesn't affect you negatively. Building a Buffer competitor? OK, better hope Twitter doesn't ban you from their API
jusben1369 12y ago
I upvoted you because it is a legitimate question (at least the first sentence)
- poker_face 12y ago
  I meant the second sentence too - I mean, if your startups are failing for the same reason one after another, you need to break the pattern somehow. He could get a job at Google for instance, regroup 2-3 years and then decide what to do next.
tim333 12y ago
Or plan for it and make hay while the sun shines and try to diversify who you depend on? I mean Zynaga may still be flailing around but it's also still valued at over $2bn.